Absolutely HATE the idea of renting software PERIOD. If I absolutely have to, I might have to consider it, but not if Adobe is not willing to cap annual increases at either a fixed $ amount or at a specific %. From what I was able to find in Adobe's website they only seem to be committing to not increasing rental fees for the 1st year but only if you "subscribe" for a year (gee thanks Adobe!! -- did they think they could anyways) and not even committing to that if you are doing a month to month subscription (for their crazy high prices).
Have I missed something?! Unless I did miss something, how have people been insane enough to "trade in" their perpetual licenses for a "discount" for cc?
How many traded in their single application license for Photoshop for the discounted Suite, only to be surprised as hell with the new six hundred dollar upgrade fee? According to Adobe, more than half a million have switched to their cloud service in the last year. So, apparently there's a lot of insanity out there. More to come.
Peter Figen wrote:
How many traded in their single application license for Photoshop for the discounted Suite, only to be surprised as hell with the new six hundred dollar upgrade fee?
Yeah at my school they didn't have certain individual programs kept in stock at the Adobe store and they had all sorts of posters talking how the suite was the way to go and the best deal and they charged like only $15 bucks more for partial suites than individual application licenses so rather than waiting for stuff to ship I just nabbed the suite. I really only needed one program in it (InDesign, since I already had photoshop from another package) but figured what the heck, get it right away, maybe peek at some of the other programs (which I never did end up making use of).
Then I went to upgrade an individual program from the suite and got a bit of a surprise that the serial # wouldn't work. Then i was like OK so you can't do that, fine I will just turn the suite license in and give up rights to the whole thing and trade down to an individual license and they were NO?! They gave every excuse under the sun and some basically laughed at me for getting trapped into their suite (especially the highest tier guys). The lowest level CS guys often said they agreed it was a terrible policy and they felt bad and believe the company wasn't being run in a way that respected their customers and they said they all tried to talk to management about so many things but would never get listened too.
Anyway they never gave in and I couldn't sell it either because it started out as academic. I even paid full non-academic upgrade prices (a TON of money) to convert it to full street versions but then they blocked the license transfer after I tried to sell it (to get out of the damn suite) because they said that years ago it had once started out as academic even though it had been long paid for with full retail upgrades.
I very much got the sense that the company considered the customer their biggest foe.
There was a huge backlash to that policy as well, and for a short time Adobe relented and let people upgrade single apps out of the suite, but that didn't last long. As long as you used at least three apps out of the suite, it was a good deal, but for many, it just seemed like a good deal at the time.
After trying CC, I have convinced myself that there are no substantive improvements in PS for me vs CS5. And I am not using the extra apps (that were not part of design suite) enough for the non-introductory price to be even close to a good deal. So whatever price changes happen to the "regular" $50 price are immaterial (to me) since I plan to end my subscription when the intro price ends.
BTW, it really isnt a trade in. I have CS5 standalone that I can still run after I cancel CC. I will stick with an older MacOS if needed so that I can run CS5 until I find replacement apps that I am willing to migrate to.
That is an interesting point about education pricing... I'm at a College and as bad a deal as CC seems to be for the general public I think it might be worse still for Education. Institutionally we can get CS6 PS for under $200 and the suite for under $350. Most of our users keep their copies for 3 years on average I would guess (many longer). Using the CC model I see nothing but huge cost increases for pretty much everyone.
Shocking, or completely predictable, but I still have not seen ANY comment from Adobe regarding a cap of annual increases (in either the form of percentages or a hard amount). Anyone seen anything to the effect.
How is anyone willing to go into a deal like this... sort of like converting your car to only running on Exxon gasoline, while Exxon is not willing to make any sort of commitment regarding prices, no?
Same here. Ps CS6 it is, for a long time to come. Hopefully the uninformed / ignorant CC subscribers will soon see the error of their ways and see how they've boxed themselves into a corner like an Adobe rat. Here kitty, kitty...
I picked up a copy of PS CS6 and will milk it until hell freezes over before signing up for CC. My great hope is that small independent SW developers will cut Adobe off at the knees in the next year or so. I've been very surprise at how good apps like Pixelmator (Mac only?) are at doing 85% of what I use PS for... and it costs a WHOPPING $15 from the app store, no not monthly, for EVER. If they have enough sales can they get to 98% functionality for say $39.95? I'm inclined to thing that this might have a better than 50% of coming to pass. For PC users Corel Photo is in a pretty similar "space".
In the meantime there are already HDR and panoramic stitching software that is better that PS CS6 for free and MUCH, MUCH BETTER for a fraction of what PS costs.
mcbane wrote:
After trying CC, I have convinced myself that there are no substantive improvements in PS for me vs CS5.
The CC version is still (basically) CS6 at this point so that's not surprising. CC updates don't hit until early next month. If you're looking specifically for some killer announced feature, they're not there yet. CC's features should become more appealing when it actually gets its first batch of CC-exclusive features.
Won't change the fact that Shantanu Narayen hates his customers, though.
I'll rant a bit too...........have been a user of CS5 exteneded and it is all I'll ever need for photo processing, I am not a designer or graphics artist but PS gives me what I want for photo work.
Now, I purchased a new Canon 6D and guess what, CS5 does not support it and won't so I contacted via Chat Adobe last night...............Must get CS6 extended or go to Creative Cloud. My wife is a teacher, introductory for CC is $20/mo but goes to $30/mo after a year so in two years I will have paid out $600! My cost on CS6 software at Scholastic price is $349 but then it will dead end at some point for good.
I'd be inclined to pay as 'Plug-Ins' such things as Camera RAW updates or add on features that 'I' really want or need. This is like the big Cable TV companies forcing you into packages with content that you don't want or need or never ever will even view a channel of!
Sorry, guess there is no loyalty to previous users, greed is a bad thing.
Karl
Update: Just had another Chat with Adobe, absolutely brainwashed 'Viola' could do nothing but in such a rehearsed way tell me how great the Cloud is and that ALL the customers are going to the Cloud! I informed her that NO NOT all customers are doing so I am in sales and I have never seen such a silly staged presentation to 'invest' in a product, it was embarrassing to 'Chat' through Actually unprofessional IMHO
For those that want to stick to Adobe....keeping to the latest LR plus whatever CS version one uses will serve for years to come by the looks of it......and Adobe does have a problem in that 3rd party providers are producing some very good complementary software now...and it is in these companies interest to ensure as many none Adobe packages (e.g. Painter) can use their software as well.
I would have thought, also, that it is in the interests of camera manufacturers to finally adopt a standard RAW format (DNG) or at least programe their newer products to give users the choice of RAW output. Otherwise the time will come when potential buyers are not purchasing newer bodies because they won't work with their none rental version of CS.
It appears that most of their products have matured and they are out of ideas for major feature improvements.
From here on it's only tiny increments and small tweaks that most people wouldn't bother upgrading for.
The only way they (think they) can sustain the company is by making you pay monthly to keep the features you actually use with the carrot of some mythical new features as soon as they have them ready.
Really, Anthony? You think it is in the camera manufacturer's interest, or our own interest, to adopt as a standard RAW format the [ADOBE OWNED] DNG format? [emphasis intended].
It is because ADOBE owns DNG that I do not convert my proprietary RAW files to that format for future flexibility.
Karl Witt wrote:
I'll rant a bit too...........have been a user of CS5 exteneded and it is all I'll ever need for photo processing, I am not a designer or graphics artist but PS gives me what I want for photo work.
Now, I purchased a new Canon 6D and guess what, CS5 does not support it and won't so I contacted via Chat Adobe last night...............Must get CS6 extended or go to Creative Cloud. My wife is a teacher, introductory for CC is $20/mo but goes to $30/mo after a year so in two years I will have paid out $600! My cost on CS6 software at Scholastic price is $349 but then it will dead end at some point for good.
StephenS_CP wrote:
Really, Anthony? You think it is in the camera manufacturer's interest, or our own interest, to adopt as a standard RAW format the [ADOBE OWNED] DNG format? [emphasis intended].
It is because ADOBE owns DNG that I do not convert my proprietary RAW files to that format for future flexibility.
Adobe doesn't own it. Adobe created it, but DNG is a fully documented, well-considered open standard that has been submitted to the ISO.
It may have been submitted to the ISO, but that doesn't mean DNG is free of proprietary constraints. Quoting from Wikipedia:
ISO standards draw attention to this in the foreword with a statement like the following: "Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. ISO and IEC shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights."
If Adobe has relinquished ownership of their DNG contribution to the ISO, or if they offer reasonable terms of use, then all is well. Even then, underlying patent claim by other parties may surface in the future. Think JPEG.
StephenS_CP wrote:
Really, Anthony? You think it is in the camera manufacturer's interest, or our own interest, to adopt as a standard RAW format the [ADOBE OWNED] DNG format? [emphasis intended].
It is because ADOBE owns DNG that I do not convert my proprietary RAW files to that format for future flexibility.
I referred to DNG as it is the closest we have to a universal RAW file format and I understood that Adobe has agreed anyone can adopt it.
However, manufacturers wouldn't have to give up their proprietary format...just include within their software a method to allow the user to save to both formats if needed.
There is a very simple solution here. Adobe needs you, you don't need them. So if no one buys for 6 months to a year, and there revenue drops like a rock, there will be a policy change in short order and a lot of layoffs at Adobe. They'll get the message!
I am in sales and I have never seen such a silly staged presentation to 'invest' in a product, it was embarrassing to 'Chat' through 
Actually unprofessional IMHO