Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Power to the People!!, Adobe Eat this!  (Read 8420 times)
JV
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542


« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2013, 01:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Very bad move from Adobe in my opinion.

A lot of professional shooters will see this a good deal but it will alienate most enthusiasts and they will start looking for alternatives.

Logged
Jim Sanderson
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2013, 02:33:37 PM »
ReplyReply

For this price I think it's strange if you still think that adobe is dong something bad.
It's the best imaging software at the moment, everyone wants it but a lot of people were never able to afford it, now you have Lightroom and photoshop for the price of 2 Starbucks coffees a month. Come on.

Quite. This new pricing is about half the price I paid for the perpetual license for PS(X) Extended when averaged out on a monthly basis over the last 8 or 9 years. 
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2013, 03:28:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I know a couple of people who are suddenly interested in Aperture, and one of them is a Windows user, so he's planning a wholesale computing change around. Well done Adobe

Yeh...I want to crawl into bed with Apple. They won't screw you.
Logged
chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2013, 03:32:19 PM »
ReplyReply

There is just one thing that really sets off my alarm bells. The limited time offer combined with the promise this is the price and will continue to be so. If that is the case than why make it a limited time offer??? It feels like those people ringing my doorbell with that great offer of an energy company that I have to sign now or the offer is out of the door. Only to find I have been totally screwed at a later stage.

I guess I really do not trust Adobe any longer...

Show me anything that will guarantee today's price forever. To think so is truly naive.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8579



WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2013, 03:34:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Show me anything that will guarantee today's price forever. To think so is truly naive.
You can say that about any product or service.
Logged

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

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #25 on: September 06, 2013, 03:51:10 PM »
ReplyReply

It includes a perpetual licence for Lr
Apparently not according to the Adobe rep in another thread here. He's saying it's a CC licence, NOT a perpetual licence.
IF so, that could skew the value of the deal a lot.
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 06, 2013, 03:53:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, $10 per month is a decent price and all is right in the world, for now. You subscribe, it's affordable, and you can always fallback to your perpetually licensed copy of CS6 if Adobe jacks up the price unreasonably or does some other unreasonable thing with CC. Great! But if you think a few years further down the road, to a time when CS6 doesn't function on current operating systems, things are not so great. Without a fallback or graceful exit strategy you use whatever Adobe produces and pay whatever they want or the software stops working in short order and you have no way to work with the files you have generated. There isn't a company on earth that wouldn't exploit a situation like that, and it's exactly what Adobe is setting up. It's the same mechanism they're using, now along with a low entry price, to pull everyone possible into this scheme.

IMO the issue here has had little to do with the price of entry and a lot to do with becoming entrapped. Adobe has made the entrance ever so enticing but the only exit is a jump from a second story window. I'd bet someone at Adobe is already calculated how high the price can go before people start jumping.

My instincts tell me it's better to find alternatives now, while there's no pressure and a good fallback (CS6) exists. But, being not so young and not so poor makes me want to just drink the cool-aide, avoid the hassle, and get back to making pictures.
Logged

- Dean
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8579



WWW
« Reply #27 on: September 06, 2013, 04:01:00 PM »
ReplyReply

But if you think a few years further down the road, to a time when CS6 doesn't function on current operating systems, things are not so great.

Don't upgrade the hardware (or upgrade Photoshop). No one is putting a gun to your head. I have an old Mac G5 around just to run color management software that cost nearly 5X what Photoshop does because I still need it, the software can't run on Intel Mac's. Who's fault is that? What's wrong with that solution?

Quote
Without a fallback or graceful exit strategy you use whatever Adobe produces and pay whatever they want or the software stops working in short order and you have no way to work with the files you have generated.

By your own doing.

Quote
There isn't a company on earth that wouldn't exploit a situation like that, and it's exactly what Adobe is setting up. It's the same mechanism they're using, now along with a low entry price, to pull everyone possible into this scheme.
So they are bad guys by providing a product you wish to use at a good price?

Quote
IMO the issue here has had little to do with the price of entry and a lot to do with becoming entrapped.

Again by your own doing. FWIW, I have a copy of Photoshop 1.0.7 but I can't run it on any modern Mac. I'm at fault for giving up my old Mac II Ci, not Adobe. Not that I have any desire to run Photoshop 1.0.7 (or Photoshop 3 etc).

Quote
My instincts tell me it's better to find alternatives now, while there's no pressure and a good fallback (CS6) exists.
Do it. That's your choice. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with sticking with Adobe products and paying to do so. No one is forcing either path on you!

The only thing that's changed here is the subscription model. Outdated hardware, the ability or inability to upgrade hasn't changed one bit.
Logged

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

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 06, 2013, 05:24:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm pretty much in agreement with the several comments that Andrew made.  I pay $7.95/mo for Netflicks so I can stream movies and television shows that I might have missed to my TV.  I don't think twice about this except to realize that once I stop paying, I don't have access to any shows/movies any more.  I'm happy with having my LR license right now as I do most all of my work in it and I do have PS6.  If I was regularly selling prints the CC makes sense because it's a tax write off as a business expense (and I have no doubt that a lot of forum members do exactly that).  None of us know the Adobe sales figures and maybe $10/month (rounding up) is the perfect price point that Adobe came up with to keep the amateur photography market happy.  It's still pretty cheap given the cost of hardware (computers, cameras, lenses, tripods, and other auxiliary equipment).
Logged

chez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


« Reply #29 on: September 06, 2013, 05:33:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm pretty much in agreement with the several comments that Andrew made.  I pay $7.95/mo for Netflicks so I can stream movies and television shows that I might have missed to my TV.  I don't think twice about this except to realize that once I stop paying, I don't have access to any shows/movies any more.  I'm happy with having my LR license right now as I do most all of my work in it and I do have PS6.  If I was regularly selling prints the CC makes sense because it's a tax write off as a business expense (and I have no doubt that a lot of forum members do exactly that).  None of us know the Adobe sales figures and maybe $10/month (rounding up) is the perfect price point that Adobe came up with to keep the amateur photography market happy.  It's still pretty cheap given the cost of hardware (computers, cameras, lenses, tripods, and other auxiliary equipment).

Yeh, we rent a bunch of stuff and after we stop paying, we have nothing to show for it. My TV and ethernet combined are easily over $100 / month. Renting PS / LR for $10 / month seems quite reasonable compared to my other rentals. On top of that, I have something out of my PS rental...many beautiful prints that I make money off selling.
Logged
Manoli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 485


« Reply #30 on: September 06, 2013, 07:13:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Apparently not according to the Adobe rep in another thread here. He's saying it's a CC licence, NOT a perpetual licence.
IF so, that could skew the value of the deal a lot.

Seems to be a confusion which needs to be clarified.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=80687.msg661340#msg661340
Logged
Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1142



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 06, 2013, 08:17:47 PM »
ReplyReply

You want to future proof those nondestructive xmp edits for all those thousands of Raws you've captured throughout the years, you'ld better keep track of which ones were rendered with or without CC subscription Adobe software if you decide to end the subscription years down the road.

It'll get kinda' confusing on backups made years prior.

The major benefit told to many of us from the start for shooting Raw and processing with Adobe's nondestructive method was to allow the photographer to take advantage of improvements to display and processing technology in the future in order to pull more data out of those old Raw captures.

Of course the user can always decide to re-up after a hiatus on their CC subscription and have the software turned back on in order to take advantage of the image processing technologies, but it might get a bit confusing managing this option on thousands of images backed up on hard drives, some rendered with perpetual license software and some with CC subscription and using older software for both payment plans.

Guess it's not that big of a problem, right? Our images make us all slaves to our computers anyway.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1051


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 06, 2013, 08:25:22 PM »
ReplyReply

The only issue I have with any of this is the 10 bucks a month, or even 20, it's the perpetual upgrade when you move to a new camera.  You buy a new camera and past versions of lightroom, PS or C-1 won't process the file, so you move to let's say lightroom 5, but it only works in mountain lion and you then buy mountain lion, but your present hardware really is optimized for it and 4 other apps have to be re purchased or updated.

Now that to me is wrong, when I buy an 16 mpx camera, but need to upgrade three items just to process.

IMO

BC
Logged

Tim Lookingbill
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1142



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 06, 2013, 08:31:25 PM »
ReplyReply

The only issue I have with any of this is the 10 bucks a month, or even 20, it's the perpetual upgrade when you move to a new camera.  You buy a new camera and past versions of lightroom, PS or C-1 won't process the file, so you move to let's say lightroom 5, but it only works in mountain lion and you then buy mountain lion, but your present hardware really is optimized for it and 4 other apps have to be re purchased or updated.

Now that to me is wrong, when I buy an 16 mpx camera, but need to upgrade three items just to process.

IMO

BC

You made me have to pick up my marbles on that angle BC. Hadn't thought of that one.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 06, 2013, 08:36:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Now that to me is wrong, when I buy an 16 mpx camera, but need to upgrade three items just to process.

And the root problem there is that the camera makers still refuse to have a raw file format standard. Every new camera forces all the software developers to decode the new raw file format and update their software. On the other hand, if there was a standard (such as DNG) new cameras would be supported in older software. Leica is a prime example...and new cameras Leica may produce use DNG as their raw file format and it's file supported in current and older software.

This problem is not one of Adobe's making...blame the camera makers.
Logged
Adam L
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 06, 2013, 08:37:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I am signing up in December.   I believe Adobe will honor this price and that it easily increases to 3x in 3 years for new subscribers.   Mobile computing is just starting.  Big Data is in it's infancy too.  The computing world will look much different in ten years.  I predict a RIP desktop...which is still my preferred platform today.  
Logged

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

Posts: 1142



WWW
« Reply #36 on: September 06, 2013, 08:52:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I am signing up in December.   I believe Adobe will honor this price and that it easily increases to 3x in 3 years for new subscribers.   Mobile computing is just starting.  Big Data is in it's infancy too.  The computing world will look much different in ten years.  I predict a RIP desktop...which is still my preferred platform today.  

With PC sales down and no certainty for that to change, I'ld hate to think we'll all be editing on mobile devices with touch screens the size of a lunchbox decades down the road. Or heaven forbid we're left with editing on Google Glasses with SSD hard drives the size of a fingernail.

Makes CC subscription less problematic. It's the only way to look on the bright side...look for something worse to worry about.
Logged
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 06, 2013, 09:06:18 PM »
ReplyReply

In reply to various:

I see Adobe's subscription model as being a bit different from a Netflix subscription or Internet service. When Netflix stops working you lose nothing but the ability to watch Netflix movies in the future. Because Netflix isn't used to create anything, you don't lose access to anything you created before it stopped working. In the CC scenario, the time invested in creating files while CS and CC were operational is lost, at least until you can migrate to something else, when CC stops working, not just the ability to create new files. It's that previously invested time, and the pain of migrating, that gives Adobe so much more leverage. If not for that none of this would be an issue.

There's nothing wrong with keeping old hardware around to run old programs. That can easily become a hardware and software maintenance nightmare so I wouldn't be anxious to do it.

Adobe software is great and the current price is good. Using that to get customers into a pay as you go situation that's difficult to get out of by virtue of their investment of time spent creating proprietary files is good business. I wouldn't expect the price to stay nearly this low for very long because the situation obviously allows for significant future price increases with maximal customer retention. The more proprietary files customers generate the more they'll pay before enduring the pain of going elsewhere. From a marketing perspective that's what subscription systems tied to proprietary anything are designed to do. Adobe isn't the first to implement a similar marketing strategy, but I suspect they're the largest so far. From a corporate perspective what's not to like?

I completely agree that "The only thing that's changed here is the subscription model. Outdated hardware, the ability or inability to upgrade hasn't changed one bit". It's the subscription model that makes all the difference in the world. With any perpetual license model there's always a buffer allowing significant time (years) to do whatever you want to do. It's the relatively immediate loss of service when a customer stops their perpetual payments that causes the problem. That's also what causes the customer willingness to pay to avoid that problem.

Adobe can do anything they want with their products, including channeling customers into this perpetual payment system. It's their prerogative. Customers are also certainly free to do whatever they want. There's no right or wrong choice, but at least for me there seems no "good" choice, sort of like a political election.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 09:09:37 PM by DeanChriss » Logged

- Dean
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8579



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 06, 2013, 10:14:59 PM »
ReplyReply

When Netflix stops working you lose nothing but the ability to watch Netflix movies in the future. Because Netflix isn't used to create anything, you don't lose access to anything you created before it stopped working.
Nor do you with Photoshop. Save a TIFF, even a layered TIFF. All kinds of image editors that will access that data. When CC stops working, your files can be accessed but not necessarily re-edited but that's quite different from saying you don't have access to the data. And when CC stops, the TIFF, layered or now can't be opened in Quicken or Excel. Just as when Excel stops, don't expect to open it's proprietary data in CC.

The only people who cut themselves off from access to their images are those that are not forward thinking or dumb enough to stop paying for CC and expect something else to provide the identical functionality.

Oh, you want to continue to use proprietary Adobe process on those layers but not pay? That's never been possible. Either with Adobe or other's products. The idea that once you stop subscribing to Photoshop your files disappear or become unusable is hogwash.

Quote
when CC stops working, not just the ability to create new files
That's true for any software product. Or any product for that mater.
Logged

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

Posts: 8579



WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 06, 2013, 10:19:56 PM »
ReplyReply

The only issue I have with any of this is the 10 bucks a month, or even 20, it's the perpetual upgrade when you move to a new camera.

Not if you save a JPEG <g>. Really, how is it Adobe's fault that the manufacturer builds a new, proprietary raw file for every camera? Yet if the camera saves an openly supported file format, TIFF or JPEG, no issue. The blame should be placed on the people who move the goal posts every time they create a new camera. It's totally unnecessary and if fact, the majority of cameras do have the ability to save off a file one could open in a version of Photoshop that's 20 years old. They could do the same with their raw data but choose not to. They are the bad guys in this respect.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad