p.5 #1 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
The unfortunate fact is that the cloud-based subscription models are the way of the future for large "enterprise" software. This "new" paradigm allows companies to charge consumers a lot more for using their software. Microsoft is going this way on their Office products, and I see Adobe has followed suit with Photoshop. Basically, they are using their dominant position in the marketplace to bend over us consumers. Because (they think) they can. It also means that these products will be chock-full of DRM (and potentially spyware).
I for one, am not pleased with this at all.
I refused to buy SimCity this time out because you need an always-on connection. At least with Starcraft 2, you can play single player or multiplayer vs computers if you are offline.
Anyway, yeah, prepare yourselves for other software to be "cloud-based subscription" in the near future.
p.5 #3 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
Hmm . . . when I go to buy a car I can either purchase it or lease it. If I purchase it it's mine forever. If I lease it I have the option to either walk away or purchase it at the end of the lease.
Why can't their model be somewhat the same? Make the cloud version cheaper than the perpetual, but if you stop paying you lose your software unless you pay a lot to go perpetual.
Charge me a premium for the perpetual license and less so for the cloud version.
p.5 #4 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
I decided to have a quick look and PS 13.1.2 (the cloud-only update) is already available as a hacked download. This move isn't really going to help Adobe much.
p.5 #5 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
leighton w wrote:
My main issue is that it's just another fee for the "privilege" of using their product. It's just like having to pay Costco for the "privilege" to shop with them (which I refuse to do). Or paying for the "privilege" to visit a national park. Pretty soon there will be a toll both at the end of everyone's driveway to pay for the "privilege" of running to the store that you have to pay....
Er... you have to pay a fee for the "privilege" of using their product. You used to pay a $650 fee all at once. Now it's in installments. I don't like the licensing model, but let's not make this out to be something else.
With the national park comment - all I can say is "huh?" The national parks collect a fee to pay for all of the time and effort and materials to maintain the parks. I guess I can understand the Costco thing - why pay them so you can go pay them more - but really? National park fees, that go to park employees, conservation programs, grant funding and maintenance of the park, are what you find offensive?
I don't want to drift too far off topic, that just seems like an odd place to make a stand, so to speak.
edit: uh. Am I nuts? I just responded to a post that is gone.
p.5 #6 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
leighton w wrote:
My main issue is that it's just another fee for the "privilege" of using their product. It's just like having to pay Costco for the "privilege" to shop with them (which I refuse to do). Or paying for the "privilege" to visit a national park. Pretty soon there will be a toll both at the end of everyone's driveway to pay for the "privilege" of running to the store that you have to pay....
binary visions wrote:
Er... you have to pay a fee for the "privilege" of using their product. You used to pay a $650 fee all at once. Now it's in installments. I don't like the licensing model, but let's not make this out to be something else.
With the national park comment - all I can say is "huh?" The national parks collect a fee to pay for all of the time and effort and materials to maintain the parks. I guess I can understand the Costco thing - why pay them so you can go pay them more - but really? National park fees, that go to park employees, conservation programs, grant funding and maintenance of the park, are what you find offensive?
I don't want to drift too far off topic, that just seems like an odd place to make a stand, so to speak.
edit: uh. Am I nuts? I just responded to a post that is gone. ...Show more →
No, you're not nuts. I deleted it because once I stopped and thought about it, I sounded like I was whining. But I still don't like the idea!
p.5 #8 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
I just took a look at SilkyPix Studio 5 Pro which looks a lot like PS6. Its a vast improvement over the previous versions and may be a viable replacement.
www.silkypix.com
p.5 #9 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
Hackers have been able to get around current CS activation requirements for years. What makes Adobe think they wont do it to CC?
Rental model sucks for lots of individual users. I could see corporate / business teams using some cloud features to nice effect and so the pricing might benefit them, as it is just a running cost.
p.5 #10 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
leighton w wrote:
How about that. I just saw that they're adding this to the CC version.
I must have had a psychic moment.
Thing about all this for me is that my use is not permanent. I have phases I just don't do much with the camera, for months at a time, and those periods aren't predictable. This isn't my only hobby, and it doesn't always require the power of Photoshop. I can see myself moving to a different raw software in the future and moving those files into CS6 as TIFFs, since consumer gizmo features like blur correction don't really interest me. I throw out blurry files and take the next one. They have to come up with something much more interesting for me to want to buy a subscription to their new thing.
For specialty features such as HDR and stacking or lens correction you already can find alternatives, some more powerful that Photoshop, just less convenient as standalone apps.
Softer PC sales and the trend to more and more mobile use by young people will probably solve some of their piracy problem over time, too - the number of people who grow up thinking they don't need more than a smartphone for their computing needs is increasing rapidly, and none of them have any use for applications that run on desktop operating systems. Dell is hurting, and eventually software makers selling to desktops may feel the pinch, too. Perhaps this move to increase revenue is the first sign of that shift.
p.5 #14 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
Well it just goes to show that once you can no longer innovate and have nothing new to offer, you can always resort to gouging the gullible. I guess they took a page from The Steve's book on how to sneakily suck all the money out of people's wallets. $20 a month for life, yea, let's get real Adopey.
p.5 #15 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
Jim Gilley wrote:
Well it just goes to show that once you can no longer innovate and have nothing new to offer, you can always resort to gouging the gullible. I guess they took a page from The Steve's book on how to sneakily suck all the money out of people's wallets. $20 a month for life, yea, let's get real Adopey.
Not sure calling those who disagree with you "gullible" is productive. As to your complaint, I've heard similar complaints from people who thought Adobe stopped innovating after PS3. Just because PS changes are not needed by an individual (such as you) doesn't mean the changes are not needed or desired by others.
BTW, if a person doesn't like "Adopey" (childish), they can use any of the many other programs available. But, IMO, Adobe has lead to the growth of digital art and photography. I have great respect for Adobe and its products.
p.5 #17 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
jhinkey wrote:
Hmm . . . when I go to buy a car I can either purchase it or lease it. If I purchase it it's mine forever. If I lease it I have the option to either walk away or purchase it at the end of the lease.
Why can't their model be somewhat the same? Make the cloud version cheaper than the perpetual, but if you stop paying you lose your software unless you pay a lot to go perpetual.
Charge me a premium for the perpetual license and less so for the cloud version.
Am I making any sense here?
- John
I agree that would make sense for us, but perhaps not be as profitable for Adobe. The new model is like renting a car. Imagine if Ford and GM said their cars can no longer be bought or even leased, only rented. I'm sure this would be more profitable to them per car, with the slight downside that they would go out of business.
p.5 #18 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
There are some of us here old enough to remember when you couldn't buy your own telephone to hook into the landline, all you could do is rent one from AT&T and the charges were on your phone bill every month.
Thorsten wrote:
I agree that would make sense for us, but perhaps not be as profitable for Adobe. The new model is like renting a car. Imagine if Ford and GM said their cars can no longer be bought or even leased, only rented. I'm sure this would be more profitable to them per car, with the slight downside that they would go out of business.
p.5 #19 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
jhinkey wrote:
Hmm . . . when I go to buy a car I can either purchase it or lease it. If I purchase it it's mine forever. If I lease it I have the option to either walk away or purchase it at the end of the lease.
Why can't their model be somewhat the same? Make the cloud version cheaper than the perpetual, but if you stop paying you lose your software unless you pay a lot to go perpetual.
Charge me a premium for the perpetual license and less so for the cloud version.
Am I making any sense here?
- John
Thorsten wrote:
I agree that would make sense for us, but perhaps not be as profitable for Adobe. The new model is like renting a car. Imagine if Ford and GM said their cars can no longer be bought or even leased, only rented. I'm sure this would be more profitable to them per car, with the slight downside that they would go out of business.
NightOwl Cat wrote:
There are some of us here old enough to remember when you couldn't buy your own telephone to hook into the landline, all you could do is rent one from AT&T and the charges were on your phone bill every month.
I remember those days as well. But if you wanted to make a phone call you didn't have any other choice. This is also one of the tings that broke up the monopoly of AT&T.
p.5 #20 · What the H E double toothpicks was Adobe thinking?
James R wrote:
I do about 85% in LR. However, Photoshop CS is vital for the other 10% and for non-photographic designs.
That is true for you. For me, I really don't need PS. I'd prefer it because I am used to it's nuances. On my surface pro I'm using Elements 11.
When you mentioned the term "non-photographic" designs you opened up a whole new set of options that using the other options in the CC might be an advantage to you.
No, you're not nuts. I deleted it because once I stopped and thought about it, I sounded like I was whining. But I still don't like the idea!