Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 39 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 72235 times)
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #160 on: May 07, 2013, 12:18:35 PM »
ReplyReply

When it comes to future CC versions I guess this answers the question about being forced to upgrade or does it?

http://blogs.adobe.com/dreamweaver/2013/03/5-myths-about-adobe-creativ e-cloud.html

Myth #5: I will be forced to always run the latest version of the software

You are not forced to upgrade. You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. This is crucial for workflows that involve working with clients or vendors that may not be on the latest versions of the software. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.

 
So CS6 has been out for a year now. You can no longer use CS5 NOW!

IS THIS THE FUTURE WITH CC?Huh
Logged
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


WWW
« Reply #161 on: May 07, 2013, 12:24:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that this serves to confirm the wisdom of avoiding proprietary file formats for future proofing archives. 

PSD vs. TIFF . . . hmmmmm, let me decide.
Logged

Edhopkins
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #162 on: May 07, 2013, 12:26:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)

Did I miss the point you are making?

thanks

ed
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289


« Reply #163 on: May 07, 2013, 12:26:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Time will tell whether or not the Adobe move was a good one. At present, the Adobe products are admittedly the best available - there are no serious challengers.

However: The development/improvement of a product inevitably reaches a point where the improvements become marginal for the effort expanded (or the price paid). At this point, the less costly and less effective products still have room to improve, and generally they do - and often to the point where they acquire a significant share of the original product's market. Hyundai and Kia are in this category.

We laughed when Hyundai introduced their low-tech automobiles, and then we laughed at Kia.  Nobody's laughing at them now.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #164 on: May 07, 2013, 12:31:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how easy it will be to turn it on and turn it off.  (Netflix which is a monthly fee is trivial to turn on and off.  I do that often when on a photo shoot.) We shall see.
In theory the 'buy it for a month' model might be great for some users, even at the higher rate.
The problem will come with learning it, I doubt there'll be any free trials to get up to speed before tackling a project. Tutorials, book and video producers are going have a tough job keeping up to date if the programs are changing every month or two.
Logged
Stephen Girimont
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #165 on: May 07, 2013, 12:32:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.

Love the double-speak there. Use current versions as long as you want as long as it's a year or less.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #166 on: May 07, 2013, 12:33:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I find it interesting when I used the term FUD to describe Jeff Schewe's arguments for why the OEM RAW manufacturers must provide DNG output (even though it was no benefit to them).  He we quite insulted that his arguments were "attacked" that way.

Well...now with the shoe on the other foot, it appears he has taken the term on as his own. It is surprising how flexible his stories are.  One day you full of 'doode' for your idea or words and the next, Jeff has discovered/invented/created this new concept or method that all show follow.  (For example, follow his dissertations on PPI for printing and functionality or printer interpolation....it is an interesting insight into the supposed "guru")

To be honest I was surprised by his response.  And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else.  But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.  

Heck, Adobe just bought up NIK and sources tell me they've after most major plug-ins so in their pursuit to make this subscription thing fly with their customer base.  It would be one thing to keep using CS6 and hold out on CS7 for a generation or two, but to find our your most popular plug-in's can't be owned either, that Adobe bought them and they're now part of their subscription..  It should be obvious Adobe has a monopoly at least in the photographic market, and buying up the smaller more popular programs to include in their base product or to encourage assimilation in their new subscription services is pretty much on par for the business world when you're trying to force your customer base into an unpopular position.  It doesn't take a MBA grad to see exactly what they're doing and to know with so much money at stake they'll do whatever they think they can get away with.. and some.  and I say "and some" because corporations routinely do things THEY KNOW will get them sued and they know they will lose, as a calculated business cost.

Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #167 on: May 07, 2013, 12:35:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Love the double-speak there. Use current versions as long as you want as long as it's a year or less.

Confused. I own CS6. I can use it forever right? I decide I want to upgrade to CC. I can't use CS6? I don't think so.

I've got copies of Photoshop dating back to 1.0.7 and serial numbers for all. I'm under the impression nothing stops me from using them once I subscribe. I have an old G5 running CS3 and from time to time I still have to use it.

Logged

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

Posts: 500


« Reply #168 on: May 07, 2013, 12:35:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)

Did I miss the point you are making?

thanks

ed

My point is that if CS5 was a CC product you could longer be using it. That is the future with CC.
Logged
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #169 on: May 07, 2013, 12:36:51 PM »
ReplyReply

To be honest I was surprised by his response.  And I understand he might hold allegiances with Adobe in one capacity or the other so it's not my intention to upset him or anyone else.  But as adults we should deal in the reality of the situation and that means we should expect lawsuits on one side and poor business behaviour on the other.  

Heck, Adobe just bought up NIK and sources tell me they've after most major plug-ins so in their pursuit to make this subscription thing fly with their customer base.  It would be one thing to keep using CS6 and hold out on CS7 for a generation or two, but to find our your most popular plug-in's can't be owned either, that Adobe bought them and they're now part of their subscription..  It should be obvious Adobe has a monopoly at least in the photographic market, and buying up the smaller more popular programs to include in their base product or to encourage assimilation in their new subscription services is pretty much on par for the business world when you're trying to force your customer base into an unpopular position.  It doesn't take a MBA grad to see exactly what they're doing and to know with so much money at stake they'll do whatever they think they can get away with.. and some.  and I say "and some" because corporations routinely do things THEY KNOW will get them sued and they know they will lose, as a calculated business cost.



You mean Google just bought NIK.
Logged
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 999


WWW
« Reply #170 on: May 07, 2013, 12:38:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't understand what you are saying. As far as I know you can keep using CS5 as long as it will run on your machine. (I have old versions of photoshops on my old laptop--they work just fine.)

Did I miss the point you are making?

thanks

ed
If your question was in reference to my comment about proprietary formats, I wasn't speaking about the immediate future, but about one when your copy of CS5 or CS6 no longer works with your current machines.  Yes, if you take good care of it, you might be able to keep a current computer running for quite some time, but sooner or later, the software will be too old to run on new computers.  Can you still run your PowerPC apps?  Certainly not on any Mac built in the last couple of years.  Many people trusted their future with Adobe, and the message that was sent yesterday is that the status quo is not to be counted on.  I'm sure that as long as Adobe is around, you will be fine, but will you be willing to pay the price for accessing your content that you locked into their format?
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #171 on: May 07, 2013, 12:39:38 PM »
ReplyReply

My point is that if CS5 was a CC product you could longer be using it. That is the future with CC.

"if mother had balls she'd be the dad." <g>

Yes, that's the future of subscriptions for software, just like we use cell phone's, ISP providers, magazines or video services. You stop paying, you stop getting.
Logged

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

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #172 on: May 07, 2013, 12:41:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you still run your PowerPC apps?  Certainly not on any Mac built in the last couple of years.  

Which is why I keep that old G5 around. Heck, I can boot OS9 if I have to (and I have files I've needed to access). It's a PITA but I don't see an alternative. This will work short term. If the G5 blows up, hopefully eBay has something dirt cheap to replace it. Still short term.

Logged

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

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #173 on: May 07, 2013, 12:50:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Devil's Advocate here.

People line up to pay $100+ a month for a freaking silly iPhone to gossip and watch Youtube videosl, but grouse about paying $50/month for one of the cores of their professional businesses.  It's all how you look at it.  Switch to Net10, subscribe to CC, and you'll still be dollars ahead.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #174 on: May 07, 2013, 12:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

1.  Good.  Then we can agree we're both entitled to make opinions without insulting the other.

2.  I strongly disagree.  Microsoft was ruled (several times) to have a monopoly and there were plenty of alternative operating systems out there.  Your stated views of what makes a monopoly are both simplistic and limited.

It's very simplistic to put it in the terms "well, you can use GIMP for free, or switch to Corel" when our entire work flows and supporting software (plug-ins, printer profiles, etc, etc), not to mention specific hardware compatibilities are not only Adobe specific, but actually integrated into the product in many ways.   Any good business strives to be a monopoly while not crossing that line into actually being one.  With Adobe's acquisition of NIK and their pursuit of other popular plug-ins, and their handshaking with other popular products.. it won't be difficult at all to argue a monopoly.  We only need to compare case studies to see Adobe is already sliding down that slope with their hands in the air waving madly..

3.  I don't.  Anyone who takes advantage of their success in such ways should be expected to be held in disdain.  

4.  No one has suggested a revolution.  Anti-trust suits are covered under the same constitution.  Clearly it's not illegal to do well in business.  But it is against certain laws to obtain unfair advantages.  And it's just as clear that Adobe isn't "asking", they're aggressively telling us where and how we'll spend out money and obtaining the more popular supporting plug-ins to ensure they do so.

5.  Nonsensical hyperbole.

 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
buggz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #175 on: May 07, 2013, 12:54:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I am a hobbyist.
I wouldn't ever use the word professional anyway...
Far too many people use it way too loosely.
Logged
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #176 on: May 07, 2013, 12:58:32 PM »
ReplyReply

It would be interesting if there were an option to board the train and pay as you go (as it appears to be heading) with the ability to get off the train and retain access to the version of software you have at the time you get off the train.  I would not mind subscribing for the chance to use the pay-as-you-go, updated latest and greatest with the idea that, when I realized the new features I was paying for monthly had demonstrated their merit, I could lock in a perpetual license at that state.  I would pay an additional modest "transfer fee" to transfer from the pay-as-you-go to a locked in perpetual license at that state.  If the value and security and convenience of locking in my version at the current state is worth money to me, then the "transfer fee" would be worth it.  At least I would have the choice.

In this hypothetical, the pay-as-you-go would continue to advance as I used my perpetually licensed version and, if advances were made to the pay-as-you-go version that piqued my interest enough to try them, I could get back on the train and pay-as-you-go so I could try the newest, latest and greatest.  If I thought it was worth it, I could continue to use the latest and greatest, pay-as-you-go, until, again, the features were sufficient for me - then I would transfer to a (modestly priced) perpetual version, locking in my access to the application at that current state.  I could even stay on the pay-as-you-go plan while I paid each transfer fee to lock in my perpetual licenses.  These two paths would not be mutually exclusive and could be simultaneous - the transfer fee for each locked in state would provide me with a static, known application I could use outside of the subscription, independent of the subscription, should I chose to leave the subscription.  Likewise, I would not be required to stay on the train to be able to access my perpetually licensed products.  Once I locked in and paid my transfer fee, I would be free and clear of the subscription at that state - forever if I chose.

This way I could establish my own custom perpetually-licensed application states at points in feature sets, hardware requirements, etc. that I chose.  This way I would be more apt to get on the train, knowing that I could get off and, for a modest additional fee, lock in the progress I paid for.  If my business model or finances changed, or my hardware was specialized to the point of needing a specific, older version, I could have some security in knowing that I could leave the pay-as-you-go train until conditions permitted me the chance to decide to get back on.

If Adobe did this, I think their customers would at least feel less betrayed and concerned about their impressions of having to "stay addicted" to the pay-as-you-go model.  In essence, customers would be paying-as-they-go to beta test the continually advancing software and then pay a modest fee to lock in access to the application when they felt that the application was mature and stable enough for their workflow, equipment, business, etc.  

I dunno, just a thought.

kirk
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 01:17:35 PM by kirkt » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #177 on: May 07, 2013, 12:58:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve - Adobe has patents on their intellectual property. Patents are, in an important sense, intentionally created "legal monopolies" for reasons I needn't bore you with - you likely know. They cannot be charged for anti-trust violations by holding their legal monopoly rights. The way in which they choose to market their intellectual property is a matter of free choice. They can rent it, or they can sell perpetual licenses to it, or they can do both. There are no laws against this. You would be very hard-put to prove in a court of law why renting software frustrates the benefits to be achieved from competition as opposed to selling perpetual licenses to it. If any one could win that case, perhaps outfits such as Lynda.com would have to change their business model, because they rent access to tutorials rather than selling you copies of the product for your perpetual reference. You can be well-assured that Adobe has a whole legal department doing nothing else but advising senior management on how to keep out of trouble. You would have great difficulty proving in a court of law that the one business model or the other constitutes the kind of abuse of a dominant market position that would be unambiguous enough to constitute an anti-trust violation. If anything, this new business model invites the development of competition and a challenge to revenue on a scale they haven't seen to date. This is business risk that I know for a fact they clearly understand.

The one potential vulnerability they MAY - but not likely - have is through the consequences of stopping to pay the rent. One loses access to software on which one depended for creating and amending images. It would prevent people from reverting to those photographs and revising them if they contained code that their last installed perpetual license version no longer recognized. But even that, as immoral as it would be, may not be a legally determinate abuse of a monopoly position, unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court that they ever made commitments to the perpetual usability of their software, and that is something no software vendor in his or her right mind would ever do, because it would frustrate the benefits of technological change by creating the need for an infinite change of backward compatibility that no-one guarantees - no-one.
If you can only see one vulnerability then you aren't looking hard enough.  
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Gulag
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #178 on: May 07, 2013, 01:02:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Devil's Advocate here.

People line up to pay $100+ a month for a freaking silly iPhone to gossip and watch Youtube videosl, but grouse about paying $50/month for one of the cores of their professional businesses.  It's all how you look at it.  Switch to Net10, subscribe to CC, and you'll still be dollars ahead.


You sound like you really don't fully understand the whole issue. According to Wiki, Rentier Capitalism is a term currently used to describe economic practices of parasitic monopolization of access to any (physical, financial, intellectual, etc.) kind of property and gaining significant amount of profit without contribution to society. Let me put it in the simplest term: this whole Adobe shit is about renter vs rentier. Adobe "believes" it is a monopoly and behaves as a such. Innovation? Forget about it. Improvements? Forget about it. What would you say if Microsoft or Apple started to charge you some monthly fee for Windows or Mac OS?  
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 01:05:19 PM by Gulag » Logged

“For art to be art it has to cure.”  - Alejandro Jodorowsky
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #179 on: May 07, 2013, 01:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I do understand the issue.  We're all really pissed that Adobe is now doing what everybody else is doing and the steam is venting.  That's the issue.

Two months down the road, almost everybody here will be subscribed to CC, and the wounds will slowly heal.  And I bet Adobe will continue to supply with new, useful stuff.  And any viable alternative will be a long time coming.  That's the reality we're going to see.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 39 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad