Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NYT Article (not that I agree 100%)  (Read 4688 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« on: July 04, 2013, 12:39:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Generally, DAVID POGUE from the NYT gets thing pretty correct (there are a couple of issues I had with his article which I'll email him about) but it's interesting to get the big city view of Photoshop CC. Software as a Monthly Rental (note: requires NYTs registration).

David doesn't really talk about the difficulties of maintaining both a subscription and perpetual license model at the same time (which I think we've discussed enough).
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2013, 01:51:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Generally, DAVID POGUE from the NYT gets thing pretty correct (there are a couple of issues I had with his article which I'll email him about) but it's interesting to get the big city view of Photoshop CC. Software as a Monthly Rental (note: requires NYTs registration).

David doesn't really talk about the difficulties of maintaining both a subscription and perpetual license model at the same time (which I think we've discussed enough).

Great article (I could access without registering), thanks for sharing. I would say that he shares 100% of our concerns.

Since I doubt he is photography centric in his analysis, it does mean that these concerns are far from being limited to photographers, as we knew all along.

As a side note, he also seems to think that it used to be possible to buy photoshop.  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2013, 03:05:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Great article (I could access without registering), thanks for sharing. I would say that he shares 100% of our concerns.

The NYT usually requires registration before reading articles–it depends a lot on the original url that directs to the article (it seems that the url I gave doesn't require registering).

I have a couple of issues with David's article...first off, he states the price for "renting' Photoshop CC as $30/month...that's the price if you've never bought Photoshop before. The price to upgrade to Photoshop CC is $19.95/month for upgrades (he says $30/month which is $360 not $240/year as he says). He also fails to mention (the apparently USA only upgrade price) of $9.95/month upgrade price.

David doesn't really get into the issues of perpetual vs subscription licenses...(that's the part I'm going to mention to him). So, his story is simplistic at best...but he does mention the complexity of the licensing programs–something that I've always thought Adobe was poor at explaining.

While some people seem to like to paint me as an Adobe Evangelist or an Adobe Apologist (or some sort of Adobe evil agent), I'm really not...I think it's useful to know the real story and the real facts. David is a well known journalist so I thought it would be interesting to see what he thinks–and I don't think he's 100% correct. Nor do I think the full story has yet been written...not yet anyway.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2013, 03:07:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Nor do I think the full story has yet been written...not yet anyway.

Any move from Adobe to close the gap between the current status and the expectation of users like myself will be most welcome.  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 311


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2013, 03:50:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Great article (I could access without registering), thanks for sharing. I would say that he shares 100% of our concerns.

Since I doubt he is photography centric in his analysis, it does mean that these concerns are far from being limited to photographers, as we knew all along.

As a side note, he also seems to think that it used to be possible to buy photoshop.  Wink

Cheers,
Bernard


Not exactly "buy Photoshop". Rather, it is buy a license to use Photoshop.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2662



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2013, 04:18:06 AM »
ReplyReply

David doesn't really get into the issues of perpetual vs subscription licenses...(that's the part I'm going to mention to him). So, his story is simplistic at best...but he does mention the complexity of the licensing programs–something that I've always thought Adobe was poor at explaining.
I feel David was right to point to the complexity of the pricing and doubt Adobe could explain it much better. In their CC/single app split they have (so far) avoided the huge temptation to indulge in the kind price obfuscation that's so typical of subscription services. But doesn't the complexity result from the changeover and previous customers having a range of upgrade expectations? And how - or why - would Adobe clarify that the introductory discount for upgraders is actually a price rise? They just can't give a simple message like "over x years you'll be paying no more than if you'd continued upgrading". Maybe I'd let Pogue be, or do you now have a burning desire to explain revenue recognition to him? Wink

John
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2013, 04:30:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe I'd let Pogue be, or do you now have a burning desire to explain revenue recognition to him? Wink

Oh, I have a burning desire to set a NYT author straight, you bet! Understanding the full situation is something that I think users and journalists need to understand. Otherwise, it presumes understanding from a position of ignorance. I'm pretty sure David doesn't want to be presumed ignorant (in fact, I know for a fact he doesn't). He's a smart guy...heck, he writes for the NY Times! He's a bright boy too...
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2662



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2013, 04:52:02 AM »
ReplyReply

IIRC the NYT allows anyone to read 20 articles a month without registering.
Logged

PhotoEcosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562



« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2013, 05:31:11 AM »
ReplyReply

...or maybe the URL Jeff gave takes us in via his personal registration and, if we leave obscene comments, they will be attributed to him!

 Embarrassed
Logged

************************************
"Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol."
Alternatively, "Life begins at the far end of your comfort zone."
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2013, 05:54:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Huh? What exactly are you smoking dooode?

Care to share?
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2013, 06:16:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Generally, DAVID POGUE from the NYT gets thing pretty correct (there are a couple of issues I had with his article which I'll email him about) but it's interesting to get the big city view of Photoshop CC. Software as a Monthly Rental (note: requires NYTs registration).

David doesn't really talk about the difficulties of maintaining both a subscription and perpetual license model at the same time (which I think we've discussed enough).

An interesting article--thanks for sharing. David reports that PS was updated yearly rather than about every 18 months, which affects his analysis of costs of updating to new versions in the old system. He also implies that the resizing algorithms--both uprezzisng and downrezzing--have been substantially improved. These algorithms have previously been criticized by many as suboptimal. Is there really a substantial difference in PSCC?

Bill
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2013, 06:26:44 AM »
ReplyReply

IIRC the NYT allows anyone to read 20 articles a month without registering.

Even with such a restriction, often that won't apply to visitors who come from an external link. 

I'm not a fan of Pogue's writing.  I find his scribblings to be, generally, superficial and incomplete.  Based on what Julieanne Kost says about ACR as a filter, Pogue is incorrect about all the functions of ACR being available.  Combine that with the other errors in the piece and this is typical Pogue.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2662



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2013, 07:13:08 AM »
ReplyReply

An interesting article--thanks for sharing. David reports that PS was updated yearly rather than about every 18 months, which affects his analysis of costs of updating to new versions in the old system.
His assessment of upgrading vs subscription costs are fundamentally correct. He's just a bit loose with the word "year" rather than "version".

If you upgrade PS every 18 months, your cash spend is less for 3 years, after which it's in Adobe's favour. After 6 years they're 25% ahead of where they would have been if they'd let you continue upgrading.

John

PS not sure how well this will work in your browser, but I've shared my £ numbers here
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 07:20:05 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1147



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2013, 09:44:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you upgrade PS every 18 months, your cash spend is less for 3 years, after which it's in Adobe's favour. After 6 years they're 25% ahead of where they would have been if they'd let you continue upgrading.

Of course not factoring in the fact that "constantly improving software" (as Pogue put it) requires constantly improving hardware to run it. Pogue forgot to include that cost consideration when calculating annual expenditures renting software.

Typical case scenario would be someone renting a package deal (InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop & Premiere) and keeping up with subscriptions as each feature is added to one, two or all and finding certain features won't work on one, two or all because it requires OS/hardware updates/upgrades. Then that annual cost expenditure requires more accurate methods of calculation or else no upgrades, no features but the monthly subscription stays the same.

OK, now how much does it cost per year? I've confused myself and lost track.

A correction...Pogue does say this...

Quote
It requires a high-horsepower, newish computer (Mac OS X 10.7 or Windows 7 and later), but it opens faster than before.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 09:49:47 AM by Tim Lookingbill » Logged
Rick Popham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2013, 10:11:05 AM »
ReplyReply


I have a couple of issues with David's article...first off, he states the price for "renting' Photoshop CC as $30/month...that's the price if you've never bought Photoshop before. The price to upgrade to Photoshop CC is $19.95/month for upgrades (he says $30/month which is $360 not $240/year as he says). He also fails to mention (the apparently USA only upgrade price) of $9.95/month upgrade price.


Aside from not mentioning the $9.95/month upgrade price (from CS3 version up), I think David is pretty accurate about the pricing.  It is $30/month (if you only want to rent it for a month).  If you make a one year commitment, it's $20/month ($240/year).  

Other than that special 1st year pricing for users of PS CS3 and above, which expires at the end of the month, there is no "upgrade" to PS CC.  After July 31, even as a user of Photoshop CS6, I would have to pay the same price for PS CC as someone who had never "owned" a version.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 10:14:58 AM by Rick Popham » Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 173


« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2013, 10:40:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I think this paragraph from the referenced article sums up my concerns about the CC licensing model:

"But let’s face it: most professionals think they need Photoshop. So Adobe’s incentive to keep improving these programs isn’t exactly life or death. Nobody knows what improvements Adobe plans to add, how many, how often, or what the subscription rates will be next year or the year after that. Adobe is just saying, “Trust us.”

While Pogue didn't list the complexities of the pricing structures and short term discounts for perpetual license holders, I don't think he is misleading his readers by doing so. He did mention the discounts, but not in detail. Though, I think it might have been a more thorough job if had included those details specifically.

I don't necessarily find a software subscription model to be a bad deal per se ... I do think that there could have been a more equitable solution that would have removed a lot of concerns that many users have expressed over the past two months. I also think the Adobe marketing department dropped the ball in a big way in presenting CC to their current customers. It would have only taken a few minor tweaks which could have gone a long way in avoiding the outcry of the past two months.

Jeff, while I don't consider you a an "Adobe Evangelist" in the truest sense ... Neither am I an Adobe "hater" ... While I have strong opinions about CC, most of them negative ... I can separate my opinion from emotion. I dislike the policy and the CC only offering very much ... I do not hate anyone affiliated with Adobe. I don't know anyone involved well enough to have an emotional attachment ... either positive or negative. It's just as concerning to be unjustly labeled as a hater as it is to be labeled an evangelist or apologist ... Reasonable people can disagree on the issues and should not have to face unfair accusations because they speak their minds ... reminds me of the famous reference ... "So at what point did you stop beating your wife Mr. Smith? ..."
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2013, 04:02:05 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting article--thanks for sharing. David reports that PS was updated yearly rather than about every 18 months, which affects his analysis of costs of updating to new versions in the old system. He also implies that the resizing algorithms--both uprezzisng and downrezzing--have been substantially improved. These algorithms have previously been criticized by many as suboptimal. Is there really a substantial difference in PSCC?

He was just trying to find something positive, wasn't he?  Wink

Now, had Adobe not gone the CC route, these enhancements would have been made available in the same timing in the CS7 version. So any functional improvement present in CC should not - at least in this first iteration - be seen as a proof of the value of the subscription model.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Jeff Phillips
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2013, 09:30:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting follow up by Mr Pogue:  http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/
Logged

FMueller
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2013, 11:15:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Sigh. The Adobe subscription program is not evil.

What gripes anyone may have seem to boil down to pricing and the market will send them clear signals as soon as they have expired the intro pricing.

Mr. Pogue understands the ins and outs of the Adobe software and pricing issues about as well as he understands cameras, which is pretty good (at least from a consumer perspective), but usually not better than the average forum participant here.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5418


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2013, 11:52:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Mr. Pogue understands the ins and outs of the Adobe software and pricing issues about as well as he understands cameras, which is pretty good (at least from a consumer perspective), but usually not better than the average forum participant here.

Ironic that Mr. Pogue got lambasted for apparently not being anti-Adobe enough. Sound familiar? It seems that anybody who doesn't demand the blood of Adobe CEO running in the streets of San Jose is the enemy...

It's irrational...and many in the media have flamed the fires...while I thought David got some stuff wrong in the article it certainly wasn't a whitewash. But to the one commentator, who said: "Does Adobe actually pay you for mindlessly reprinting their press releases and calling it “news”?" it smacks of a total irrational meltdown...

I mean, really, Photoshop is just software...it's main user base are pros...yes, it's a sea change in terms of licensing models, but it ain't the end of the world as we know it...there are alternatives...CS6 will work for years...Photoshop CC offers some incremental upgrades but is expected to get further upgrades over the years–hopefully useful.

But this an't an evil plot by Adobe to take over the world and create a horde of minions that pay out money just to keep their work from being held hostage...

Yes, Adobe screwed up the CC announcement...yes, Adobe failed to fully explain users' options...yes, the whole "Cloud" thing is bullshit...it all started with the creative suites where users got hooked on getting more for less money. Of course, there was a backlash back then when users found out that upgrading to a suite product for a "deal" meant they gave up on their point product licenses...anybody else but me remember the whining when users found out they had to upgrade the entire suite rather than just Photoshop?

Photoshop is a tool...it's a tool to do digital imaging...it's not a civic right. It's not like Adobe is refusing to let you use Photoshop. They're just changing the terms of that use. If you don't like that, vote with your wallets...singing a petition ain't gonna get the results that the petitioners are hoping for.

I've been using the subscription model since Photoshop CS5.5. It works...it's ok...for CS6 I got the entire master collection-it allows me to get the most recent versions of Illustrator and InDesign and Dreamweaver (ironically, for my books I always have to save with backwards compatibility set for previous version because, well, my publisher's designers never seem to be working with the most recent versions :~(
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad