Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Michael's take on Adobe CC  (Read 13974 times)
Adam L
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2013, 06:11:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Someone will pay one month license, download the installer, crack the app so it starts without calling the "mother ship" (as Michael defined), and they will put it in one of the many pirate sites available around internet... you will not be able to use the Cloud features, but I don't think that will worry too much to pirate users. In the dPreview interview one of the Adobe representatives already comments the same as me about this... Adobe is aware they are not fixing piracy with this.
Adobe can make it more difficult to use by mucking with the processing algorithms if the app doesn't call in to mom periodically.  A make my picture look like crap button would do the trick.
Logged

"That's a lot of money to move a few pixels around"
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 985


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2013, 06:13:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that the whole pro vs. amateur argument is quite tangential to the primary debate.  It is really about perpetual license vs. rented license, and that boils down to certainty vs. uncertainty.  Talking about teaser rates, or even the current full price rates is really just a sucker move, because in five years time, when nobody wants to move backward and revert to CS6, and new computers may not even be able to run it, the ring will already be well embedded in user's noses.  Thinking about this year, next year, or even the year after is exactly what Adobe wants customers to focus on.  The scary part of the proposition is farther out, when the screws begin to tighten and the options diminish.

Don't fall into the trap about the here and now or short term future.  Think about the paradigm shift.  The rest of the argument is more appropriate to car dealerships, when the salesperson or finance manager guides the discussion to serve their purposes.  How can you afford to pass up a deal like this?  
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:15:01 PM by Colorwave » Logged

djoy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2013, 06:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I am one of those firmly opposed to this. It's taking the tools away from the freelancers and up-coming artists, and handing them back to corporations who can afford the new licensing terms.

One point Adobe seem to believe, and that Michael re-iterated (whether or not he personally believes it) in his article, is that this move will reduce piracy.

Not a chance.

The major reason for the considerable piracy of Adobe's products is the price. The price just went up. By a lot. Oh, and they're not selling it anymore, they're only leasing it.

The subscription binaries won't be any more difficult for the hackers to crack than the perpetual ones, and now without a buy option, those who would pirate it have even more reason to do so. Piracy of Adobe's product is going to increase significantly over this.

Stupid stupid move Adobe....

Myself, I have a perpetual license for PS CS6, I am now considering a purchase of a Creative Suite Production Premium package in addition, covering the titles I want to use ( I don't want and will never use the entire Suite, I use 3 or 4 applications, tops ), and I will be cancelling my existing CC subscription halfway through its year (I bought it on discount as an existing user as a treat to myself with the intention of cancelling after one year). Cancelling early will cost me 50% of the remaining cost, but I will save the other 50% towards buying that perpetual license for the PP Suite. I'll use that until it's no longer viable, and look at alternatives, all the while watching Adobe's stock price plummet.
Logged
johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2013, 06:26:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I just committed to a one year subscription to Creative Cloud Student and Teacher Edition for US $19.99 per month. This for the whole creative cloud suite. I thought it was a good deal since it also includes Lightroom as well as the storage space on the cloud. Also the Photoshop is the extended version.

I am a photo enthusiast who also uses photography in medical work where the extended version has some useful features.

Digital photography at the enthusiast level is not inexpensive. A few years ago I paid $5000 for the Nikon D3 and another $3300 for the D800e, which requires a couple of Ziess lenses at $2000 each. By comparison, my outlay for the CS cloud is modest, but I would not have paid the full price, since like most on the forum, I use Lightroom for the bulk of my work.

Regards,

Bill

The point to me is not the cost. It's the fact that you're basically locked in.
Logged
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 257



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2013, 06:54:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Gotta say—I mostly agree with Jeff on this one.

Smart companies will try to segment their market so they can price appropriately to each one. I do this as a photographer—most photographers do both for stock and assignment pricing. It's a little surprising that Adobe has been selling the same product at the same price to such a diverse market for all these years. They seem willing to endure a little pain to fix that now. I would expect Adobe to start beefing up Elements in the future and tailoring non-pro apps a little more accurately at the non-pro market.

For me personally, if I can't find a way to pass on an extra $50/month to clients, I have bigger issues. I'll probably raise my retouching/raw conversion rates a bit and call it good. I'm used to planning for recurring costs: insurance, utilities, web hosting, etc. Honestly, this adds certainty to my costs rather than uncertainty. It's easier to factor this charge into the cost of doing business than an occasional lump sum.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:55:54 PM by MarkM » Logged

johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2013, 07:07:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Gotta say—I mostly agree with Jeff on this one.

Smart companies will try to segment their market so they can price appropriately to each one. I do this as a photographer—most photographers do both for stock and assignment pricing. It's a little surprising that Adobe has been selling the same product at the same price to such a diverse market for all these years. They seem willing to endure a little pain to fix that now. I would expect Adobe to start beefing up Elements in the future and tailoring non-pro apps a little more accurately at the non-pro market.

For me personally, if I can't find a way to pass on an extra $50/month to clients, I have bigger issues. I'll probably raise my retouching/raw conversion rates a bit and call it good. I'm used to planning for recurring costs: insurance, utilities, web hosting, etc. Honestly, this adds certainty to my costs rather than uncertainty. It's easier to factor this charge into the cost of doing business than an occasional lump sum.



Couple of points:

- PS has become one piece of bloated software with many features photographers don't need. It would have made sense if they had separated the photo stuff from the rest and added it to LR or an upscale version of Elements;

- I agree that a pro should be able to deal with the pricing, but pros also shoot personal work that they might want to work on after they leave the business. Photography is a passion for many, so it's unlike a professional project where you couldn't care less after it's shipped to the client and paid for.






Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8628



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2013, 07:09:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The point to me is not the cost. It's the fact that you're basically locked in.

Only if you allow yourself to be locked in, you don't have to.
Logged

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

Posts: 5425


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2013, 08:09:36 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

Just to be precise, I'm pretty sure I never said that Adobe doesn't care...can you point me to a port where I said that? What I have said is that Adobe is a developer of pro apps and that they aren't very good at dealing with amateurs. Photoshop was never really aimed at photographers specifically and photographers make up a small % of the overall user base. Does that mean I think Adobe doesn't care? Nope...just that in the past and currently, they aren't very good at dealing with photographers (I could point out some previous actions that prove that)

As for Jeff Tranberry, I know and really like Jeff T...he is doing a great job of asking as a customer advocate within Adobe...and Jeff's job is tough enough on a good day, it's miserable these days. And jeff's response was spot on...my opinions are my own. The are not approved nor sanctioned by Adobe (and likely a source of agitation)...but note, Jeff didn't say I was wrong...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7776



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2013, 08:45:28 PM »
ReplyReply

What I have said is that Adobe is a developer of pro apps and that they aren't very good at dealing with amateurs.

As mentioned already, the decision of Adobe is also pissing off a high number of free lance professional designers who use PS and illustrator.

This really has nothing to do with pro or non pro it is about corporate or non corporate.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2013, 09:02:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Just to be precise, I'm pretty sure I never said that Adobe doesn't care...can you point me to a port where I said that? What I have said is that Adobe is a developer of pro apps and that they aren't very good at dealing with amateurs. Photoshop was never really aimed at photographers specifically and photographers make up a small % of the overall user base. Does that mean I think Adobe doesn't care? Nope...just that in the past and currently, they aren't very good at dealing with photographers (I could point out some previous actions that prove that)

As for Jeff Tranberry, I know and really like Jeff T...he is doing a great job of asking as a customer advocate within Adobe...and Jeff's job is tough enough on a good day, it's miserable these days. And jeff's response was spot on...my opinions are my own. The are not approved nor sanctioned by Adobe (and likely a source of agitation)...but note, Jeff didn't say I was wrong...

Agree on Jeff. My conclusion that Adobe doesn't care is based on what you wrote in the 'Adobe misunderstood' thread. I quote the particular part below, so others can see for themselves if my take on your words is something they agree with or not:
"Did Adobe do the CC initiative purely to piss people off? Nope...they new people were gonna be pissed. They were warned by many (myself included). They knew they would be castigated by the press and the vocal non-pro market. They did it anyway because they (Adobe) honestly believes tat this is the best way of addressing their core market, professional now and in the future. I tend to agree with the decision–even if that is across party lines and I'm attacked from the "other side". Ya know what? I don't care...I say what I think and don't care what people think of me. I really, really don't. I call it as I see it and perfectly happy to live with the consequences...It would be a lot easier to just toe the party line and join with the "Adobe Haters Club". Since I've got good inside info and I know where the bodies are buried, I could do Adobe a lot of damage. But I don't because, well I've got a lot of friends who work with Adobe and I know Adobe really and truly tries to do what they think the right thing is to do. But heh, nobody is right all the time. Maybe Adobe has screwed the pooch big time...time will tell.

What they did was actually very brave...it took a lot of guts for Adobe to do what they believed was the right thing to do for Adobe and the pro marketplace. I respect them for being able to do the hard thing, draw a line in the sand and say, this is what we believe and we are gonna do what we believe regardless of how loud the opponents become.

I get that non-pros don't like the CC decision...I also get that the pros are on the fence with an attitude, prove to us that the CC will be useful and important and helps use get the job done and make more money–remember pro users are in the same boat as Adobe, it's a business and the bottom line is, well the bottom line. Pros don't work in design out of the goodness in their hearts, they do what they do to make a living–same as Adobe. That's the capitalist way.

If you are not a pro, not a capitalist in your use of Adobe software, well, let me just point something out that may not (will not) make you happy, Adobe doesn't make Photoshop for you...the fact that so many non-pros have bought Photoshop is not really Adobe's fault. It's not like they've ever really tried to go after the non-pro market. All of Adobe's marketing and advertising is directed towards the pros...because that's the market Adobe knows."
Logged
Zeitz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2013, 09:09:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael and Jeff, am I to assume that amateurs don't deserve layers?  Or will layers be added to Lightroom?  Adobe is noble about .dng being universal.  What do I do with my .psd files?  Any hope for CS6 Light that is aimed at photographers and not graphics professionsals?
Logged
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 257



WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2013, 09:19:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael and Jeff, am I to assume that amateurs don't deserve layers?  Or will layers be added to Lightroom?  Adobe is noble about .dng being universal.  What do I do with my .psd files?  Any hope for CS6 Light that is aimed at photographers and not graphics professionsals?

Where did you get the idea that you 'deserved' something. Do you also deserve f/2.8 lenses? 8 frames/second? carbon-fiber tripods? Eizo monitors?

You can open psd files in gimp, paintshop pro, Elements, and I imagine may others.
Logged

Philip Weber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180


« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2013, 09:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jeff - I am copying you on a reply I just posted to a comment by Eric Chan in another LL forum. I'm posting this here, knowing it's not your call, and also cognizant of the fact you're not the one making these decisions. Still, this seems so simple to me, I must be missing something. Why couldn't the following work?

Thanks!
Phil


Hi Eric - In regards to your comment below (bold emphasis mine):

"What Adobe has committed to doing is continuing to provide ACR for CS6, as long as CS6 continues to be sold. "

This doesn't ease my concerns. When it's discontinued in 12-24 months, what then? As long as LR stays the way it is, I'm ok but if it all goes CC and PS6 is canned, what then, many of us wonder.

Eric, as a "little guy" (avid amateur photographer, who loyally purchased each new upgrade) I'd really be ok with the CC idea if ONE component changed.

Why can't folks like us commit to a 1-2 year CC subscription with the understanding that, at the end of the 1 or 2 year commitment, whatever we've "rented" we keep?

Knowing that would make all the difference to me and many who might worry about their income changing, Adobe prices going up, lack of use/need, etc. If that could happen, I'd sign up ASAP. Without it, I don't think it makes sense (for me) to rent an app knowing there's no way out and, possibly, nothing to return to after a few years.

I'm not asking Adobe to change their decision...just amend it to make this possible and I'd bet most of the angst would evaporate.

Thanks for considering this suggestion and for all you do (and people like Jeff Schewe do, who's seemingly at war over this with 1/2 the forum!) for the photographic community.

Phil Weber
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1662


« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2013, 10:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Why can't folks like us commit to a 1-2 year CC subscription with the understanding that, at the end of the 1 or 2 year commitment, whatever we've "rented" we keep?

Let's see...  Two years at $50 a month is about $1200.  Not a bad price for the entire suite of programs.

Ain't never gonna happen.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5425


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2013, 10:39:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Eric - In regards to your comment below (bold emphasis mine):

"What Adobe has committed to doing is continuing to provide ACR for CS6, as long as CS6 continues to be sold. "

This doesn't ease my concerns. When it's discontinued in 12-24 months, what then? As long as LR stays the way it is, I'm ok but if it all goes CC and PS6 is canned, what then, many of us wonder.

Look, Photoshop CS6 going forward, I honestly think nobody inside or outside of Adobe can know that far out. It's an unusual policy change to make ACR 8.x work in CS6. After CS6, who knows? I suspect nobody at this stage...

However, the free DNG Converter is a promise of long term new camera support...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 11:28:36 PM by Schewe » Logged
JhnMhn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2013, 10:45:44 PM »
ReplyReply

There are a plethora of reasons to reject Adobe's phenomenally ill-conceived move. I've made comments on other threads and won't repeat them. A very good summation of the reasons to object can be found here: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130509_3-AdobeCloud-summary.html.

Especially disturbing is the legal agreement that Adobe apparently hopes we don't read with intellect engaged, for more on that: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

I have made my living from photography for several decades and always read contracts carefully, this is the worst one I have ever come across. I would never agree to it.

For a growing number of us, the post photoshop era is now irreversibly here.
Logged
MarkM
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 257



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2013, 11:10:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Especially disturbing is the legal agreement that Adobe apparently hopes we don't read with intellect engaged, for more on that: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

I have made my living from photography for several decades and always read contracts carefully, this is the worst one I have ever come across. I would never agree to it.


I think if you compare Adobe's terms to something like Photoshelter  — you'll find very similar language: no objectionable material, they can change the terms, they can't guarantee uptime, etc. Most of this is boilerplate. The blogger is really stretching for something to object to.
Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2013, 11:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Especially disturbing is the legal agreement that Adobe apparently hopes we don't read with intellect engaged, for more on that: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

It's inconceivable that the legal departments of the corporate users Adobe is targeting would allow their companies to enter into such an agreement.
Logged
plugsnpixels
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295



WWW
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2013, 11:17:21 PM »
ReplyReply

A visual for photographers.
Logged

Free digital imaging ezine
http://www.plugsandpixels.com
Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 985


WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2013, 11:18:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I think if you compare Adobe's terms to something like Photoshelter  — you'll find very similar language: no objectionable material, they can change the terms, they can't guarantee uptime, etc. Most of this is boilerplate. The blogger is really stretching for something to object to.

What point is there in comparing the language of an online photo storage and marketing service with the terms of a ubiquitous, near monopoly digital content creation suite that no longer offers perpetual licenses?  

You mentioned the trivial nature of the monthly cost as being a non-issue for you earlier.  Does nothing about putting your work in the hands of a company that has no practical competition worry you, even a little bit?  You truly have no concerns about what they might do to change the terms in five or ten years, once they have established a irreversible dependency that you are unable to break?
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad