Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 39 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe diverging Creative Cloud and Standard versions  (Read 62641 times)
jwstl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #300 on: May 07, 2013, 11:43:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I see a contradiction in your assertions. You claim Adobe made this decision "...to capture more market share and destroy competition" but later you say they are "dominant" and have no competitors. You can't have it both ways. I agree that Adobe is dominant and doesn't really have competitors for Photoshop so I don't  see how how their motivation was to destroy. I also see this as having the opposite affect; an increase in competion. Now is the perfect time for a strong competitor to rise and offer what Adobe no longer will; a strong image editor with a perpetual license that a large portion of the market desires.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #301 on: May 07, 2013, 11:52:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you at least understand our concern ? Or is your credibility gone with Adobe's ?

I understand people are pissed off with this change...I understand that people don't like to feel strong-armed into something they don't understand (and there has been plenty of FUD to confuse out there).

I understand that Adobe has made a decision that is unpopular with a very vocal group (but a small % of the installed user-base) and I also understand Adobe felt it was in their best interest do make this change (and in general, I tend to agree–not 100% mind you, but overall I agree).

I also think that over time, this will blow over when people actually try CC and find benefit. I think if Adobe DOES actually make the sort of timely upgrades for features on a regular basis, CC users will see benefit.

Will some people allow their anger to drive them to other solutions? You bet...and personally, I would love to see more competition in the industry. If Adobe's CC decision gives some small developer hope that their products might find a group of users that allow them to move forward, I think that's good for the industry. Competition breeds excellence.

Am I sad that some talented but poor individuals will get squeezed out of digital imaging because of this? Yep...all I can do is try to have empathy. That's the one thing about this that makes me cringe.

Does it bother me some people who have bought Photoshop and have no friggin' talent and like to use a "pro app" when they would be better served using Photoshop Elements starts bitching and whining and threatens to quit Photoshop and use GIMP to teach Adobe a lesson? Nope, doesn't bother me in the least...I've always thought that buying a Photoshop license should come with a test to be sure that Photoshop will be used in a worthy manner. If a bunch of wannabes jump from Photoshop to GIMP, it won't bother me in the least because then I won't have to deal with them pissing&moaning about how their hardware/software/camera/wife isn't meeting their expectations...

In the grand scheme of things, is Adobe's CC initiative the most important issue in your life? Does war, peace and hunger fit somewhere towards the top of your "this matters" list?

Get a hold of yourselves...this ain't the end of the world...a meteor is not on a direct path to crash on Earth (as far as I know), nobody has assassinated the President, North Korea has not launched missiles to hit Austin, TX.

Jeeesh, get a grip on yourselves...chill out, take a pill, read a book, have a life. If what Adobe does or doesn't do is ruining your life, how good was your life to begin with? Seriously, get over yourselves. It ain't like Adobe has been discovered to be involved with human trafficking or pedifilia...all they are trying to do is exploit the results of their efforts–their art (and make some money for their shareholders).

And yes, I am happy to admit, I own some Adobe stock...300 shares, it's about 5% of my portfolio (it's not like I think Adobe stock is a growth stock, not with the maturation of their market–although maybe CC might signal a positive change in that regard :~)

As far as my credibility is concerned...I guess you just don't understand. I seriously couldn't care less what my credibility may or may not be. I just don't care what people think. Sorry, maybe that's a character flaw (not in my mind :~), but guess what, I don't care...it means nothing to me...zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Get it?
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #302 on: May 08, 2013, 12:09:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I see a contradiction in your assertions. You claim Adobe made this decision "...to capture more market share and destroy competition" but later you say they are "dominant" and have no competitors. You can't have it both ways. I agree that Adobe is dominant and doesn't really have competitors for Photoshop so I don't  see how how their motivation was to destroy. I also see this as having the opposite affect; an increase in competion. Now is the perfect time for a strong competitor to rise and offer what Adobe no longer will; a strong image editor with a perpetual license that a large portion of the market desires.

Adobe dominates the market.  Like Standard Oil dominated the market and priced out competitors by undercutting them.  It not only affects existing competitors, but eliminates potential competitors from entering the market.  Formerly, some suites cost more than $2000.00.  What competitor will enter when that suite can be bundled with everything else and be rented for $49.00 per month. The facts you see as contradictory are those relied upon by the Court in the case cited above. 

Thanks, and I'm hitting the sack.

Ken Richmond
Logged

Peter Le
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


WWW
« Reply #303 on: May 08, 2013, 12:12:52 AM »
ReplyReply

    I'm glad you at least have some empathy.......it didn't sound it in your earlier posts. I am not a newbie or wanabe I have been using Photoshop for probably as long as you have. I have given Adobe plenty of money over the years.....they just seem very unconcerned of this and that bothers me. I don't agree with your numbers.....I know quit a few graphics people that have already gone to the cloud.....most are not very happy so far and say most likely when their 1st year discount is done they are gone. Has Adobe even considered this ? Also I am a firm believer that when you don't like what is going on you speak up ! It is only considered whining by those that would like everyone to just bend over and take it like nice little boys.
Logged
JhnMhn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #304 on: May 08, 2013, 12:17:14 AM »
ReplyReply

This was my response to Adobe regarding their marvelous new licensing model, "Not interested in arguments or any of the self-serving sophistry. Simply put, this long time user of Adobe products will no longer purchase further Adobe products, at least not as long as you force customers to the cloud and subscription-based software. There are already acceptable alternatives, and Cloud-forcing will only speed up the availability of better and better alternatives. Bye." Not interested in arguments here either; but, like Adobe, I also am in business and their new business model no longer fits my business needs. No anger or angst. We will each do just fine without each other. And I have "prolly" spent my last $$ on the "Doode" dude's various Adobe publications & videos. Looking forward to learning more about PhotoLine, and have already found Iridient Developer (formally Raw Developer) to provide better raw conversion than ACR. There is life after Photoshop. Ahhhh, I'm feeling better already.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #305 on: May 08, 2013, 12:24:57 AM »
ReplyReply

And I have "prolly" spent my last $$ on the "Doode" dude's various Adobe publications & videos.

Ok, bye now...

(dupe post from the posting you made in the wrong forum)
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450


WWW
« Reply #306 on: May 08, 2013, 12:27:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the ironic thing here is that the old licensing model is being referred to as the Perpetual model, when, in reality, it's the new subscription model that is the one that is truly perpetual.
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #307 on: May 08, 2013, 12:57:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I seriously couldn't care less what my credibility may or may not be. I just don't care what people think. Sorry, maybe that's a character flaw (not in my mind :~), but guess what, I don't care...it means nothing to me...zilch, zero, nada, nothing. Get it?

We get it. You've made it exceedingly clear that you don't care in the slightest what any of us think of you.

More importantly, in your role of LuLa guru, unofficial Adobe spokesman and Adobe defender, you've also made it exceedingly clear what you think of those of us who have a different opinion than yours.





Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #308 on: May 08, 2013, 01:01:27 AM »
ReplyReply

More importantly, in your role of LuLa guru, unofficial Adobe spokesman and Adobe defender, you've also made it exceedingly clear what you think of those of us who have a different opinion than yours.

Cool, so you get it?

Then my job here is done :~)
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #309 on: May 08, 2013, 01:03:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the ironic thing here is that the old licensing model is being referred to as the Perpetual model, when, in reality, it's the new subscription model that is the one that is truly perpetual.

Yeah, I was wondering when somebody would notice...yes, the new model is; you need to license (and pay) in perpetuity...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #310 on: May 08, 2013, 01:51:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Get a hold of yourselves...this ain't the end of the world...a meteor is not on a direct path to crash on Earth (as far as I know), nobody has assassinated the President, North Korea has not launched missiles to hit Austin, TX.

Jeeesh, get a grip on yourselves...chill out, take a pill, read a book, have a life. If what Adobe does or doesn't do is ruining your life, how good was your life to begin with? Seriously, get over yourselves. It ain't like Adobe has been discovered to be involved with human trafficking or pedifilia...all they are trying to do is exploit the results of their efforts–their art (and make some money for their shareholders).

Cool. By your recommendation, we should just get screwed happily by our solution providers and focus on a zen emptiness, right?

I assume your recommendation will remain the same in 3 years when the monthly subscription is raised 20%, leveraging the fact that customers will then need to keep paying just to be able to open their files...

That makes a lot of sense.

You see, a collateral damage of the present decision is that Adobe has proven us with utmost clarity that they can and will screw us. Where does it stop?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 01:53:05 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1139



WWW
« Reply #311 on: May 08, 2013, 02:26:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been doing some investigating on just why Adobe is going headlong with this Cloud subscription route. Tell me if I've got it right or way off...

According to Adobe's Investor Relations Data sheet:


http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/Updated_ADBE_Q4_12_IR_Datasheet.pdf


"Digital Media" made up 70% of their total revenue for fiscal year 2012. Look carefully at what comprises the "Digital Media" segment of their business model because it indicates they service a huge corporate client ("Document Services") environment that possibly includes supporting management workflows within interoffice communications between creatives, engineering, marketing, etc. departments that employ huge banks of computers that use Adobe software to conduct business for both private and government operations that may involve but not limited to board meetings and video conferencing.

It's not clear to me what and how those types of businesses use Adobe software but I can only imagine trying to upgrade all those computers spread out and networked across the country, the Cloud subscription of easily downloading new features, updates and newer apps looks like a much more efficient way of doing business with these huge corporate environments than the old bundled licensing upgrades for a set amount of computers.

I'm having to assume a lot of this because I tried to find out what "Digital Media" covers which all I could find online indicates Photos/Video but I'ld also have to include "Document Services". Note the fourth black box on the left labeled "Supplementary Business Unit Data" in the millions. It lists ("Document Services")-Adobe Acrobat and Cloud Services.

Cloud subscription services is more about catering to large businesses than individual users like photographer hobbyists.
Logged
Jack Hogan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 207


« Reply #312 on: May 08, 2013, 02:36:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I watched the first half of Kelby's interview of Adobe's Tom Hogarty on The Grid (http://kelbytv.com/thegrid/2013/05/02/the-grid-episode-94-tom-hogarty-from-adobe/).  Message to Adobe:

Photographers are not complaining about having the option to use the new cloud features.  They are complaining about the ridiculous rental pricing scheme they are being forced to swallow to use the standard product.  There is a lot of FUD being thrown around to muddy up the waters.  Why not simply charge a separate monthly fee for cloud space and features like Dopbox, Google Drive or SkyDrive do?  If people want those features they will be happy to pay for them.  But give us the basic product with a one-off purchase of the unlimited license as it has always been.

And what's this BS about having 'two' different products to support?  The Cloud product works as a stand-alone with no internet access for months on end anyways, so it's one and the same.  And this other BS about Photographers not being as important as 'Corporate' clients?  Any self respecting marketing department should know, understand and cater to its different customer segments - WHERE IS YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY SEGMENT, ADOBE?  And this other BS that Photographers don't count ('a vocal but small % of the installed base')?  All I read on the net are threads like this, where customers who are pissed are no fewer than those who couldn't care less.

Adobe is just trying to justify moving to a business model that is less work and more money for them. If this means raping a segment of their loyal customer base ($29.99/month vs $4.99!) so be it.  When someone uses a dominant market position to gouge even just a minority of its subjects, there is only one thing for those subjects to do: move.

Jack

« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 02:51:57 AM by Jack Hogan » Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 666



WWW
« Reply #313 on: May 08, 2013, 02:50:13 AM »
ReplyReply

...a very vocal group (but a small % of the installed user-base)...
That sounds plausible. Does anyone outside Adobe have quality information about who is using the different versions of Photoshop, and of Lightroom,  and who is buying upgrades? I am assuming Adobe has reason to believe that its decision won't lose it money and that seems to suggest that it is mostly interested in the professional and hence tax-deductible (in some countries at least) market for PS. As a hobbyist who decided some time ago that PS 5.5 would be my last upgrade, I have no personal stake in this, but I might feel differently if Adobe abandoned perpetual licenses for Lightroom. How differently would depend on what they wanted to charge for time-limited licenses. I would probably pay $5 a month, given the possibility (as I understand it) of converting all my images to an appropriate flavor of  DNG and reverting to my current perpetual licence if I wanted to bale out of the Cloud. Or am I missing something there (probably). I don't entirely buy the moral outrage. Adobe provides Lightroom for hobbyists - a good product at a good price.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 02:57:03 AM by kencameron » Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #314 on: May 08, 2013, 02:50:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been doing some investigating on just why Adobe is going headlong with this Cloud subscription route. Tell me if I've got it right or way off...

You've not gone way off, but that document doesn't tell us much more than the point you made about 70% of revenue (which isn't the same as bottom line) coming from the Creative Suite products and certainly doesn't explain Adobe's change of direction. You'd need a lot more breakdown about what's in that 70% and about future projections.

It's also worth correcting a misconception, repeated by Jeff, about the switch being because Adobe's revenue recognition requirements conflicted with the need/desire to release product upgrades during the 18-24 month cycle. A simpler solution to that issue (ie that revenues and costs no longer reflected the actual business) would have been to change their accounting policies, not something a listed company would do lightly, but perfectly viable (and yes, I do have the professional qualifications/experience to make that assertion).

John
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #315 on: May 08, 2013, 02:54:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Thom just wrote on this issue: http://www.bythom.com/

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1139



WWW
« Reply #316 on: May 08, 2013, 02:59:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And what's this BS about having 'two' different products to support?

The Cloud subscription is just a different and more efficient software distribution strategy.

And I'll bet the pricing strategy may be setup in a way that will allow it to be tweaked, adapted or negotiated further down the road. At least that's how I'ld do it.

I'm not going to be making monthly payments for hobbyist usage of photo editing software and I think that's what Adobe is willing to deal with so they can cater to networked corporate clients who have to upgrade banks of computers that use Adobe software.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 03:21:21 AM by tlooknbill » Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1139



WWW
« Reply #317 on: May 08, 2013, 03:03:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You'd need a lot more breakdown about what's in that 70% and about future projections.

Scroll down to the second page where it lists product classifications for "Digital Media" and "Marketing" segments. It comprises a ton of obscurely named software I've never heard of or used as a photographer. Clearly Photos/Videos is not just what "Digital Media" stands for. Adobe is getting knee deep in servicing corporate workflows with their software. Look at all the weird names that don't tell you what the software does. Note the word "Cloud" is part of the heading of each product segment except "Print & Publishing".

Somebody is using this software and they don't seem to hang out at LuLa.

I find it funny "Pagemaker" is still listed in the "Print and Publishing" product segment.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 03:15:11 AM by tlooknbill » Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #318 on: May 08, 2013, 03:21:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Scroll down to the second page where it lists product classifications for "Digital Media". It comprises a ton of obscurely named software I've never heard of or used as a photographer. Clearly Photos/Videos is not just what "Digital Media" stands for. Adobe is getting knee deep in servicing corporate workflows with their software. Look at all the weird names that don't tell you what the software does.

Somebody is using this software and they don't seem to hang out at LuLa.
You're right.
Whilst most people think Adobe is all about graphics software, that's all changed since buying Macromedia and the other web annayltic companies they've bought.

I've mentioned this earlier in this thread and on others
I don't want to keep banging on about this but.....I spent last week working at Adobe's EMEA digital marketing summit in London. Having seen how this all the AMC products link together with Creative Cloud it's not difficult to see how for some commercial photographers working via the Cloud could make business sense. It could quite easily become a requirement of employment that they provide their photographs via CC.
The key acronym you're missing, and most photographers aren't aware of it anyway, is AMC = Adobe Marketing Cloud
This is a MASSIVE product set that aims Adobe to be the dominate force in the whole of eCommerce on the internet. Just think about what that's worth!
It's a combination of hosting products, web design products, web analytics and lots more I didn't have the knowledge to grasp fully and they all work together via the cloud. Photoshop is just a little image utility on the side of all this. Don't think AMC and CC are the same, the Creative Cloud is just a sub-set of Marketing Cloud.
They're selling this to THE BIG multi-nationals and it stands to make really serious profits for them if they get it right.

Photographers don't matter to Adobe any more, they've served us and pretty much run out of new features to sell us, the only way to get more out of us is to tie people into long term subscriptions.

It really won't make any dent on the revenues if all the photographers that can, move away from Adobe products, the big money will be coming from the likes of Coke, Nike, Ford etc
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #319 on: May 08, 2013, 03:30:30 AM »
ReplyReply

"You'd need a lot more breakdown about what's in that 70% and about future projections."

What I meant was you'd need to know how much of that 70% came from x, how much from product y etc. I did look at p2 to see what was in each category. You may not have heard of them, but I've encountered a few in enterprise-scale business. The forms automation stuff will be a big chunk - imagine sending expense reports as PDFs for authorisation. That stuff isn't relevant to the change to a subscription model.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 03:32:22 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 39 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad