Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.  (Read 7672 times)
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2013, 12:49:34 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

No, the numbers shared were for "Suite" installs ... the point product figures were separated out (CS3-CS5.5 at 2.9M, CS6 at 1.5M) though they did not break down individual app numbers in those figures.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #61 on: June 06, 2013, 02:39:46 PM »
ReplyReply

No, the numbers shared were for "Suite" installs ... the point product figures were separated out (CS3-CS5.5 at 2.9M, CS6 at 1.5M) though they did not break down individual app numbers in those figures.

Butch...thanks for the correction.  

Actually, it makes it seem even worse for Adobe.
Logged

John
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 06, 2013, 02:51:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

It's a diversion tactic.

Cheers,
Bart

No, I'm afraid that it isn't.  For the purposes of evaluating the merits of a complaint to the FTC, it is extremely relevant to any discussion of a potential remedy.  To add to Jeff's history, back in 1996, when Adobe prevailed in the Aldus merger complaint, they had to divest themselves of "Freehand" to the Altsys Corporation within 6 months.  Moreover Adobe had to refrain from the acquisition of "Professional Illustration Software" until 2006 without prior approval of the FTC.  The point here is that Adobe characterizes itself to the FTC as the owner and producer of "Professional Illustration Software".

"OK, so what?",  the photographers, ask.   WTF has that got to do with our problem?  Permit me, as a pedant, to analogize:  Disston Tool decides to stop making handsaws and to concentrate exclusively on circular saws for cutting wood.   Along come the saw musicians, armed with bows who say, "Hey!"  "Not FAIR! I have learned, at considerable investment of personal time, to play music with a saw, and I have a special bow and because of the constant bending of the saw during my performances, it changes the temper of the blade and I require replacements in order to play my music."   To this Disston responds, "Hmnn, but...but...our tools are intendedfor wood cutting.  We listen to and even admire saw music, but hey,  the saw for music market is too limited to address economically.  Our products are for cutting wood."

The FTC has already granted Adobe a monopoly for Professional Illustration Software, and the issue now is whether this Creative Cloud permits Adobe to unilaterally exercise market power, raise prices, reduce innovation and increases the likelihood of unrestrained domination in violation of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act.  

Photographers are the saw musicians.

with apologies, and intending no offense.

Ken Richmond







« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 03:12:26 PM by Ken Richmond » Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #63 on: June 06, 2013, 03:02:02 PM »
ReplyReply

To this Disston responds, "Hmnn, but...but...our tools are intendedfor wood cutting.  We listen to and even admire saw music, but hey,  the saw for music market is too limited to address economically.  Our products are for cutting wood."

So ... all those years Adobe attended WPPI, NPPA conventions and other photography centric expos offering information booths and presentations (prior to the advent of Lightroom) ... they were there to deter photographers from buying and using Photoshop? Because, after all ... it was not their intention that Photoshop to be a tool for photographers ...

The preceding is just a rhetorical question of course ...  Wink
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #64 on: June 06, 2013, 03:18:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe's promotional conduct was the subject of earlier posts addressing the EULA and it's complete, total renunciation of all advertising representations.  You may not rely on any advertising or promotional statements as a condition of acquiring Adobe's software.

But rest assured this Creative Cloud subscription is under evaluation.  I just don't think photographers, myself humbly included, are looking at this thoughtfully enough.  If, as in the past, Adobe is required to divest something in order to get the total control it wants, what should that be?

Ken Richmond
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #65 on: June 06, 2013, 03:32:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Disston Tool decides to stop making handsaws and to concentrate exclusively on circular saws for cutting wood.  

Your analogy falls apart quickly.  Adobe has not changed what they are offering.  They have not stopped offering "handsaws". 

In addition, it would be difficult for Adobe to say that they did not intend or market Photoshop to photographers.

That photographers are a small percentage of those using the entire CS suite...and therefore a small part of Adobe's earnings...is not a surprise.  I would be interested in seeing the specific breakout of usage for those just buying Photoshop....not lumped in with those buying suite packages.
Logged

John
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 06, 2013, 03:47:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Your analogy falls apart quickly.  Adobe has not changed what they are offering.  They have not stopped offering "handsaws".  

In addition, it would be difficult for Adobe to say that they did not intend or market Photoshop to photographers.

That photographers are a small percentage of those using the entire CS suite...and therefore a small part of Adobe's earnings...is not a surprise.  I would be interested in seeing the specific breakout of usage for those just buying Photoshop....not lumped in with those buying suite packages.

It is, after all, an analogy.  When the inventory runs out, saw musicians, like photographers, will have to learn to perform with a new set of tools.  BTW Adobe has, as set forth above, described it's software as an "Illustrator's" package.

I should point out that I become timorous before courageously anonymous posters, so don't feel offended if I ignore some comments in the future.

Ken Richmond


« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 06:22:53 PM by Ken Richmond » Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #67 on: June 06, 2013, 03:58:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I just don't think photographers, myself humbly included, are looking at this thoughtfully enough.  If, as in the past, Adobe is required to divest something in order to get the total control it wants, what should that be?

Ken Richmond

Ken, would you care to elaborate and expand on that comment and question?
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #68 on: June 06, 2013, 05:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Ken, would you care to elaborate and expand on that comment and question?

Well, many photographers would accept the subscription if they could bail out with a usable current installation left on their computer.  Undoubtedly the cost of subscriptions is trivial to some, and organically offensive to others, but not one post in the past five weeks in this or in other forums referenced Adobe's "cloud" distinctively and how, as a photographer, that concept impacts them.  Nor has anyone articulated a "right" to which a remedy can respond.  Well, there are rights involved here - principally, the right not to be injured by the destruction or elimination of competitive forces that reduce innovation.

As Photographers we are stuck with a dismaying history that officially authorized Adobe's total dominance of the Professional Illustration Software market because no one in 1996 could provide evidence of an "injury".  Courts and the FTC do not permit witnesses to bring their crystal balls up to the stand.  Just as was true then, Photographers cannot today "imagine" an injury that has not occurred.  It's clear that most here "feel" an injury, but they just can't describe it.

Unless compelled to divest, Adobe will have all Photographers in the "Cloud" as the Camera technology changes and is adopted.   Camera manufacturers are not going to provide competent selection tools and layer/masking/smart object/rastering software, so if you want or need to change your photograph, that's where it will have to be processed.  There cannot be any doubt about that.  It's Adobe's NEXT BIG THING.

Ken Richmond

 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 06:57:27 AM by Ken Richmond » Logged

ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


« Reply #69 on: June 06, 2013, 06:03:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, many photographers would accept the subscription if they could bail out with a usable current installation left on their computer.  Undoubtedly the cost of subscriptions is trivial to some, and organically offensive to others, but not one post in the past five weeks in this or in other forums referenced Adobe's "cloud" distinctively and how, as a photographer, that concept impacts them.  Nor has anyone articulated a "right" to which a remedy can respond.  Well, there are rights involved here - principally, the right not to be injured by the destruction or elimination of competitive forces that reduce innovation.

As Photographers we are stuck with an dismaying history that officially authorized Adobe's total dominance of the Professional Illustration Software market because no one in 1996 could provide evidence of an "injury".  Courts and the FTC do not permit witnesses to bring their crystal balls up to the stand.  Just as was true then, Photographers cannot today "imagine" an injury that has not occurred.  It's clear that most here "feel" an injury, but they just can't describe it.

Unless compelled to divest, Adobe will have all Photographers in the "Cloud" as the Camera technology changes and is adopted.   Camera manufacturers are not going to provide competent selection tools and layer/masking/smart object/rastering software, so if you want or need to change your photograph, that's where it will have to be processed.  There cannot be any doubt about that.  It's Adobe's NEXT BIG THING.

Ken Richmond


So ... are you saying that if a photographer could show a legitimate "injury" ... the FTC could possibly compel Adobe to offer a more acceptable licensing model? If so, I find that intriguing ...

However, I am of the mind set that the free enterprise system will kick in gear and other developers will offer up an alternative designed and "intended" for photographers. The main reason we haven't seen a bona fide contender before now ... is most photographers who use Photoshop felt quite content and secure using Adobe software ... so much so, that a new option would have to struggle mightily to even secure a modest share of the market. Thus no one seemed to venture forth in a meaningful manner to compete with Adobe.

For me, I would rather bide my time and see what transpires with other possible options than to wait and see if an outside entity forces Adobe to do differently than the path they have chosen. I would rather gamble on someone who is hungry to prove themselves than support a large corporation who already has shown contempt for their customers.
Logged
Ken Richmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 06, 2013, 06:12:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe's venemous software acquisition history is instructive.  Adobe's in-house developers and stringers are under covenants not to compete, and it will hire away talent, just as it always has.  This is the problem with unregulated monopolies.

Ken Richmond
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890


« Reply #71 on: June 06, 2013, 07:20:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe's in-house developers and stringers are under covenants not to compete, and it will hire away talent, just as it always has.

Note, in this Adobe are no different than any other software company.
Logged
yaredna
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #72 on: June 08, 2013, 07:59:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why you skipped two major elements:

. It costs 2x to 4x higher, depending on your past frequency of upgrades

. You are forced to pay for the upgrades, whether you need those or not. There is no incentive for Adobe to push themselves and offer meaningful new features, since you haveto pay your monthly due no matter what


It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".

Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7. There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.

For this exercise the bought versions of the bundle or PS I'll refer to as CS-N and the possible future "Creative Cloud" versions as CS-CC.

The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.

1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.

2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.

3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".

4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.

5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.



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

Ad
Ad
Ad