Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 39 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 64328 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5427


WWW
« Reply #680 on: May 14, 2013, 02:28:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Schewe, a few questions if you don't mind. Am I right in thinking that ACR 8 will be released next month? Are you saying that once released more updates to ACR 8 will become available over time to those with CS6 and these will continue until ACR 9 comes along?

ACR 8 will ship when Photoshop CC ships...ACR 8.x will also run in Photoshop CS6 but without the CC features like Upright, Radial Adjustments and non-circular healing. But, ACR 8.x in Photoshop CS6 will be able to process raw files with those settings, you just won't be able to change the non-CS6 feature settings.

As far as ACR 9, I don't know...that is way too far out to guess and things are likely to change anyway. So, I really can't tell you anything (and I really don't know).
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1653



WWW
« Reply #681 on: May 14, 2013, 03:44:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Schewe.
Logged

MHMG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 596


« Reply #682 on: May 14, 2013, 04:17:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I've never been quite as good a customer as Adobe would like, i.e, buying every upgrade the moment it is released, but I've definitely been a better customer to Adobe than those buying with an "every other upgrade" cycle mentality. If and when I embrace the new CC paradigm, it's not the cost that bother's me.  The fact of the matter is that perpetual licenses of software give me certain degrees of freedom with regard to my digital file archive and migration strategies that CC most definitely takes away. What Adobe doesn't seem to be factoring into this new subscription paradigm is that it isn't an Adobe only issue. It's a frustrating yet inevitable balance between third party Apps (and in this situation Adobe is definitely 3rd party) and computer OS's like MAC OS9 to OS10 to OS10.7  or Win XP to Vista to WIN 7, etc., all of which have caused major transitional migration issues for end users along the way. This digital technology obsolescence issue is a critical factor that Adobe ignored, IMHO, in it's adoption of a cloud subscription only software access mentality.  No matter how hard I've tried to migrate to new software that fulfills older software capabilities plus some, the fact of the matter is that between Apple, Microsoft, and third party software vendors, end users like myself have to apply many DEFENSIVE tactics to ensure ongoing continuity in what we do in the digital era. For me, that means maintaining older legacy hardware platforms plus older or worse yet totally orphaned software until I can figure out how to create a viable modern alternative path. It's not that easy to just upgrade at the spur of the moment when one deals with very specialized Apps that drive mission critical devices like older film scanners, printers, spectrophotometers, vintage file formats (remember Wordperfect, Pagemaker, etc?) etc. With perpetual licensing, I can preserve at least for an extended period of time an entire digital ecosystem, i.e., hardware, OS, software, to soldier on until I've found an alternative pathway which includes new hardware, new software, and BACKWARDS file READ/TRANSLATE file format migration. Thank you Adobe. Your corporate move to CC  is bound to make the "digital bits" part of my life much harder. I'm not going to reward you as much as I did in the past for that new challenge you just threw at me.
Logged
nemophoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 481



WWW
« Reply #683 on: May 15, 2013, 07:20:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I feel I am vindicated in my assessment that Adobe will keep Lightroom separate from CC because the competition is fierce. They just confirmed that in will remain standalone. Pity there aren't many credible options for Photoshop -- which really does set the standard. I've played now with GIMP, Photoline and Paintshop Pro. All decent programs on their own, but the re-learning curve is steep, and they really aren't as good. Pisses me off really, because then Adobe can pull their CC business. For almost everything else, there are vey good alternate programs. I'll update my InDesign and Illustrator to the "last" independent versions -- CS6. Then, I really don't know.
Logged

DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


WWW
« Reply #684 on: May 15, 2013, 10:38:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I feel I am vindicated in my assessment that Adobe will keep Lightroom separate from CC because the competition is fierce. They just confirmed that in will remain standalone. Pity there aren't many credible options for Photoshop -- which really does set the standard. I've played now with GIMP, Photoline and Paintshop Pro. All decent programs on their own, but the re-learning curve is steep, and they really aren't as good. Pisses me off really, because then Adobe can pull their CC business. For almost everything else, there are vey good alternate programs. I'll update my InDesign and Illustrator to the "last" independent versions -- CS6. Then, I really don't know.

Your assessment may well be right, and if it is your reason for it (fierce competition) is all that counts. After having been an Adobe "fan boy" for decades I no longer have any faith in what Adobe confirms or denies. Adobe said they'd continue offering a perpetual license along with a new subscription license. Adobe also set a deadline after which you could upgrade that perpetual license only from the previous version, instead of from three versions back as had previously been their policy. Then, after all the stragglers believed that and upgraded to the latest version (CS6) so they wouldn't be left out of the new, and for some more expensive, perpetual license upgrade path, Adobe said there wouldn't really be any upgrade path after all. Your options were really to subscribe now or subscribe when you can no longer find a computer system that will run CS6. Oh, and by the way, the cost of that subscription will be way more than it was to upgrade the perpetual license every time a new version came out. I think this shows that Adobe's recent confirmations of new policy often have a very short lifetime.

But the real problem here isn't cost, it's the fact that Adobe holds the future of everyone's PSD files (and I think layered TIFFs) in their hands. Yes, I've got flat TIFFs of finished work, but we all know most work is never really finished. We learn new things and go back to layered and masked PSD files to make changes, hopefully improving our images. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of hours invested in those files, and a company whose policy shifts with the direction of the wind actually has complete control of them, including how much you must pay each month to keep using those files. That's an extremely uncomfortable situation. Yes, I know Adobe has always been in control of those files, but prior to recent times Adobe was less mercenary and more reasonable in their decisions so it didn't seem to matter. This has been a real wake-up call.

Adobe software is great, but as the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." After a good fraction of a lifetime spent using Photoshop, and then ACR, I have no idea what's next. If I did I'd be doing it instead of wasting my time ranting like this. If there is a way to sever all ties with Adobe and still do what I do, that would be my strong preference. If that's impossible or impractical, "bending over" knowing I can't trust anything about what Adobe may decide regarding the future of my files is a distasteful option. On a happier note, everyone will survive no matter what Adobe does, even if only their flattened TIFFs make it through this storm.
Logged

- Dean
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772



WWW
« Reply #685 on: May 15, 2013, 11:00:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Now the CC is not available. At all. This is unacceptable for us subscribers working under a deadline.  Angry

Logged

~ CB
Rick Popham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


WWW
« Reply #686 on: May 16, 2013, 06:10:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Welcome to the "Cloud"!
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6835


WWW
« Reply #687 on: May 16, 2013, 07:12:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Now the CC is not available. At all. This is unacceptable for us subscribers working under a deadline.  Angry



Chris, don't you think this is a risk to be expected? The stuff is stored on an external server; many things can happen to interfere with data transmission between that server and your computer. No system is perfect. The issue going forward will be the failure rate and what Adobe does to mitigate it. I think, if at all possible, any work that is the least bit critical should be stored in both your own computer and on their server.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8650



WWW
« Reply #688 on: May 16, 2013, 08:18:14 AM »
ReplyReply

But the real problem here isn't cost, it's the fact that Adobe holds the future of everyone's PSD files (and I think layered TIFFs) in their hands.

And that was true the day you saved a layered document or any document using proprietary Adobe processing. Kind of true for every software product out there.

If the problem isn't the cost, continue to pay to use proprietary Adobe processing.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


WWW
« Reply #689 on: May 16, 2013, 09:10:24 AM »
ReplyReply

And that was true the day you saved a layered document or any document using proprietary Adobe processing. Kind of true for every software product out there.

If the problem isn't the cost, continue to pay to use proprietary Adobe processing.

Yes, I know Adobe has always been in control of those files, but prior to recent times Adobe was less mercenary and more reasonable in their decisions so it didn't seem to matter. This has been a real wake-up call.

At $20/month cost isn't the problem yet. I think the lack of reliability in Adobe's recent statements about what its policies will be indicate a willingness to make rash and unpredictable changes to the detriment of customers like me in the future. Since subscribing is essentially a lifetime commitment if you want to retain use of your files, I see the lack of reliability, and the seemingly new small customer be damned attitude, as being the root problem. A year ago a customer relationship with Adobe felt comfortable and stable. Huge overnight changes in policies and price of a license had never happened and were thus unexpected. The future no longer seems so comfortable and stable, and with so many people locked in, huge overnight policy and price changes are virtually a given. IMO, of course.

« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 09:17:50 AM by DeanChriss » Logged

- Dean
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6835


WWW
« Reply #690 on: May 16, 2013, 09:21:49 AM »
ReplyReply

At $20/month cost isn't the problem yet. I think the lack of reliability in Adobe's recent statements about what its policies will be indicate a willingness to make rash and unpredictable changes to the detriment of customers like me in the future. Since subscribing is essentially a lifetime commitment if you want to retain use of your files, I see the lack of reliability and small customer be damned attitude as being the root problem. A year ago a customer relationship with Adobe felt comfortable and stable. Huge overnight changes in policies and price of a license had never happened and were thus unexpected. The future no longer seems so comfortable and stable, and with so many people locked in, huge overnight policy and price changes are virtually a given. IMO, of course.



Mine too. I think you've hit the nail on the head. The stability and predictability of contractual relationships and understandings with clients are hugely important aspects of business ethics regardless of the legal fine print in the license agreements, and much of our commerce depends on it. Not to say that things mustn't and can't change - they must and they do, but it's the manner in which it's done and the transitional arrangements for mitigating negative impacts on customers that make all the difference in the world. This recent episode has, to my mind, revealed serious managerial lacunae in the corporation. No matter what all the technical advantages of the new arrangements may be, these other aspects are equally important - perhaps they will learn something from this; remains to be seen.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #691 on: May 16, 2013, 09:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

 Thom Hogan  has had some very pertinent thoughts on Adobes decision, starting from his May 6th post... http://bythom.com/

 This may well turn out to be one of the worst business decisions any company has made since Ford introduced the Edsel ;~

 
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #692 on: May 16, 2013, 10:46:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Mine too. I think you've hit the nail on the head. The stability and predictability of contractual relationships and understandings with clients are hugely important aspects of business ethics regardless of the legal fine print in the license agreements, and much of our commerce depends on it. Not to say that things mustn't and can't change - they must and they do, but it's the manner in which it's done and the transitional arrangements for mitigating negative impacts on customers that make all the difference in the world. This recent episode has, to my mind, revealed serious managerial lacunae in the corporation. No matter what all the technical advantages of the new arrangements may be, these other aspects are equally important - perhaps they will learn something from this; remains to be seen.

Indeed, that is the core issue. Trust and confidence in a vendor that is a supporting pillar in your livelihood. While offering a sort of "fixed" pricing structure can ease the the calculations of expenditures ... such drastic policy changes does little to create confidence that there won't be another drastic change at any point Adobe chooses if that change will be in their best interests ... Which is exactly why I have zero confidence that Lightroom won't become a subscription only option in the not too distant future as well. Because on May 5, there was the belief there would be a perpetual license option beyond CS6 ... Though, change is inevitable, I think very few folks expected what was announced on May 6.
Logged
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #693 on: May 16, 2013, 10:59:30 AM »
ReplyReply

So much for getting the latest versions with CC. Read the last posts.

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1059137?start=120&tstart=0
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2683


« Reply #694 on: May 16, 2013, 12:49:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Though, change is inevitable, I think very few folks expected what was announced on May 6.

That seems like an argument for ignoring uninformed speculation :-)
Logged
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 985


WWW
« Reply #695 on: May 16, 2013, 12:55:42 PM »
ReplyReply

That seems like an argument for ignoring uninformed speculation :-)

You mean from people like John Nack and Bryan Hughes?
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2683


« Reply #696 on: May 16, 2013, 01:14:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Show me the uninformed speculation you attribute to them and I'll see what I think.
Logged
schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #697 on: May 16, 2013, 01:15:55 PM »
ReplyReply


And here some cloud experiences:

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/creative-business/opinion-how-adobe-creative-cloud-left-me-amused-perplexed-infuriated/

Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #698 on: May 16, 2013, 01:21:47 PM »
ReplyReply

That seems like an argument for ignoring uninformed speculation :-)

With the precedent that was set by Adobe last week ... it is neither speculation nor are we uninformed. The die has been cast. Regardless of any assurances that have been offered, Adobe has established they will do as they choose even if they indicated otherwise in the past.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 01:34:22 PM by ButchM » Logged
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 985


WWW
« Reply #699 on: May 16, 2013, 01:34:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Show me the uninformed speculation you attribute to them and I'll see what I think.

fa·ce·tious  [fuh-see-shuhs] 
adjective

1.  not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.

I was referencing the fact that Adobe's public faces tried to calm nerves when subscription software was first announced by assuring customers that Adobe was intent on providing a dual licensing strategy, and that what eventually became the CC model was only an option offered in the interest of serving certain customer's interests.  Pretty much what we are hearing now from Tom Hogarty regarding Lightroom.  Of course it is all couched and disclaimed behind the firewall of "not speaking in an official capacity."  I think all three guys are great people, BTW, but they do what they need to do to remain employed by a corporation that I no longer feel is great from the standpoint of customer respect and integrity.

caveat emptor  (ˈɛmptɔː)
 
the principle that the buyer must bear the risk for the quality of goods purchased unless they are covered by the seller's warranty
 
[Latin: let the buyer beware]



Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 33 34 [35] 36 37 ... 39 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad