Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 39 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 82443 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #100 on: May 07, 2013, 03:33:36 AM »
ReplyReply

What exactly did they take out of CS4 that you use?
Printing without colour management being applied, more recently the option to display images at actual size. But we've had these discussions in the past and they don't need going over again. More importantly they didn't ADD anything I thought would be useful to me in recent versions.
Quote
You go right ahead and use GIMP...you haven't been a Photoshop customer since CS4, so it's not like Adobe is loosing you. You're already gone.
Just because I'm not using the latest model doesn't mean I might not have come back and upgraded if they added something genuinely useful to me. By switching to a subscription model I'm being ruled out, and I've only missed one upgrade opportunity.

I see it like this;
I currently drive a VW, I've had it a long time because it's a good reliable car, it's not the latest model, but keeping it for a long time makes sound economic sense as it's so reliable and well built. When I choose to trade it in I'll get an 'upgrade' at a decent price for another car I can run for many years again.
If VW told me I could only get the latest model as a rental it wouldn't make sense for my usage, so I'd be off to the BMW dealer.
I know why Adobe want to be a rental company, but it's not suiting me, so I'll keep using what I've got until I have to move elsewhere.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #101 on: May 07, 2013, 04:43:18 AM »
ReplyReply

1.  Is that your professional legal opinion?  Anti-trust laws exist to protect against the creation of a monopoly and the abuse thereof.  It could be argued Adobe has a monopoly on certain technologies.  It could further be argued that Adobe by removing the most common method of purchase and ownership, is abusing their position in the marketplace.  It could be argued their "cloud" method of activation and requiring an internet connection of sufficient quality alienates a good portion of the world (including many parts of our own country who live in rural areas without internet) without sufficient internet, and even if they allowed phone validation they'd be at a professional, creative, and financial disadvantage in obtaining fair access to the technology they're paying for.. but not receiving.  Geez dude, I could write argument after argument from now till the upcoming court date.  If I can do it don't you think there are Adobe haters and others out there already planning the same?  

Yes, it's my option for what's it's worth, I didn't pass the bar (have you) so it's not my "professional legal opinion" but I've been exposed to enough FTC actions to have a pretty good understanding of the wat the FTC views the marketplace. Adobe has an enviable market share, but it doesn't have a monopoly in the legal sense. Look at all the real competitors out there for Adobe products...GIMP is free, Corel makes a competitor, there are a lot of niche image editors and more every day. There's direct competition with Capture One and all the camera makers software. You would have a very hard time claiming that Adobe's large market share is monopoly...they just make Photoshop which so many people use. They don't engage in any price fixing or collusion with competitors. Adobe's marketshare ain't illegal...

I find it pretty ironic that a company that makes software, which is in fact intellectual property that is copyrighted much like the copyright owned by photographers work is held in such distain by photographers. Adobe creates Photoshop and is entitled to license the use of their software any way they want to–that's a guarantee offered by copyright. Look at the original copyrights in the US Constitution–they are the only real "rights" granted (all other rights were added by amendment).

So, Adobe decides they want to change the model of how they license their copyrighted intellectual property. It's their right under the Constitution just as it's our right as photographers to dictate how we license our photos to clients. Yes, a client that you used to sign over all your rights to (or signed a work for hire) might be pissed off when you tell them that no, you are no longer gonna hand over the copyright and expect to be paid on a use basis for limited time. But doing that ain't illegal, is it?

I understand that people aren't happy with the changes...but it's silly to claim there's some sort of antitrust action possible. You go right ahead and find an attorney willing to file suit on your behalf (and take your money)...we'll see how far that will get ya.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #102 on: May 07, 2013, 04:50:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I find it pretty ironic that a company that makes software, ..... is held in such distain by photographers.
I think you need to separate people's dislike of Adobe's practices from the software they produce.

But it's hardly surprising that people get so passionate about a product they have so much invested in. Not only the purchase(licensing) costs in hard cash, but the vast amount of time people put into learning these products.
Adobe shouldn't be, and probably aren't, surprised when they develop their products in a way their users don't like. But as we know, the users of PS don't matter to them.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 06:07:27 AM by Rhossydd » Logged
WaitingForAnR10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #103 on: May 07, 2013, 05:56:54 AM »
ReplyReply

If you assume that the subscription model requires some kind of Internet connection to validate running the software, exactly how can photographers edit images on their laptops out in the field?  Or even view the images taken during the day?  Not every hotel/motel or lodge has this offered.  I can't imagine trying to do a two week tour of the Galapagos by boat without the ability of using Photoshop (or presumably, Lightroom).
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892



WWW
« Reply #104 on: May 07, 2013, 05:58:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't assume, read what they say. It only requires authentication every 90 days
Logged

JanneAavasalo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #105 on: May 07, 2013, 06:10:00 AM »
ReplyReply

The things I can see going very wrong for the end customer are:

  • Increased price in the long run.
  • Even more price increase in the future because there's always "pressure" to raise it for this and that reason.
  • No real incentive to develop new features (not saying that there won't be any, but the incentive is lessened).
  • No "fallback" version available if you're unable to continue the subscription.

I wouldn't worry about the cloud-part of things since it's just a monthly subscription scheme, which calls the "mothership" every 90 days (with cloud features that are not mandatory to use).

I also might be wrong about the pricing and it could even come down as the CC-system evolves, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

The worst issue is the lack of a "fallback" version if for some reason one can't afford the subscription. It's not going to be too bad going from CC7 back to CS6 if you happen to own it, especially if you don't use much of the new features, but what about 3-4 years from now? I'd venture a guess that the backwards compatibility isn't going to be great.

Then there's also the scenario where say in 10 years time Adobe goes under or decides to shut down Photoshop altogether. Without a "standalone" application and 10 years worth of riding the Adobe train and editing photos, how will you get them opened...

Just my thoughts about the matter, but I think these are fears and scenarios a lot of photographers are going through in their heads at the moment and thinking about alternative ways of doing things in the future.
Logged
Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372



WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 07, 2013, 06:11:29 AM »
ReplyReply

As much as I love Photoshop, it seems I'm on my last version, CS6. Started using Photoshop for graphic design work in the early '90s. Not sure but I think around version 1.5. So, the slow search begins for a replacement. I'll try and use CS6 as long as I can. Guess it'll depend on compatibility with operating systems, computers, and the changes these companies seem to be making with ever increasing speed.

Now the question. When will Adobe make Lightroom a subscription only piece of software? Think I'm going to slowly start considering alternatives for Lightroom too. Sure, today you can still buy it like we used to buy Photoshop and its upgrades, but I no longer trust Adobe. Better to be prepared.

Was thinking to check out Elements as a replacement for Photoshop, but keep asking myself why I'd give any more money to this company after being treated like I've been treated. And what about Elements going down the subscription path?

Honest, even if the monthly price for me to subscribe to Photoshop was promised to remain at $10 a month forever I'd say no. No if the deal was me still having nothing in hand if/when I decide to stop the monthly payment plan. It just makes no sense to me.

And so it goes. Change. Upheaval. Again. Life is full of surprises. Never thought I'd stop using Photoshop. I'll survive this hiccup like so much else. I do hope the good folks at Adobe who do the real work survive this economic change. The shareholders, the accountants, uhh, not so much good will for them.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #107 on: May 07, 2013, 06:11:48 AM »
ReplyReply

It only requires authentication every 90 days
Does it indicate how long to go before the next authentication ? Can you pre-empt routine authentication if you're expecting to be away from the net for an extended period of time ?
It would be a bit embarrassing, to use the above example, to go away for a major trip and find you need to connect to the net on day 4.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2892



WWW
« Reply #108 on: May 07, 2013, 06:34:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know for certain. But somewhere I did see an official comment (tranbery?) that you need to call customer services if you're going for 6 months to somewhere with no internet. That should be fun. But at least they are thinking of these edge cases.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 07, 2013, 06:43:37 AM »
ReplyReply

But at least they are thinking of these edge cases.
They need to. I'd be livid if I'd paid in advance for a service that was unexpectedly withdrawn from me.
Logged
soboyle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 284


WWW
« Reply #110 on: May 07, 2013, 06:55:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't mind the cloud model, but the pricing is to high for individual users.
I use lightroom 4, photoshop cs5 occasionally, acrobat 9 occasionally, and indesign for a month every year when I print projects to a book format. Would be great to have them all up to the latest version, but I don't need a bloated suite for $50 a month. Tell me there is a photocentric package at a reasonable price - like $19.99.
Ok then - tell me Adobe is going back to the meeting room and coming up with one.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 07:21:54 AM by soboyle » Logged

Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 07, 2013, 06:56:03 AM »
ReplyReply

With apologies, and desiring no controversy, and without the subscription contract to review, there are at least 3 vulnerabilities in Adobe's Cloud.  The Microsoft Explorer worldwide litigation is an instructive example of the power of anti-trust regulation and statutory prohibitions.

#1. Bundling/Tying

#2  Vertical Integration

#3.  Restricting access to Add on/Accessory providers.

Assuming that Adobe legally vetted its plan, just as MS did with Explorer, we'll have to wait for full disclosure of the terms.  At this point, the mere announcement seems destructive of middle men like B & H or even college book stores that inventory Adobe software. 

There's no need for any blow torching here.  It's going to be academically interesting to see how they legally navigate the the treacherous forests of litigation firms that see a hapless fat cow like Adobe capable of paying treble damages plus millions in plaintiff's attorney fees embarking on such a risky trek.

Thanks for the indulgence
Ken Richmond
Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #112 on: May 07, 2013, 06:57:14 AM »
ReplyReply

So here is how my brain works.....if I have to pay double I want something that is twice as good......

Bingo. So now Adobe is suddenly going to start regularly summiting the peak of a perceived-value mountain that it made itself? They're going to regularly release bug-free updates that their captive-in-the-cloud customers will find useful and worthy of the increased price?

Hmm, now how did that song go again...?

Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies
Farewell and adieu to you ladies of Spain
For we've received orders to sail back to Boston
And so nevermore shall we see you again


Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #113 on: May 07, 2013, 06:57:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Another thought that strikes me;
What will be the impact on reliability when updates and new features are being pushed into the suite far more often ?
In the past versions n.0 is often a little flaky and a point release is needed to get reliability where one would expect.
I wonder if it's going to be the case that everyone is going to lumbered with n.0 software more of the time ? Will it be possible to pick and choose what updates you install ?
Logged
Stephen Girimont
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


WWW
« Reply #114 on: May 07, 2013, 06:59:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I can't justify $50/month for access to software I don't use. I personally have no issue with the business model, but the price point isn't worth it (for me).

$10/month for single-application access or $25 for what you get in CS Standard and I'd happily pay it.
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270


« Reply #115 on: May 07, 2013, 07:09:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Add me to non-core extremely pissssssed users who feel totally disrespected, abused and gouged.  Here's to hoping that others like Nik, Topaz, Corel or whoever move in quickly to fill the void these geniuses are leaving.

Adobe essentially is ringing the dinner bell for third-party developers to fill the hole that it is digging for itself.

Place your bets, folks, on how many Adobe engineers will jump ship and start those third-party companies.

Logged
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #116 on: May 07, 2013, 07:12:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Bingo. So now Adobe is suddenly going to start regularly summiting the peak of a perceived-value mountain that it made itself? They're going to regularly release bug-free updates that their captive-in-the-cloud customers will find useful and worthy of the increased price?


What incentive will Adobe have to produce new features or even fix bugs once they get you hooked on Creative Captivity drug.  And once they get that revenue stream from your CC addiction you will pay monthly or no software to use, crappy full of bugs or not.
 
Without any real alternatives withdrawal could be painful.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3884


« Reply #117 on: May 07, 2013, 07:19:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Adobe essentially is ringing the dinner bell for third-party developers to fill the hole that it is digging for itself.

It will also have an effect on the third-party plugin developers. Presumably most plug-ins are sold to those who will not be willing to pony up the monthly fee to keep the editor running.

And how about the video and book tutorial producers. They will see a significant potential market dry up, while being forced to do a lot of maintenance work on existing material for the intermediate new features that do not really warrant a fully new tutorial edition.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1993


WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 07, 2013, 07:26:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Place your bets, folks, on how many Adobe engineers will jump ship and start those third-party companies.
I wouldn't bet a penny. I'm sure the developers are well enough briefed to realise that they'll be on the gravy train with CC & AMC.

Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711


WWW
« Reply #119 on: May 07, 2013, 07:33:42 AM »
ReplyReply

It will also have an effect on the third-party plugin developers. Presumably most plug-ins are sold to those who will not be willing to pony up the monthly fee to keep the editor running.

And how about the video and book tutorial producers. They will see a significant potential market dry up, while being forced to do a lot of maintenance work on existing material for the intermediate new features that do not really warrant a fully new tutorial edition.

Cheers,
Bart
I pretty much agree with Jeff about the anti-trust issues but it is clear that the third party developers would have standing in court if Adobe foreclosed their option to develop new or insure compatibility of existing applications for the CC programs.  That being said, it's likely that such developers are pretty small companies.  The CC makes eminent sense for those who use the suite of programs but less so for those of us who don't.  I'm happy to continue using Dreamweaver CS4 to maintain my little website and certainly could not justify moving up to the entire suite to access a new version that I use maybe only once a month.  I'm also wondering what 'new' enhancements to PS would make it worthwhile to subscribe.  For my purposes, CS6 is just fine.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 39 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad