Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 17408 times)
Oldfox
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80


« Reply #60 on: May 10, 2013, 09:03:20 AM »
ReplyReply

You know I was thinking about this last night, and I actually think the issue is far bigger than corporate Vs amateur user, or perpetual Vs rented licensing etc.
You are right. If Adobe is succesful in this, Microsoft and Apple will follow. And in few years time we have to rent OS's as well.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #61 on: May 10, 2013, 09:06:04 AM »
ReplyReply

That statements might be true if only Adobe software dealt with DNG but that's not the case.

Adobe's marketing sense is not THAT bad...!!  Cheesy
Logged

John
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #62 on: May 10, 2013, 09:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

You are right. If Adobe is succesful in this, Microsoft and Apple will follow. And in few years time we have to rent OS's as well.
I doubt it, they can't play the 'we only want a certain segment of customers' card, they have to work with the entire planet.
Logged

kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785


WWW
« Reply #63 on: May 10, 2013, 09:10:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Say I am a professional user - depending on Adobe CC
If adobe will raise the price of CC in the future what can i do?
Nothing- i will need it to open my existing files....
They can ask what they want...
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9214



WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2013, 09:10:56 AM »
ReplyReply

POOR ANALOGY.
A car from Avis or Hertz will provide the same result if Budget is not available.

This isn't an analogy, it is a description of what is expected in a rent/subscription model.

This has nothing to do with competition (Avis or Hertz), it's about a pricing model. It's call renting (or subscription). This has nothing to do with the results, it's about how one company decides to sell a service and how the customer has to behave in terms of the 'contract' (at the end of the rent/subscription, you return the product or we throw you in jail). Of course, the customer can decide not to rent/subscribe.

Some people discussing this issue don't get it. Maybe you're one <g>. Currently Adobe has setup a new model between itself and customers. There's no "I want to subscribe for a year then own" option. It's purely a subscription meaning you pay Adobe a fee, Adobe lets you use a software product. You stop paying, you stop getting access to the software.
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #65 on: May 10, 2013, 09:11:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think so. There's no reason Budget would or should do this, just like Adobe. The price you pay to rent or subscribe to something doesn't and never did guarantee you don't have to return the product when the subscription or rent is over. Doesn't matter if renting that car 2 times paid for the price, if you're dumb enough or rich enough to spend that kind of money, fine. There's a model here. It doesn't deviate unless both parties agree and the party that own the item to rent falls into the label or winner of "the golden rule".

Adobe can setup any model at any price they wish. What we consumers do is a different story.

Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.

I could go for that....one change.  

A fair buy out would be similar to the upgrade cost, not the 'buy new' price.  

Adobe could set the term to qualify a bit longer, if necessary, to keep them "whole".

Edit...as I think about it, this is how most Rent-to-Own situations work.  Some part of your rental reduces the sales price.  Adobe could set this up on a sliding scale where, if you rent long enough, the buyout is zero
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 09:19:25 AM by jrsforums » Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #66 on: May 10, 2013, 09:14:20 AM »
ReplyReply

This isn't an analogy, it is a description of what is expected in a rent/subscription model.

This has nothing to do with competition (Avis or Hertz), it's about a pricing model. It's call renting (or subscription). This has nothing to do with the results, it's about how one company decides to sell a service and how the customer has to behave in terms of the 'contract' (at the end of the rent/subscription, you return the product or we throw you in jail). Of course, the customer can decide not to rent/subscribe.

Some people discussing this issue don't get it. Maybe you're one <g>. Currently Adobe has setup a new model between itself and customers. There's no "I want to subscribe for a year then own" option. It's purely a subscription meaning you pay Adobe a fee, Adobe lets you use a software product. You stop paying, you stop getting access to the software.

OK...said differently you cannot compare the driving a car situation with the situation Adobe places us in of not being able to get back to our work product.  I am sure you can see that...the rest of your points on Budget are just muddying the discussion.

Everyone understands renting.  That is not the concern being voiced here.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9214



WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 10, 2013, 09:24:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I could go for that....one change.  
A fair buy out would be similar to the upgrade cost, not the 'buy new' price.

Don't believe that's going to happen. Why would Adobe allow that? Yes, the buy new price is gouging and half price would be better. But if we have any chance of Adobe changing their mind and offering a 'rent to own' we should prepare ourselves for a fee that's got to be higher than an upgrade.

Quote
Everyone understands renting.  That is not the concern being voiced here.

Thanks again for speaking for everyone, however, if you were to spend any time reading the FUD about this move by Adobe, you'd see lots of people don't understand renting or subscription.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Stephen Girimont
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


WWW
« Reply #68 on: May 10, 2013, 09:25:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Now Rent to Own is a different model and one I think could work here since I seriously doubt Adobe is going to back down on a subscription model. They could allow someone who rents (subscribes) to CC for a minimum of 1 year to buy out that version (locked, no updates) for what I suspect would be a pretty high fee. Like $20 per month for 12 months then buy out at $699. Now before you say "but Andrew, that's a lot more money than just buying Photoshop today" and you'd be right, Adobe isn't going to change anything to end up where they were before the CC debacle in terms of generating the same amount of cash. A buy out would at least give people an end point and option for a perceptual license and, if they want to get back onto the subscription train, they start over again at $20 per month for one year plus.

I'd actually really feel better about CC if they offered this. What scares me the most is the thought of no longer being able to use the software AT ALL if something happened to Adobe or if I stopped the subscription. Having the option to buy a locked version at some point would eliminate that fear.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9214



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 10, 2013, 09:27:07 AM »
ReplyReply

OK...said differently you cannot compare the driving a car situation with the situation Adobe places us in of not being able to get back to our work product.  

Nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. But again, you don't seem to get it. I'm referring to a business transaction.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
WaitingForAnR10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #70 on: May 10, 2013, 09:30:49 AM »
ReplyReply

For the same reason that no matter how many times you rent a car from Budget, you don't get to keep it.

You're comparing tangible and intangible goods, which is a poor analogy.  If you keep the car, no one else can rent or use it.   With software, you have one copy of the product, which doesn't affect anyone else's ability to use theirs, of Abobe's ability to sell one.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #71 on: May 10, 2013, 09:37:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't believe that's going to happen. Why would Adobe allow that? Yes, the buy new price is gouging and half price would be better. But if we have any chance of Adobe changing their mind and offering a 'rent to own' we should prepare ourselves for a fee that's got to be higher than an upgrade.

Thanks again for speaking for everyone, however, if you were to spend any time reading the FUD about this move by Adobe, you'd see lots of people don't understand renting or subscription.

Jeez, Andrew....when you "talk for Adobe", I know it is your opinion.  Please allow me the benefit of not having to include "IN MY OPINION" in every comment I post.

And again, IN MY OPINION, most (if not everyone) understands rental and subscription....they are just not happy with the change....and, more importantly, how the change will possibly affect them in the future.

This is driven by a shrinking trust is what Adobe may do in the future....whether it is within Adobe's control or outside influences (Kodak-like)
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #72 on: May 10, 2013, 09:40:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. But again, you don't seem to get it. I'm referring to a business transaction.

We can get back to our FINAL work product, if we save as flattened TIFF.  We cannot be assured to get back to our WIP and be able to modify it...which is what Adobe and most instructors have telling us our workflow should be....nondestructive.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9214



WWW
« Reply #73 on: May 10, 2013, 09:46:17 AM »
ReplyReply

We can get back to our FINAL work product, if we save as flattened TIFF.  We cannot be assured to get back to our WIP and be able to modify it...which is what Adobe and most instructors have telling us our workflow should be....nondestructive.

Yup, as I said, nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. Only dumb users can insure that.

IF you're dumb enough to add a proprietary processing (say a Shake Reduction Smart Object) in CC, then think you can go back to CS6, you're not understanding a lot about software, workflow and how Photoshop works!

You can make as many layered images in Photoshop 3 (the first version that supported layers) and if your dumb enough to expect them to be accessible in version 2, you probably shouldn’t have a copy of either product!

Want to keep editing that SO that is unique to CC? Don't let the subscription lapse OR be aware enough about the tools you use to fix that one layer.
Logged

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

Posts: 785


WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 10, 2013, 09:47:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd actually really feel better about CC if they offered this. What scares me the most is the thought of no longer being able to use the software AT ALL if something happened to Adobe or if I stopped the subscription. Having the option to buy a locked version at some point would eliminate that fear.

I guess (hope) Adobe will come with a    read only- save as..   option of adobe CC to avoid not being able to open your old files without subscription...
nevertheless if their service goes down for more than a month all people depending on the programs are left off...
Also they have the power to shut you off - by accident or for 'some good reason'
Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #75 on: May 10, 2013, 10:03:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Yup, as I said, nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. Only dumb users can insure that.

IF you're dumb enough to add a proprietary processing (say a Shake Reduction Smart Object) in CC, then think you can go back to CS6, you're not understanding a lot about software, workflow and how Photoshop works!

You can make as many layered images in Photoshop 3 (the first version that supported layers) and if your dumb enough to expect them to be accessible in version 2, you probably shouldn’t have a copy of either product!

Want to keep editing that SO that is unique to CC? Don't let the subscription lapse OR be aware enough about the tools you use to fix that one layer.


STOP ATTACKING....can't you have a dialog?

What you are saying, I think, is that we are DUMB to use any new PS CC functions, if we do not want to fear losing the ability to rework them.  

Is that what you are trying to say?  Stop using PS.....if you have any intention of working nondestructively and possibly have used new or changed function....the change, possibly, being under the covers and unknown to us.

You did not cover the Kodak-like situation....which I know you are more than aware of from you comments about PhotoCD and early Kodak RAWs relative to DNG
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 10:05:19 AM by jrsforums » Logged

John
s4e
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 38


« Reply #76 on: May 10, 2013, 10:32:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Nothing Adobe has done places us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product. But again, you don't seem to get it. I'm referring to a business transaction.

Andrew,

You seems to find no problem or issue with this new model??? In Photoshop and especially in Lightroom your put a tremendous amount of work in parameter and metadata. I think everybody understand you will have the raw file and the final result if you stop renting but you will in loose the ability to use this working data in the future.  

What is your opinion if Adobe in a few year move to rent model only with Lightroom? You have to pay each month forever or loose all your parametric work and metadata... OK with that?

What if Adobe triple the monthly rent or stop evolving the product and you still have to pay or loose all your work? Or you get into financial trouble and are not able to pay. OK with this model?

The key difference between this and other rental models (like a car) is in this case you loose the ability to enjoy all your working data. And you have not the option to buy. And it's no cost involved for Adobe if a user continue to use the existing version like it is with a car. So please don't compare this to a car hire.

Sverre
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9214



WWW
« Reply #77 on: May 10, 2013, 10:52:41 AM »
ReplyReply

What you are saying, I think, is that we are DUMB to use any new PS CC functions, if we do not want to fear losing the ability to rework them.

Nope. What I'm saying is, if you use newer functionality in a piece of software (Photoshop 3 layers) then decide to go back a version (Photoshop 2), that new stuff will not work. So, either don't go back OR handle the incompatibility in versions you yourself inflicted on yourself properly.

Quote
Is that what you are trying to say?  Stop using PS
No, I didn't say that. You have a few options: Keep subscribing (OK, you don't want to, fine). Rectify the issues with the new processing you yourself decided to apply to your data. Flatten the ONE layer that is incompatible.

You do realize that lots of people are saying they are jumping ship and will find another image processing product. That's fine IF they understand the ramifications of doing this AND the ramifications of buying into what has always been proprietary image processing (e.g. Layers as a single example). IF you jump ship and you have an archive of PSD or TIFF files with layers, even those made in CS1, what do you think that 3rd party product is going to do when it encounters data it didn't create nor understands?

The day you decided to use an Adobe image processing product (and you can fill in another manufacturer's name), you decided upon a proprietary process. That didn't seem to bother anyone for the last 23 years of Photoshop use, but NOW that they have decided they may never use this process again, they spread some FUD about not having access from their data. This is true for virtually every software product (note: yes you can export data from many app's and use that data elsewhere, just as you can save a flattened TIFF from your layered doc and use that data in other products).

What *some* people are saying is: now that I want out of the Photoshop CC processing workflow, I want all the same functionality be accessible either in an older version or a different product. That request illustrates their misunderstanding of a number of ideas about how software works.

Quote
You seems to find no problem or issue with this new model???
I'm glad you put Huh because I find a number of problems and issues with the new model. No sir, don't like it. But there are factual issues and there are non factual issues here. The idea that Adobe has placed us in a position of not being able to get back to our work product isn't true. So let's not muddy the issues with such nonsense.

Quote
What is your opinion if Adobe in a few year move to rent model only with Lightroom?
I'd be as unhappy about that as I am about CC. It wouldn't change the other facts a lick.

Quote
What if Adobe triple the monthly rent or stop evolving the product and you still have to pay or loose all your work?
First, I'd probably have to pay, that's my livelihood. I'd try to pass additional costs onto my customers, maybe absorb some. That's how all business operate when their costs go up. But this has zero to do with losing my work. It's backed up in multiple locations and stopping a CC subscription doesn't alter that one bit! IF I knew I was moving from newer to older version of Photoshop, I'd fix the issues whereby I'd deal with layers that have incompatible data. NO, it's not ideal and hence, the prospect for me would be to continue to use Photoshop.

Quote
The key difference between this and other rental models (like a car) is in this case you loose the ability to enjoy all your working data
How? Based on the facts presented here, how do I loose the ability to enjoy all my working data when I went out of my way to stop using the newer processing? The option to stop using this processing is the customers alone. Shouldn't they deal with the repercussions of this act, just like someone with Photoshop 3 documents that demands they go back to Photoshop 2?
Logged

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

Posts: 2951


« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2013, 11:00:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Isn't the major question that WE should all be asking is whether Elements will be upgraded to include the PS features that we all regularly use and that it is coupled seamlessly with LR.

I think the relevant question is whether PS Elements now includes the features that you personally use on a regular basis.

The most obvious to me is 16 bit versus 8 bit processing, and then CMYK.

How much difference that makes to your personal use a more difficult question to answer.
Logged
jwstl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2013, 11:02:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Shouldn't they deal with the repercussions of this act, just like someone with Photoshop 3 documents that demands they go back to Photoshop 2?

The difference is there was never really a reason to go back from 3 to 2. Once 3 was owned, I could stay there and enjoy the benefits of it. Now there's a possibility of being forced to go back. If you subscribe for a couple of years and are using version CC 2 or 3 and decide to stop there's no staying where you are as in the previous model. I'm forced to go back to CS6.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad