Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.  (Read 6613 times)
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3401


« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2013, 05:30:00 AM »
ReplyReply

This whole discussion about whether Photoshop was intended for photographers is a fruitless waste of time. What's the point of that?

Hi,

It's a diversion tactic.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2013, 08:09:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It's a diversion tactic.

Cheers,
Bart

pretty much like 'the cloud', 'being connected', 'behance', 'pro vs. amateur',...bottom line, it's about a pretty big price hike and taking away choice by forcing all users to have to subscribe...it's like it was at the beginning...more money for shareholders and executives...okokok, i do think it might make sense for some business situations if you use three or more of the programs that adobe offers, but for smaller businesses, individuals, hmmm, not so much...

and at this point i think it's hard to 'clarify' anything while it seems Adobe is still uncertain about final details, changes they might implement...it's really wait and see...that's what I'm gonna do, stick with photoshop CS6, (no choice there anyway), see what adobe does with lightroom...i can wait a year or two, by then we'll see how subscription prices evolve and how this strategy is working for adobe...

i'm kinda hoping for a new version of photoshop, like jeff schewe started a thread about, something more tailored for photographers with a bit of graphic design necessities thrown in like text...and who knows, maybe it'll come from disgruntled adobe employees that leave adobe and strike out on their own...the next 24 to 36 months will be interesting...

« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 08:15:32 AM by Morris Taub » Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2013, 09:38:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Look bud...I've been working with Thomas on ACR since before ACR 1.0 was released...(I rode my bike over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot calibration files with my Canon D30). ACR is Thomas' little post-Photoshop baby and has worked as a Photoshop plug-in since it's first release in 2003 and not an integral part of Photoshop until Camera Raw was added as a filter in Photoshop CC. What's you point? You think ACR proves that Photoshop has been directed at photographers? Bullshyte...wake up and smell the roses bud. The only reason that ACR exists is that Thomas thought Canon's raw processing software sucked so he decided to do it himself. It had little to nothing to do with Photoshop until recently (when some people discovered Russell Brown's script to add an ACR Smart Object to images in CS5.5.

So, what's your point? Do you have a point or are you just sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots? You wanna get into a pissin' match with me? I don't think you'll win...(I could be wrong, but I do have some friends up North in the frozen tundra).

You got anything useful to add or are you just wasting everybody's time again?

my point, Jeff, is that you act like an agent for Adobe... by employing whatever means necessary to steer away from the very simple fact - the issue is "subscription only" (not cloud, not subscription, not pro, not amateurs, not photographers)... everybody see what you do, do not put yourself in a situation of Colin Powell and weapons of mass desinformation
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2013, 09:39:43 AM »
ReplyReply


i'm kinda hoping for a new version of photoshop


just decouple ACR from PS... but Adobe wants to steer that market towards LR, because LR keeps 'em captive better
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2013, 09:40:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Why always with the threats Jeff?
because he has no other arguments.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2013, 09:50:46 AM »
ReplyReply

because he has no other arguments.


Oh...but he does have lots of history lessons and stories of his purported greatness....these always win arguements on current subjects.   Cheesy
Logged

John
Morris Taub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 368



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2013, 10:13:03 AM »
ReplyReply

just decouple ACR from PS... but Adobe wants to steer that market towards LR, because LR keeps 'em captive better

personally, i'd like acr smart objects as part of any future photoshop version i buy, not rent...I also like some of the 'smaller' improvements...like when they updated brightness/contrast in the adjustments panel...a small good improvement...but i was mainly thinking a more streamlined version of photoshop, maybe re-written code for faster operation...I'm not sure what's possible...

honest, i've no clue what adobe wants to steer its customers toward...i'm not savvy in economics or big business...i mean i still wonder why they'd want to alienate, lose a good chunk of business with this subscription stuff, but that's me...I'd think make both, make as many potential customers as possible happy...

and if this 'logic' of adobe's continues i'd expect LR 6 or whatever to go subscription too...we'll know more as we head on down the road...

one last thing...i like hearing about jeff's past, the early days of photoshop, adobe...i find it interesting...as far as his view goes, he's made it clear from the beginning, he owns adobe stock, some of his friends work there, he thinks subscription is a good idea...
Logged

kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 720


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2013, 10:20:45 AM »
ReplyReply

In the past i had to decide if the new Photoshop was worth buying.

Now i also have to decide if i want to be a CC-junkie for the rest of my life...
Logged

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

Posts: 2653


« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2013, 10:42:09 AM »
ReplyReply

This whole discussion about whether Photoshop was intended for photographers is a fruitless waste of time. What's the point of that? I wish this silly aspect of the conversation would stop.

It's a diversion tactic.

BartvanderWolf really should know whether it's a diversion tactic -- because it was BartvanderWolf who brought it up again.

(And kirkt expanded it into a separate discussion again.)
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 11:18:02 AM by Isaac » Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2013, 10:48:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I just watched Terry White's and Russell Brown's "Top 5" Photoshop CC features.  It both, 3 of the 5 were ACR (a.k.a. Lightroom) functions....!!!

There may be many reasons for Adobe CC.  However, for Photoshop, the reason seems quite obvious.  

Who would spend ~$180 for "Camera shake reduction"?  Subscription only seems the only way to get more $$$s out of us for this paltry release.
Logged

John
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2013, 11:17:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I just watched Terry White's and Russell Brown's "Top 5" Photoshop CC features.  It both, 3 of the 5 were ACR (a.k.a. Lightroom) functions....!!!

There may be many reasons for Adobe CC.  However, for Photoshop, the reason seems quite obvious.  

Who would spend ~$180 for "Camera shake reduction"?  Subscription only seems the only way to get more $$$s out of us for this paltry release.

Agreed ... watching Terry's presentation of Ps CC, was a almost deja vu of his five favorite features in Lr5 ...

Since April 2012 when Creative Suite 6 was announced ... Adobe sold 4.1M perpetual licenses ... but only 500,000 CC subscriptions over the same time period ... apparently the only way to assure CC adoption, was to eliminate perpetual licensing ... even then, Adobe only expects to have 1.25M CC subscribers by Q42013 ... seems to me if CC is such a dramatic innovation, why isn't there more of a stampede for signing up for CC subscriptions? Why does Adobe only expect to persuade 18% of current Creative Suite 6 perpetual license owners to make the transition by year's end? Heck, they don't expect to break the 3M mark until some time in late 2015 ... If CC is such a great deal ... why are they expecting such a glacial pace for adoption? Even after it is the only option to move forward?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 11:58:58 AM by ButchM » Logged
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2013, 11:38:57 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a diversion tactic.

Lest we forget, BartvanderWolf was the person who brought it up again (and kirkt was the person who expanded that into a separate discussion again.)

Correct - it has been discussed because that particular characterization of Photoshop is given as a response to some of the issues being raised here by photographers who use Photoshop.  In this day and age of digital photography, in a forum of photographers who use Photoshop, the original intent of Photoshop is irrelevant.

kirk



Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2013, 11:40:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Who would spend ~$180 for "Camera shake reduction"?  
and round cornered rectangles.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 06, 2013, 11:47:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Since April 2012 when Creative Suite 6 was announced ... Adobe sold 4.3M perpetual licenses ...  but only 500,000 CC subscriptions over the same time period
You sure of that 4.3m? What's the source?
Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2013, 11:54:56 AM »
ReplyReply

You sure of that 4.3m? What's the source?

Sorry ... I was a touch off ... the number is 4.1M (I corrected my post) ... from the Max briefing pdf ...
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 06, 2013, 12:00:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought that was the installed base, not the sales in that year.

OK, it's effectively the same thing, though it mixes upgrades and new purchases.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 12:05:37 PM by johnbeardy » Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #56 on: June 06, 2013, 12:05:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I thought that was the installed base, not the sales in that year.

Well ... how could you have an "installed" version of CS6 without a sale? Regardless, the numbers presented are the Installed Base that "excludes" CC subscriptions. Either way, eight times more users adopted CS6 in the same time period as did CC. So I don't quite grasp your point.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 06, 2013, 12:10:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I was being a bit slow, and you read before I corrected my post. 4.1m is a valid number, but I'd want to know the split between upgrades and new purchases before drawing the same conclusion as you about the 500k voluntary subscriptions behind a disappointing number. I felt it was a surprising-strong start, a proof of concept rather than a reason to deny us the choice.
Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #58 on: June 06, 2013, 12:25:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I was being a bit slow, and you read before I corrected my post. 4.1m is a valid number, but I'd want to know the split between upgrades and new purchases before drawing the same conclusion as you about the 500k voluntary subscriptions behind a disappointing number. I felt it was a surprising-strong start, a proof of concept rather than a reason to deny us the choice.

To me, the only way the differential of the number of upgrade purchases for CS6 perpetual licenses would have any impact ... is if all of the subscribers to CC were new users to Adobe products ... which I doubt is the case. Surely there are a number of CC subscribers that are newbies due to the lower barrier for entry, however, without knowing for sure, it is my guess they too are in the minority with the vast majority of current subscribers being those folks were once perpetual license holders ... though the group of CS 6 perpetual users must surely contain the largest percentage of folks that are among the first to upgrade each and every version ... which is why I find 500,000 CC subscribers to be a very conservative number by comparison ...
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 722


« Reply #59 on: June 06, 2013, 12:38:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed ... watching Terry's presentation of Ps CC, was a almost deja vu of his five favorite features in Lr5 ...

Since April 2012 when Creative Suite 6 was announced ... Adobe sold 4.1M perpetual licenses ... but only 500,000 CC subscriptions over the same time period ... apparently the only way to assure CC adoption, was to eliminate perpetual licensing ... even then, Adobe only expects to have 1.25M CC subscribers by Q42013 ... seems to me if CC is such a dramatic innovation, why isn't there more of a stampede for signing up for CC subscriptions? Why does Adobe only expect to persuade 18% of current Creative Suite 6 perpetual license owners to make the transition by year's end? Heck, they don't expect to break the 3M mark until some time in late 2015 ... If CC is such a great deal ... why are they expecting such a glacial pace for adoption? Even after it is the only option to move forward?

I do not know for sure....however, I suspect the CS6 licenses may have been for each individual product.  The CC subscriptions were probably for the entire suite.

That said, this was for a very low introductory price....and allow many to try out products...over a long period of time...that they may have never purchased.  Of real interest will be those that continue...and those who try during the coming period...and continue at the end of it. 

If Adobe is silly enough to base their business on "tryers"....well, I doubt they are that foolish.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad