Tariq Gibran wrote:
The silence (or should I say non-reaction) from most of the major photo sites (LL and the such) has been deafening since this announcement. I have really been curious how they would respond. I guess Reichmann will be hedging his bets. His response thus far - "It's complicated". Sounds like what you say to someone you break up with when you don't want to tell them why!
Please keep an eye on what the major players are saying about this Adobe move to the could. So far Scott Kelby and Matt Klezkowski are in Adobe apologist mode. Waiting for other major industry forces to weigh in.
Jeff Schewe's posts on LULA said it best, "don't freakin' care!"
And, I just read the dpreview "interview", they are also fanboys, since they get products for free, they don't care.
I'm a little curious about what is so "cloud"y about this suite. You install the software on your local computer, run it on your local computer and process files which are stored on your local computer. Is "Creative Cloud" anything more than just an internet authentication and update service?
Thin-end of the wedge: "processor-intensive features, such as Camera Shake Reduction tool, where the work can be conducted in the cloud..."
Where do they draw the line between what runs locally and what runs in the cloud? Particularly when it's in their interest to get-to-market quicker by developing for server deployment, versus optimizing for desktop operation?
What Adobe is doing is creating ransomware and selling it as "Cloud Suite". It will lock up your self-created, self-hosted content unless you keep on paying a ransom amount *forever*.
The unending (forever) payment is the clincher for me.
What right do they have to lock me out of my images and edits done on them because I decide one day in the future to stop paying them for upgrades?
I can image the scenario where photographer family member on CC dies and leaves all their family photos to his/her family but they won't be able to open them (converted to PSD/DNG or something) because the deceased family member's "subscription" has lapsed.
I agree that Adobe should reconsider its pricing scheme and bring back perpetual licenses. I just posted a reply in the wedding forum to this effect.
There is nothing stopping them from doing this. The pricing/license scheme has nothing to do with the electronic distribution and cloud aspects.
In fact, they could implement a pricing scheme very similar to what they have done in the past: charge an up-front fee for new users plus a monthly/yearly maintenance fee. When customers stop paying, they can continue to use the version they had up until they stopped paying. They lose access to the fluff cloud services and any future patches/upgrades. There may be better schemes than that but the point is that they could do it if they wanted to.
It would do a lot to regain the trust of customers. The problem now is that Adobe is asking for a higher degree of trust ("Believe us, we won't unreasonably raise prices and we'll continue to release valuable upgrades") when everything they do indicates that they don't deserve that trust in the slightest (muddying the waters to hide the fact that certain segments of the customer base will see reduced value; using our investment in training, experience, and third-party add-ins to push us into the new scheme; denying that they will use the license hostage situation to retain customers when it's obvious that they have started to lose revenue and profits because customers don't see the value of new upgrades, etc.).
15Bit wrote:
I'm a little curious about what is so "cloud"y about this suite. You install the software on your local computer, run it on your local computer and process files which are stored on your local computer. Is "Creative Cloud" anything more than just an internet authentication and update service?
It is all about the buzz words you put on it. First, it can help convince some class of users who always buy into the latest (everything goes cloud so why should I not also follow the trend ?). Second, it allows Adobe to repeatedly say that the people who are against have not understood anything, and that they will not need an internet connection all the time and so on (that part is tricky: polute the argumentation of those who complain about the new systems with poor arguments).
Please keep an eye on what the major players are saying about this Adobe move to the could. So far Scott Kelby and Matt Klezkowski are in Adobe apologist mode. Waiting for other major industry forces to weigh in.
Ha! When people invoke the "Haters"/ US/THEM type language, I stop listening. It's just so juvenile.
He's got some mis-information/ half truth's there as well.
#7 about PSD's - most knowledgeable users are talking about future LAYERED PSD's. Sure, flatten them and loose the ability to edit the layers, no problem.
#10 Pirating software. Adobe themeselves said this move would do nothing to change the ability to pirate the software in the DpReview interview:
Question: Is a subscription model less prone to piracy?
Adobe response: While service options that connect to our servers are inherently less prone to piracy, once a user downloads software to their computer the piracy threat is the same as for our perpetual products.
Finally, he completely refuses to address the #1 reason USERS are upset: When the subscription stops, the software becomes unusable...and it follows that any projects that are layered (that use any new features in CC) will become un-openable. This is the major point which needs addressing.
when you think about it, adobe is taking an approach similar to that of canon, nikon and the like. basically you have to convince your users that they *need* the latest and greatest to get by, and create a need to constantly be upgrading lest you fall behind.
since nobody has actually *needed* most of the recent updates to half these programs, and most people don't want to pay anything for software in the first place, adobe can't take a similar approach to canon, et al. nobody's gonna buy the hype that they need the newest version of the software. so instead they force you to perpetually pay. since nobody likes paying for something they think they don't need/aren't getting value from, subscribers will rationalize that yes, they do need these features and therefore they're not paying for something that's not worth it. hey, it's only another $20 a month! or $50! or whatever!
of course this is all nonsense. i take classes at one of the best fine art and design colleges in the world, and they don't have CS6 on their computers because it's not *necessary* to have it.
digital is maturing. look at the D800 sensor; does anybody NEED a better sensor than that? theoretically you could use that camera for the rest of your life or until the electronics fry, the same way you could probably get by with CS6 forever. that's not gonna fly for shareholders, so someone has to convince you that you NEED some new features.
i'm not suggesting we all act like Luddites. but the curve on the time/innovation graph is flattening out and these companies gotta find a way to keep folks locked in and spending constantly.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Finally, he completely refuses to address the #1 reason USERS are upset: When the subscription stops, the software becomes unusable...and it follows that any projects that are layered (that use any new features in CC) will become un-openable. This is the major point which needs addressing.
And yet this is extremely easy for Adobe to address - just make it so that "expired" CC software can only open and export files. Seriously, this isn't rocket science...
Eyeball wrote:
It would do a lot to regain the trust of customers. The problem now is that Adobe is asking for a higher degree of trust
And now that they are asking for a higher degree of cash.
I find it just incredibly weird that Schewe/Kelby/Klotskowski (or whatever, never heard of him)/et al are repeatedly trying to explain what a great deal this is, although it is transparently obvious that it is at most a balanced deal (people who upgrade all the time), and quite a raw deal for people who upgrade every release or two.
Are they really not able to see it? Or are they refusing to acknowledge it? Schewe's good riddance comment about the occasional/non-professional/non-artist users is just incredibly callous too. I wonder what proportion of Photoshop's user base consists of people who want to have it but don't really need it? Adobe's reaction will be very telling here.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Finally, he completely refuses to address the #1 reason USERS are upset: When the subscription stops, the software becomes unusable...and it follows that any projects that are layered (that use any new features in CC) will become un-openable. This is the major point which needs addressing.
Actually, there are several reasons why users are upset, all of them huge:
- higher pricing with little benefit other than early rollout of features
- no software left if subscription is termination
- no access to files using newer than CS6 features
- forced internet access (not an issue for most, but for some it is)
- no access to camera support for cameras release after CS6 end of life
It is just mind-numbing what a lousy job they have done with this plan. I could not have packed this many hated features into Photoshop if I had tried, they are *really* good at this.
To be honest, I hope that Adobe's stock price gets hammered, and that they are forced to back down and offer both plans in the future, but there is also a part of me which hopes they won't back down, and that the market will punish them accordingly. Clearly this is a case of a company abusing their power to force unpopular changes, and I would like to see this power severely diminished.
15Bit wrote:
And yet this is extremely easy for Adobe to address - just make it so that "expired" CC software can only open and export files. Seriously, this isn't rocket science...
That wouldn't make me buy. If I cannot own after, say, one year of subscribing, I will simply not subscribe. CS6 is great, and my D800 will be set for a long time. I prefer Aperture to Lightroom anyway, so being forced back wouldn't break my heart. If Apple drops Aperture, I would probably go to Capture One.
Another interesting thing i notice - whilst you can still get individual CC packages for a reduced price ($20 a month) on a normal license, you can't do the same for educational licensing. For educational users its $20 a month for the full suite *OR* $20 a month for the full suite. So if you want to buy just Photoshop on an educational license (and i know many people do) you have to pay the same as if you were buying it on a full license.
I'm interested to hear from any Adobe apologists as to how that isn't a big price rise.
carstenw wrote:
Schewe's good riddance comment about the occasional/non-professional/non-artist users is just incredibly callous too. I wonder what proportion of Photoshop's user base consists of people who want to have it but don't really need it? Adobe's reaction will be very telling here.
Schewe's "superior" remark also completely misses the point that a number of such users that would fail his "Photoshop test for use" would perhaps someday become future professionals and/ or artists. I guess those users will go elsewhere and promote/ advocate whatever software they end up using. This type of alienation will also spill over into other Adobe products, including Lightroom. I know I will not be promoting it as I have in the past to students. Brilliant marketing move on Adobe's part!
The silence (or should I say non-reaction) from most of the major photo sites (LL and the such) has been deafening…."
Don't expect honesty from LL. For many years the LL were allegedly non-profit. They've made fortunes by promoting LR and selling DVDs. Schewe is some kind of consultant with Adobe.
Reichman wrote in the Leica M8 review: "The best digital camera I ever used". Two wks. later after others discovered major design problems and Leica offered "free filters", Reichman wrote that he was aware of the problems, but couldn't write about it since he signed a non-disclosure agreement.
I wonder if this is still in the archives. I wouldn't waste my time reading their opinions.
Derogative references to critics shows how valid the criticism is and how terribly inept they are to address Adobe disastrous marketing decision.
HopeIsEternal wrote:
"What right do they have to lock me out of my images and edits done on them because I decide one day in the future to stop paying them for upgrades?"
They have a licensing agreement and therefore every right to stick to it. Likewise Adobe has the right to milk the market to the tilt. It is their product and they set the terms.
If you don't like it, go elsewhere.
What customer will decide in the future - they don't give a hoot, just like they didn't by locking out the PS on the computers of the photographers on assignment in Europe who were crossing borders. Another example of creating convenience for the user - Adobe style. Have you ever dealt with Adobe help lines? What a joke.
The sad part is they're not going to lock out the pirates. They're screwing the legit users because it is easy.
Those LL forums are prime sneer-athon sites, you can almost cut the condescencion with a knife, what a backwater, or perhaps a slurry pond.
'Haters', eh? How very adult of them. Keep talking, Bourne and Schewe plus sycophants and toadies, that is your falling market share and loss of business coming out of your mouths, and more importantly, loss of reputation. As any business knows - well, rational businesses, make that - it's much easier to please existing customers than find new ones.
Trust Adobe? These geniuses have been working up to this for years, it's cultural with them, the deep disdain for the user community.
Perhaps they are seeing that the heavy lifting has been done and now they are scratching around for more dumbass features to convince you that you need to upgrade continually, an addiction-like dependence relationship, all in their favour and commercial interest of course..I always felt this was the impetus behind the DNG 'forced format' idea and the database nonsense - dependence on Adobe, placing themselves at the centre of the imaging business as the indispensable patriarch.
Only now there is not much between the top RCs and PS is very mature at the CS6 'end point'...and cameras are getting closer to perfection, makers are doing more with software profiling, the majors did not fall for the DNG thing.
If Adobe disappeared tomorrow, competitive forces will ensure post-processing life goes on unabated. The loss of monopoly players is typically good news for innovation and diversity, because the void makes investment by other players more attractive.
