Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe's Briefing slides at Adobe MAX  (Read 6181 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2013, 05:20:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Nothing about Photoshop CC per se (since it hasn't even shipped yet)
My point exactly. There's no magic in PS that others haven't got.
As I understand it CC has been available for a year now and you've previously mentioned has been in beta as CS7 for some time.
Quote
but I'm talking Adobe pro level apps for college students hoping to get a job in the industry
That's only a part of the educational market.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2013, 05:27:58 AM »
ReplyReply

But when compatibility becomes an issue, when you're full time or freelance working with or for a designer or art director, choices about software become limited.
From what I've seen the only compatibility issues in digital imaging for distribution are caused by Adobe's use of psd in PS. The others, jpg & Tiff very, very rarely have issues with compatibility.
Quote
The industry standards can't be ignored. I'd say a student should be taught the basics of photoshop and a few other programs as well. Why not? Learning how to do similar things in a number of programs isn't a bad thing.
If you understand the basics properly switching between programs really should be pretty much a non-issue. Do people really need to be taught how to find a levels option in different software ?
The only major issue if a program uses a totally different methodology, eg parametric editing took some people a while to grasp and nodal editing could trip a few people up.
Logged
Tim_Smith
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2013, 08:08:20 AM »
ReplyReply

My general feeling of anger towards Adobe for forcing me into their new model makes it difficult to be objective about the issue. When I try to put it into focus and concentrate how it will effect my livelihood, I realize that unless something changes in the next couple of years, I will have no choice but to subscribe to the CC model.

I know that this is a photography forum but my livelihood has been derived from Graphic Design for the past 15 years. It is in that category that I can be considered a "Pro", while photography is more of a passion or hobby. Unlike PS, InDesign (and to some extent) Illustrator are version-exclusive. By that I mean that unless a file generated by the newest version of either program is "saved back", it is unreadable by older versions of the same program. Since I often receive files from clients that have been created by other designers, occasionally I would have to ask the client to return to the former designer and ask for a "save-back" version so I could open the file. That's a frustration for the client and doesn't make me look good. Usually that would only happen if I was late in adopting the newest CS version. I can easily see a point in the future where my reluctance to buy into the model will allow that to happen again and I dread that moment since that is the point when I will have to knuckle under and subscribe.

I have been around long enough to remember the Pagemaker to Quark to Indesign evolution. At each point along that product-preference timeline, whilst one of the programs was considered to be the "Industry Standard", users scoffed at the idea that any other program could ever replace the then leader. Quark was (in its heyday) a revolution and completely destroyed Pagemaker. And just when the loyal Quark base was at its height of frustration with the arrogance of Quark, InDesign quietly stepped in and ate Quark's lunch. Nobody was any happier about InDesign's triumph than I was. It's a great program and just as before, at the height of its reigning king position, it's hard to imagine anything could come along to replace it. But, simply because I hate the CC model so much, I sincerely hope something does. I would willingly go through that learning curve just to avoid being forced into submission by Adobe.

I have been a huge fan and admirer of Adobe for a very long time. But this has changed everything. Maybe they know what I want better than I do—time will tell. For now though, this new model seems like an Adobe focused plan and not a Customer focused plan. Smells bad to me.

Logged
lhodaniel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2013, 11:35:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, Microsoft made their Office subscription a good deal. $99 a year gets you 5 seats instead of two. This is perfect for families with kids in school. Adobe gives very little that is really needed or wanted by many, and has basically doubled the cost. That is insult to the injury of customers going from perpetual licenses to perpetual payments.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317


« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2013, 12:40:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe gives very little that is really needed or wanted by many, and has basically doubled the cost.

Over the last week, I've thought it notable how many comments described very different individual circumstances and how true it is that the licensing change creates winners and losers among Adobe customers.

Naturally, we're each mostly concerned with what it means for us.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2013, 12:55:40 PM »
ReplyReply

that the licensing change creates winners and losers among Adobe customers.
I think the problem is that looking at the longer term there really won't be many winners.
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2317


« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2013, 01:09:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps the fear is that looking at the longer term we won't be among the winners.

"Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future."
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2013, 03:01:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Nothing about Photoshop CC per se (since it hasn't even shipped yet) but I'm talking Adobe pro level apps for college students hoping to get a job in the industry (and I'm talking college, not high school level) you know, students that want to get a real job after graduation...

And on top of which, I understand that being an Adobe Certified Expert in Photoshop is a credential with marketable value.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
DeanChriss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 246


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2013, 05:45:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Also, Microsoft made their Office subscription a good deal. $99 a year gets you 5 seats instead of two. This is perfect for families with kids in school. Adobe gives very little that is really needed or wanted by many, and has basically doubled the cost. That is insult to the injury of customers going from perpetual licenses to perpetual payments.

In the long term I'm sure most software products will move from the perpetual license to the perpetual payment model. I think this will happen as products mature and manufacturers find there's little they can add in the way of new features to entice people to upgrade. Using the MS Office example, the latest versions of Outlook and Word can't do much that couldn't be done 10 years ago using the Office 2003 versions. They revamp the user interface every couple of years to make it look different, and add unrelated things like the ability to see photos of your Facebook friends when you get an email from one of them, but the documents and emails are pretty much as they have always been. Microsoft does seem to be handling the transition far more gracefully, and while they aren't offering innovation at least they're offering more "seats", thus providing some real value. Photo editing is a lot more complex, but I think Adobe sees itself in a similar situation sometime in the near future. I'm not sure how many new "wow" features Adobe can cook up for Photoshop, but my guess is that there's not a lot more to do. Beyond glitzy new features there are only refinements, and "works a little better than the old version" is unlikely to excite customers enough to upgrade. Lack of innovation, whether or not it's possible, doesn't matter in the perpetual payment model unless there's a good competitive product.
Logged

- Dean
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3007


« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2013, 06:00:48 PM »
ReplyReply

In the long term I'm sure most software products will move from the perpetual license to the perpetual payment model. I think this will happen as products mature and manufacturers find there's little they can add in the way of new features to entice people to upgrade.

Indeed, diminishing returns for an inflated price ...

Quote
Microsoft does seem to be handling the transition far more gracefully, and while they aren't offering innovation at least they're offering more "seats", thus providing some real value.

Indeed. It also avoids alienating a segment of their (also financial) supporters ...

Quote
Photo editing is a lot more complex, but I think Adobe sees itself in a similar situation sometime in the near future. I'm not sure how many new "wow" features Adobe can cook up for Photoshop, but my guess is that there's not a lot more to do. Beyond glitzy new features there are only refinements, and "works a little better than the old version" is unlikely to excite customers enough to upgrade.

Exactly, although they've been dragging their feet getting even the basics up to standards. Now these will be sold as benefits/improvements, while they were just very much overdue catch-ups (e.g. resampling quality, which yet remains to be proven to be an improvement).
 
Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Dave (Isle of Skye)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 931


Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2013, 06:40:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure how many new "wow" features Adobe can cook up for Photoshop, but my guess is that there's not a lot more to do. Beyond glitzy new features there are only refinements, and "works a little better than the old version" is unlikely to excite customers enough to upgrade. Lack of innovation, whether or not it's possible, doesn't matter in the perpetual payment model unless there's a good competitive product.

But I think that is going to be one of the many Achilles’ heels within Adobe's 'pay for life' rental plan, because unless they do keep coming up with the "wow" features, then it will not take long for people and businesses managers, to start scratching their heads and thinking - can anyone tell me why am I paying every month for all these seats on the Adobe bus, when it isn't actually going anywhere anymore?

You know what, I personally think Adobe will eventually see sense and we will all get back together again and harmony will be restored, because we love their products so much and even though we might say that we don't and that we will find alternatives, Jeff is right, we wont, because there aren't any viable alternatives out there yet and that's why it's hurting so much. But I do believe the whole rental model is flawed and whatever Adobe might say about being OK with losing a few customers here and gaining a few customers there etc, they still want our money and we still want their products, so a satisfactory solution will be found.

Dave
Logged

Photography Tuition holidays on the Misty Isle of Skye
http://www.photography.info
DeanChriss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 246


WWW
« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2013, 07:06:31 PM »
ReplyReply

You know what, I personally think Adobe will eventually see sense and we will all get back together again and harmony will be restored, because we love their products so much and even though we might say that we don't and that we will find alternatives, Jeff is right, we wont, because there aren't any viable alternatives out there yet and that's why it's hurting so much. But I do believe the whole rental model is flawed and whatever Adobe might say about being OK with losing a few customers here and gaining a few customers there etc, they still want our money and we still want their products, so a satisfactory solution will be found.

Dave

I know you're correct about why it hurts so much. I also think Adobe has become very mercenary, and the lack of viable alternatives just gives them more leverage to extract money from their customers.

In a certain perverse way, I think my previous post may actually be an argument for a perpetual payment model, but for one of far more modest pricing than Adobe's. Even if there are few innovations to be had, people still need to create documents and emails, and edit photographs, and they need software to do those things. Paying for an upgrade or a complete new version of the product every 5-10 years when one is required to accommodate new hardware and/or operating systems won't keep any software shop in business. A modest perpetual payment scheme for mature software that's in a "maintenance mode" may be the price we have to pay simply to keep such software available, along with a few improvements from time to time. OTOH, one can't possibly justify Adobe's big price increase to pay for simple maintenance. But, they'll do it because they can.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 07:14:39 PM by DeanChriss » Logged

- Dean
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2013, 07:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

You know what, I personally think Adobe will eventually see sense and we will all get back together again and harmony will be restored, because we love their products so much and even though we might say that we don't and that we will find alternatives, Jeff is right, we wont, because there aren't any viable alternatives out there yet and that's why it's hurting so much. But I do believe the whole rental model is flawed and whatever Adobe might say about being OK with losing a few customers here and gaining a few customers there etc, they still want our money and we still want their products, so a satisfactory solution will be found.

We do love the products created by the talented engineers at Abode, but they unfortunately only represent a part of the company.

It is really a pity that, although they create probably 90% of the value we benefit from, this value is taken away from the hands of loving users by a bunch of NBA educated idiots striving to justify their salaries by "inventing" the next business model.

A lot of folks see the Adobe case as an example of the people against the corporate world and I know for a fact that the open source world will not let that go. We will have alternatives one+ year from now.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2445



WWW
« Reply #53 on: May 23, 2013, 01:53:44 AM »
ReplyReply

It is really a pity that, although they create probably 90% of the value we benefit from, this value is taken away from the hands of loving users by a bunch of NBA educated idiots striving to justify their salaries by "inventing" the next business model.
Maybe they should have gone to business school? Wink
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5253


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 23, 2013, 02:16:27 AM »
ReplyReply

...this value is taken away from the hands of loving users by a bunch of NBA educated idiots striving to justify their salaries by "inventing" the next business model.

Sorry...I presume you mean MBA not NBA right?

I mean, it ain't like a bunch of basketball players are driving the new-fanggled licensing system.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 23, 2013, 04:46:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry...I presume you mean MBA not NBA right?

I mean, it ain't like a bunch of basketball players are driving the new-fanggled licensing system.

I would tend to agree with your assumption! Smiley

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 23, 2013, 06:04:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Also, Microsoft made their Office subscription a good deal. $99 a year gets you 5 seats instead of two. This is perfect for families with kids in school. Adobe gives very little that is really needed or wanted by many, and has basically doubled the cost. That is insult to the injury of customers going from perpetual licenses to perpetual payments.
This is a poor comparison given that the installed base of MS Office users is several orders of magnitude greater than the Adobe CC base will ever be.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2445



WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 23, 2013, 07:12:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd agree with you in sense that Microsoft can sell many more units at a lower price. But what's important is that it is perceived as a good deal - I should know, I went for it. Similar issues apply to what happens if I stop subscribing to Microsoft or Adobe, so it makes me think that one's objections to the subscription model are quite not as cast iron as they may seem. If the price is right, you hold your nose and sign up.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 23, 2013, 11:25:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd agree with you in sense that Microsoft can sell many more units at a lower price. But what's important is that it is perceived as a good deal - I should know, I went for it. Similar issues apply to what happens if I stop subscribing to Microsoft or Adobe, so it makes me think that one's objections to the subscription model are quite not as cast iron as they may seem. If the price is right, you hold your nose and sign up.

The big difference between Microsoft and Adobe is that very little of Office has fundamentally changed since the turn of the century, so it almost doesn't matter what version you have a perpetual license for, vs what you choose to buy on the rental program. The changes have been largely frills for a decade and there isn't much of anything they need to add to meet my needs; the fundamental design flaws in MSWord have been there forever and are unlikely to be addressed based on past experience. At least based on what I need to use from those applications for my consulting work.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2445



WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 23, 2013, 12:00:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Depends how you define "frills" and "fundamentally". But that's beside the point, because it's still the perception of a good deal that makes people sign up, despite the bad odour of subscription.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad