Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe CC- "Misunderstood", or poorly communicated?  (Read 12043 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2013, 07:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply


What a voluminous amount of bullshyte (your term) to say that Adobe no longer cares about the millions of photographers that filled their coffers for so many years...and were the basis of their early success.



Despite its name, Photoshop did not start as an application for photographers.  It was a POS for photographers until, about PS7.  Photoshop began life as a press/prepress application.  That's where its early success came.  That still, as far as I know, is where the bulk of its customer base is.
Logged
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2013, 08:08:58 AM »
ReplyReply

So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.

Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.
This shit it most defiantly is.
Who exactly are you going to sell this video too? A long line of pro's that are happy to swim in the Cloud you think wanting a video on LR. A product from a company most users no longer trust.
I don't give a shit Adobe had problems updating their platforms, no one but Adobe caused that problem.
Logged

Kevin.
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1282


« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2013, 08:20:55 AM »
ReplyReply

So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

the question was about your ridiculous statement that it is too hard to have a licensing verification code designed to support both perpetual license and CC subscription, so please do not switch the from that thing...

Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.

I looked how LR will work and what you are saying about difficulties is total BS.


Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

I am saying that subscription only model for CC is a bad thing for some legit users and that the only purpose of this is for Adobe to make more money (yes, they are for profit company) and it is quite obvious that if Adobe gets more money then somebody gets less money... and as you acknowledged that LR has no issues with code for both ways then developers who according to you were having problems to implement that in other products shall learn a thing or two from their LR colleagues...

Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2013, 08:25:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Despite its name, Photoshop did not start as an application for photographers.  It was a POS for photographers until, about PS7.  Photoshop began life as a press/prepress application.  That's where its early success came.  That still, as far as I know, is where the bulk of its customer base is.

Thanks, Bob...you are absolutely correct.

Adobe has been promoting PS to photogs for so many years, I forgot.....let's see PS7 to PS13...say average 1.5+ years....10 years..Huh  Now we don't matter any more.

Again, it is less the monthly cost, while that is important.  It is the potential loss of access to work product at any time....whether you wish to pay the subscription or not....Adobe shuts down the servers....nothing works....nd their license agreement gives them the legal right to do that.
Logged

John
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2013, 08:38:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone think students want a monthly sub going out?
Students most likely start on pirate copies, it sucks them into the family. Later if they need those programs for work they buy them. No revenue lost to Adobe whatsoever, probably the opposite.
Maybe if Adobe stopped their products from stripping out all the metadata photographers add to the image, I could be more sympathetic to their plight.
Logged

Kevin.
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2013, 08:39:58 AM »
ReplyReply

the question was about your ridiculous statement that it is too hard to have a licensing verification code designed to support both perpetual license and CC subscription, so please do not switch the from that thing...

I looked how LR will work and what you are saying about difficulties is total BS.


I am saying that subscription only model for CC is a bad thing for some legit users and that the only purpose of this is for Adobe to make more money (yes, they are for profit company) and it is quite obvious that if Adobe gets more money then somebody gets less money... and as you acknowledged that LR has no issues with code for both ways then developers who according to you were having problems to implement that in other products shall learn a thing or two from their LR colleagues...



Vladimirovich, it is not the code.  It is an accounting problem.  I am not versed enough in the problem, but it has to do, I believe,  with how expenses are charged against revenue streams....therefore quarterly results.

Maybe someone could step in and explain, obviously Jeff has not been able to.  But it really does not matter.  Obviously Adobe does not feel the need to solve it internally.

I believe that Lightroom is a temporary situation.  They have the same problem with it.  Though not clearly stated, I expect that the CC version will get continual updates, that will not show up in the "perpetual" version until a later release....eventually, when Adobe has sufficient market share, they will cut the perpetual licensing....just like the other products.
Logged

John
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2013, 10:14:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff repeated Hendrickson's statement that it was the code. He also said that the accounting issue prevented Adobe from releasing features between major releases, which is incorrect (I'll save you an explanation of GAAP etc).
Logged

Streetshooter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2013, 11:03:17 AM »
ReplyReply

So, for LR, Adobe is willing to offer both a perpetual license and a subscription license...(for LR users, this is a good thing). For PS, IL, ID, PR, DW, AA, They (Adobe) is not willing to do a perpetual license anymore. What part of that is hard for you to understand? Look at all the apps in the full CC and you might have a clue why both a perpetual and subscription license it vastly more difficult.

Go back and read what I wrote before...Adobe develops pro apps. For the vast majority of Adobe's customers (who are pros) CC isn't a big deal (other than not liking a price increase)...for non-pros, Adobe understands that sadly, their decision won't be popular...for photographers (pros and non-pros), LR is being offered in both licensing models. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

Sorry, I'm done with this shit...I got stuff to do...videos to shoot with Mike and a book to finish, I'll not be bothering to answer you any further. So, Vladimirovich, buzz off...I'm done with ya.

So overnight non-pros don't matter any more in the scheme of things for Adobe. Where would the photo industry be without them ? Where would this forum be without them ?   Indeed where would you be without them Jeff ?  How many non-pros purchase your books and LuLa videos ?

In the photography industry non-pros matter as much as pros, and software and hardware companies ignore and shit on them at their peril. And I say this as a pro for getting on thirty years.

Pete
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2013, 11:11:00 AM »
ReplyReply

To: johnbeardy

A clip from Schewe post, #253 of the 'Adobe Diverging..." thread...

Quote
Do you understand the implications of revenue recognition relating to generally accepted accounting practices here in the USA? Google it...it starts with Enron...it means that based on the way Adobe had previously set up it's accounting for R&D for Photoshop (and other apps), once a product version was shipped, after the end of the quarter that the product shipped, Adobe was specifically precluded from adding any new features, only bug and maintenance fixes.

With the perpetual license model, Adobe was precluded (meaning that they literally could not) add any new features to the perpetual version.

Now, with the subscription model, Adobe was able to change the way that they accounted for R&D...since the subscription is an on going pay/time model, Adobe is now able to create and add new features and release them when they are ready without delaying the features till the next major version.

Are you saying I should not believe this?
Logged

John
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2013, 11:16:17 AM »
ReplyReply

To: johnbeardy

A clip from Schewe post, #253 of the 'Adobe Diverging..." thread...

Are you saying I should not believe this?
Correct, you should not believe this.
Logged

JhnMhn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2013, 11:33:31 AM »
ReplyReply

As I said, in another thread on this, I'm not interested in arguments or sophistry, and will not go into detail why much of what Jeff has said  just simply isn't true for many of us, pros & amateurs alike. One thing he said is spot on, it's like arguing politics, & he's on his own hysterical side of the fence. But one huge part of his, and Adobe's arrogance and inaccuracy on this whole matter is summed up in his statement,"For pros, it ain't no big thing…"  This is simply factually not true. It is a big thing. For me and many other pros. Adobe and their koolAid drinking boosters don't get to decide what is, or is not, a big thing to us.

 Adobe and its fanboy(s) have this arrogant attitude that anybody for which this is a big thing just doesn't understand, or isn't sufficiently professional, and will be just fine with LR if they are photographers anyway. Wrong on every arrogant point. I am a Pro,my income comes from photography and has for several decades. I was a pro before Photoshop, and I will be in the post-photoshop era.I have prevailed legally in several copyright infringement actions against those taking liberties with my work & am copyright knowledgeable.I own LR and don't care for it. Have already switched to a different converter/browser, and am getting up to speed on PS alternatives.

 There are many, pro & amateur alike, that do understand and don't agree and are not going to simply give up, bend over and present there wallets.

I understand Adobe and Mr. Dismissive need to believe there own "bullshyte" (I would prefer forgone conclusions, but I'll go with Jeff's preferred dismissive arrogant term) but that doesn't make them accurate, or us unprofessional, or ignorant.

Oh, my name is John Mahan and I approved these factual statements.
Logged
johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2013, 01:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

From the Adobe blog:

John says:
Got a question, Jeffrey, even though you have ignored me so far: on the Luminous Landscape forums, Jeff Schewe, a consultant to Adobe, says that Adobe was well aware of our coming anger, but that obviously Adobe doesnt care, because Photoshop isn’t now and never was aimed at us amateurs.
Now, I don’t know why you still have a job, seeing that you’re trying to placate an audience your company apparently couldn’t care less about, but since you are still here, is Jeff speaking the truth and nothing but the truth?

May 09, 2013 7:47 AM

Jeffrey Tranberry says:
Jeff Schewe’s views are his own. Photoshop’s strength is that is used by a wide variety of users – and I for one appreciate them all – and I know my teammates on the Photoshop and Lightroom development teams do as well. Most everyone on the development team are also users/avid photographers who use the products they create. They put a lot of love and hard work into the products they develop.
- Jeff
Logged
daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2013, 02:49:38 PM »
ReplyReply

The last 48 hours of posts on the Adobe blog is the proverbial handwriting on Adobe's wall.

One post in particular that cuts to the core of it:


Quote
Dave Kendall says:

Adobe, just remember we’re creative for a reason. Think of us as your average feline. Not many of us like being forced into boxes. It’s the reason we chose these careers. Even the comfiest box can get boring for us. This box you’ve cobbled together seems expensive and far from roomy, or comfortable. Like cats we have the mindset to escape to the wider spaces.

Adobe! If you don’t listen to your customer base it seems my copy of CS6 will outlast your company.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:51:20 PM by daws » Logged
kers
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 723


WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2013, 03:45:49 PM »
ReplyReply

the problem with CC is:
If I make a photoshop document from my raw image with photoshop CC-
I will not be able to open it without having a CC license...
So i will be hooked on Adobe forever or cannot open my own photographs anymore...
The same problem with all the other CC programs- so there will always be a valid reason for paying the monthly fee...
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 05:44:14 AM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
Wayland
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75



WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 10, 2013, 03:28:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Some years ago I moved from PSP to PS and the transition at the time was not easy, PS is much less intuitive, customisable or user friendly. PSP had all the important features I needed at the time except for 16 bit editing but that difference no longer applies.

Many of the "must have" features that have appeared on PS such as Auto Save and the file browser that became Bridge and eventually Lightroom were features that were present on PSP years before. It's true that since being bought by Corel, development has slowed slightly but I suspect that Corel has just been given a huge incentive to pick the ball up and run with it.

There are one or two PS tools that I will miss but not enough to allow myself to be blackmailed for. I expect that the remaining differences between PSP and PS Cs6 will decrease fairly fast in the remaining lifetime of that program too.

I regularly lecture on digital post production to rising amateur photographers in the UK and from this day forward my lectures will be based around PSP with side notes for those who wish to bend over and use PS. I'll also outline my reasons for thinking that no truely creative individual should shackle themselves to such ransomware.

What the Adobe fanboys seem to forget when talking about what a good deal CC is for professional photographers with regular incomes is that some of todays amateurs will be tomorrow's professionals and the habits and practices developed in early days are not lightly given up.
Logged

Wayland.
aka. Gary Waidson
Enter theWaylandscape...
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #55 on: May 10, 2013, 04:30:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Yup. They will have lost the student market. Why would a school teach software that their students will and cannot buy? There will be a huge shift over the next 5 years and adobe and their arrogant educators (they aren't selling to the big houses or the top pro's are they?) will get the worst of it. Most of all what they have lost is trust. From next semester I am no longer going to be recommending LR, writing on the wall with LR and as a professional I would be horrified to have my library at the beck and call of Adobe's whims, EULA's and server outages. I'll be teaching another software, probably C1. As soon as there is an alternative to PS you bet that is what photography students will be using and being taught. After all, Adobe has said they don't give a f*** and only wants the high end design houses after all. The only reason said houses will be submitting to this blackmail despite how horrifying the concept is to anyone who needs control over their software when deadlines and clients are crucial is the lack of any alternative. That's going to change but the world will not forget the attitudes of the Adobe educator bully boys who shat with unbelievable arrogance on the people who had been supporting them.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 05:33:59 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5427


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2013, 09:57:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Yup. They will have lost the student market. Why would a school teach software that their students will and cannot buy?

Actually, you can't know that yet because Adobe hasn't yet announced what their student/teacher educational programs will be like.
Logged
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #57 on: May 10, 2013, 10:54:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

I honestly don't understand how a writer and educator who sells to many enthusiast amateur photographers can be so vocally denouncing his own audience to defend a corporate decision of a company he doesn't work for.

If Adobe's decision is so smart for their core business, why hasn't the stock price shot up?

Have you read the reactions of the many pros on these forums?

Why can't Adobe adopt the App Store model, which caters to many of its stated concerns?

Why can't Adobe add the functions of PS that photographers use to LR and continue to offer that as a perpetual package, while leaving the rest for the illustrators?

You basically agree with Adobe that we are not its customer base and never were (you really believe that, considering their past marketing?), feel you've done your job by warning them of our anger (and telling them we don't understand it anyway) and in that short time span, you have alienated your own audience.

I don't think that video you guys are shooting now is going to sell as well as the previous ones.

But I do appreciate your honesty.

Well said!
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 10, 2013, 02:31:38 PM »
ReplyReply

To: johnbeardy
A clip from Schewe post, #253 of the 'Adobe Diverging..." thread...
Are you saying I should not believe this?

Correct, you should not believe this.
Thanks, Alan. It's totally understandable that Jeff should have written it as he did, but he's never claimed to be an accountant, and I try to keep my past very well-hidden.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5427


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 10, 2013, 02:37:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Alan. It's totally understandable that Jeff should have written it as he did, but he's never claimed to be an accountant, and I try to keep my past very well-hidden.

John,

So, maybe you could explain it to me (as you did in your IM) so people understand I'm not totally wrong...just sorta wrong but that the issue is real.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad