Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe CC- "Misunderstood", or poorly communicated?  (Read 9027 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2013, 12:45:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Schewe, do not cheat... it is not "anti-CC", it is "anti-CC only"... add this small word and half of your long diatribe is useless... and what is left from it is simple - Adobe just wants to make more money by going "subscription only" for legit users, that's it... and we understand that... as for pirates they will continue to pirate CC as they do with M$ products now... because CC is not really a cloud based application, it sits on your computer - it just rings back, so they will make it ring back to their servers... only legit users will end up paying more.

Sorry, no, you don't understand...the technical issues relating to dual-coding both perpetual and subscription licenses was proven to be difficult to impossible when the 13.1 and 13.0.4 was released...there was an all-hands-on-deck reaction to fix major and substantial issues with two separate code branches and updating them at the same time–read what Winston was quoted as saying. Adobe made a call, drop the perpetual licensing, go all in on subscription only because in a pro production environment there is no room for error...you wake up one day, log into your computer and suddenly, you are locked out (that's what happened when that update occurred). For pros, that can't be allowed to happen!

Maybe you weren't impacted...maybe you didn't know what transpired, I know what happened and I know what the result was, kill the perpetual and go subscription only. Is this an indictment against Adobe's ability to keep two code branches working? Yep...it is/was...the result was a decision to drop perpetual licenses.

And whether or not you accept and believe that the main reason for the killing of perpetual was really based on technical issues and not simply corporate greed, I don't give a flying–you know that, right?

You like to sound like you know what you are talking about. A lot of times you do, sometimes you don't...this is one of those times.
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2013, 01:43:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, no, you don't understand...the technical issues relating to dual-coding both perpetual and subscription licenses was proven to be difficult to impossible when the 13.1 and 13.0.4 was released...there was an all-hands-on-deck reaction to fix major and substantial issues with two separate code branches and updating them at the same time–read what Winston was quoted as saying. Adobe made a call, drop the perpetual licensing, go all in on subscription only because in a pro production environment there is no room for error...you wake up one day, log into your computer and suddenly, you are locked out (that's what happened when that update occurred). For pros, that can't be allowed to happen!

so somehow it was easy to code for LR to keep both options (subscription and perpetual) and difficult for CS  Roll Eyes ... that just speaks about the state of software engineering in that particular aspect... probably people working on licensing for CS have to learn something from people working on licensing for LR... instead of feeding BS about technical issues.

as for "locked out" - if I have a perpetual license why shall I be locked out at all ? there is no calling Adobe servers once I activated and if that happens that again just speaks about very poor coding by those Adobe developers in charge of licensing.

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2013, 01:45:52 AM »
ReplyReply

And whether or not you accept and believe that the main reason for the killing of perpetual was really based on technical issues
because somehow it is not an issue for LR, is it ?
Logged
davidgp
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2013, 01:49:17 AM »
ReplyReply

So, my money will be in "poorly communicated" option, and before someone crucifies me, let me explain...

I has never been a user of Adobe Creative Cloud or Creative Suite nor Photoshop. Adobe Lightroom suffices my need, after all, I'm just an amateur photographer. The first news I have to this change was while reading latests posts in LuLa using my phone. Of course, I ended up in that very long and famous thread about this issue. After that I went to read press releases, news on different blogs etc... basically Adobe is changing their license model from pay per license to pay per use, ok... I thought that if they start doing that for Lightroom maybe I need to take out my calculator while looking at the price of other alternatives like Capture One. But I saw no mentions of Lightroom anywhere, for their release of the Beta 5 I understood that next version will be perpetual license model etc...

Well, I thought that until I started to read the interviews of Adobe representatives trying to clarify things. Some of them started talking about two clear versions of Lightroom, one Lightroom standalone and Lightroom CC, some of them mentioning extra features only available for CC version. First reaction was, I don't like that, I don't like to have the feeling of getting just the "limited" edition, few seconds after that I started to think that probably it will mean only syncing with the Cloud (I just use Lightroom in my main computer... no gain here), and then, maybe it will need the CC for that iOS app that is being show around, no big loss in my mind for me.

Looks like I was not the only one thinking the same way, after all we have the thread http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78130.0 , where Eric Chan points to the Lightroom Journal blog to clarify things and I was thinking, how the hell Adobe allows two different messages get out? One message were the VP is saying there is going to be two versions, second message were the official Adobe blog is saying that it is going to be just one version...

Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2013, 01:51:01 AM »
ReplyReply

so somehow it was easy to code for LR to keep both options (subscription and perpetual) and difficult for CS  Roll Eyes

The coding for LR5 is perpetual license only...it also happens to also be available for the CC-have you actually got any Adobe subscription products? Have you ever registered a subscription product? Do you actually know what you are talking about are are you just trying to spread FUD? (and if trying to spread FUD, you ain't doing a very good job-in this debate, you are way, way down the "useful" rank–what you are spouting is bullshyte).
Logged
schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 140


« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2013, 01:52:08 AM »
ReplyReply

"...
Sorry, no, you don't understand...the technical issues relating to dual-coding both perpetual and subscription licenses was proven to be difficult to impossible when the 13.1 and 13.0.4 was released
..."

This is exactly when Adobe started to let their perpetual users down. Why was there ever the need for two separate codebases? This is THEIR homemade problem. No one asked for this.
As owner of several suites I paid a massive amount of money in advance and for this I expect regular updates and good service. It took Adobe "support" 2 weeks to accept the licensing issue as a problem, I had several service calls withdrawn while the Adobe support forum was filling up with requests.  Not acceptable.
Why should users that paid in advance NOT getting the new features, but people that rent do? It should be exactly vice versa.
Sorry, but all your argueing is nothing but hot air.

Just to make one thing sure: I will never rent any Adobe product. The only thing I can't replace just now is Photoshop, so I'll stick to CS6 for as long as possible. Everything else has to go. Smoke is significantly more expensive but you know what? I get service and upgrades!!
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2013, 01:52:55 AM »
ReplyReply

as for "locked out" - if I have a perpetual license why shall I be locked out at all ? there is no calling Adobe servers once I activated and if that happens that again just speaks about very poor coding by those Adobe developers in charge of licensing.

Talking about LR? LR isn't an activation required product...(care to wonder why?)
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2013, 02:00:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Why should users that paid in advance NOT getting the new features, but people that rent do? It should be exactly vice versa.
Sorry, but all your argueing is nothing but hot air.

Well, again, you don't get it...the deal with subscription vs perpetual license was, you are entitled to get new features as upgrades with subscriptions, with perpetual licenses you were entitled to bug and maintenance updates, but no new features. You get the difference? Subscription has been more expensive (and still is) than perpetual...now with CC, you have a choice, buy CS6 (likely the last version offered as a perpetual) or buy subscription and part of the price/cost entitles you to new features...do you understand the differences now?
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2013, 02:04:31 AM »
ReplyReply

The coding for LR5 is perpetual license only...it also happens to also be available for the CC-have you actually got any Adobe subscription products? Have you ever registered a subscription product? Do you actually know what you are talking about are are you just trying to spread FUD? (and if trying to spread FUD, you ain't doing a very good job-in this debate, you are way, way down the "useful" rank–what you are spouting is bullshyte).


fortunately I do not use any subscription products, neither I am using LR...

I am only reading this = http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2013/05/lightroom-and-the-creative-cloud.html

from that text I understand the following

1) if I get a subscription to CC w/ a certain plan then I will get LR = "Lightroom 5 will be delivered to Creative Cloud members at no extra charge when it’s available"

2) if I will start LR after such a purchase then subscription verification code will work (I did not buy any perpetual license, did I ?)

3) I can buy a perpetual license for LR only

4) I will start LR after such a purchase then perpetual license verification code will work

5) somehow both sets of code are working w/o any issues

so ?
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1155


« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2013, 02:09:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Talking about LR? LR isn't an activation required product...(care to wonder why?)
I do not own LR, sorry
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2013, 02:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

so ?

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.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2013, 03:55:51 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
While I do recognize the frustration of "talking to a wall", this is not the way to vent that frustration, no matter how clever or important you are.

May I suggest:
"I have made my position in this discussion clear, and I do not wish to contribute any more".

-h
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 04:58:01 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 363



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2013, 04:20:09 AM »
ReplyReply

The coding for LR5 is perpetual license only...it also happens to also be available for the CC

Why couldn't they do this for Photoshop?
Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2013, 05:10:16 AM »
ReplyReply

No amount of pro-Adobe spin can obfuscate the common sense of this comment from a reader on the diglloyd blog:

Quote
Samuel O writes:

    It seems to me that a significant problem with their new business model is the long-term impact it will have on their creativity and innovation.

    Currently, with a new version coming out every eighteen to twenty-four months, Adobe knows they will have to have significant improvements to entice their customer base to upgrade.

    Without this incentive, I fear their products will suffer as management will make the easy decision to increase profits by cutting development budgets and not by investing in product enhancements. This is a sad decision for a once proud, and innovative, company.

MPG: It is a fair statement. Renters know that landlords don’t really want to fix up old appliances until they become totally unusable.

Logged
Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2013, 05:28:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the whole "Creative Cloud" thing was probably designed to cause confusion.

As many others have pointed out, the Creative Suite applications are not becoming cloud-based. They'll still run on your PC, exactly as before. Even the end of boxed versions isn't a major change, since you've long been able to download the software from Adobe's web site. That's what I've done for years, as the download option is slightly cheaper in Australia.

The real change is that you will now be renting the software instead of owning it. For reasons that have been amply discussed, this is a terrible deal for most users.

Adobe have simply added a few Internet-related features to their software, and included 20GB of online storage in the rental deal, to try to create the impression that the "Creative Cloud" is something new. It's a crude diversionary tactic, and it doesn't seem to be working very well.
Logged
johnvr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2013, 07:06:45 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.


Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2013, 07:26:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, I agree with most of what you say but will take issue with one aspect of it.

The price increase isn't necessarily "a pittance" to many small shops.  A lot of small shops operate on razor-thin margins.  This could be for a variety of reasons.  It may be because they want to price a little leaner than their competition.  It may be because their geographical or client demo or both can't withstand higher pricing.  It may be because they had to cut pricing after the meltdown of late 2008 and since the economy hasn't exactly ramped up with any pace haven't been able to bring pricing back to where it was.  Whatever the reason, for those customers, an increase such as this could have a significant impact.  Any price increase could. 
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2013, 07:44:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly what statements from Adobe have you read or watched? I watched the keynote announcement at Adobe MAX, have you? I watched the Tom Hogarty session on Scott's Grid, have you? I've read Winston's answers on PDReview, have you? I've read the web statement Adobe posted, have you?

Or, are you getting your information second hand from various media outlets? You realize the media is like a shark when there's blood in the water, right? Their job is to "inform" but they generally do more inciting than informing...
etc., etc, ad nauseum



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.

Vladimirovich said it so well
Quote
well, you shall know that here it is OK to imagine various fears about proprietary raw files and it is NOT OK to imagine the same about anything Adobe's...

Adobe does not care a lick about the fears of photographers not being able to access their work-in-progress files....if anything happens to access to Photoshop in the future...and as we know, THINGS happen....Kodak as an example.

I have no idea where you stand as you defend Adobe's decision, but you clearly state you do not care of the opinions of others, so I really do not understand why you purport to enter into a "dialog", when it is quite one sided.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 707


« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2013, 07:50:44 AM »
ReplyReply


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.

I will let others make their own decision....but I am done with ya BUD.  I found your stuff interesting but am not filling your coffers any more....nor recommending them to others. (I know you don't care...neither do I care what you think)
Logged

John
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2013, 07:57:01 AM »
ReplyReply

No misunderstanding on my part, Adobe wants to rip off it's customers as much as it can. I am sure if they go ahead with the Cloud they will  manage to do that. I don't see them as having that many customers left to do it to.
Filming a new Lightroom tutorial are you Michael?, I hope there is a section about how to transfer all the hours of work a DAM application needs into something that is not likely to disappear in the future in a "Cloud" of smoke.
Would you trust your library to the whims of Adobe?
When the stand alone updates dry up? You move to Cloud, a bad couple of business months, clients cheques bounce, your subscription bounces, suddenly you no longer own all those hours you put in.
Bigger companies than Adobe made mistakes and vanished from memory.
No massive misunderstanding on the part of Adobe customers, gross miss calculation of understanding on Adobe's part.
Logged

Kevin.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad