The problem is price, which seems greedy and unjustified.
I don't really offended by their new business mode if they are suffer from non-upgrade or pirate copy. As a company, they need to make money to make better product for us. If they are charge reasonable price for subscription. I wouldn't mind to pay selected tool for my self. Say $10/Month for LR, $5 more for some basic layer edit capability, which I think it is pretty reasonable.
I think we might even see that price happen once Adobe see the need to do so, there is no need to be angry, this is free market. They mess up, they will either change or die.
Some day, it will be like this way for Microsoft, Apple, Google etc.. that will happen, just a matter of time.
zhangyue wrote:
As a company, they need to make money to make better product for us.
The problem with that is that they can now take the money without making better products. Of course they will spend on R&D, but if they fail and don't come up with anything uesful, it will have ZERO consequence for them. It has to be the other way around, they only deserve the money if they make a better product.
A software company does not deserve to live because they once made a good product. If they cannot make anything new, they should let all the talented people find new jobs and do something else.
alundeb wrote:
A software company does not deserve to live because they once made a good product. If they cannot make anything new, they should let all the talented people find new jobs and do something else.
The company need a way to generate sustainable revenue. to be realistic, I guess for most photographer, even early edition of PS is more than enough. If People choose not to upgrade, where is the money come from to do R&D.
Again, I am subjectively angry about their decision but choose to letting Market to make objective judgement.
zhangyue wrote:
If People choose not to upgrade, where is the money come from to do R&D.
The funding and risk related to R&D has always been on the investor side. Now they are trying to push it onto the customer side. As a customer, I don't want to pay in advance for development of something I don't even know what is.
edwinIII wrote:
I tried to upgrade from CS5 to CS6 a couple of hours ago and the website would not let me do it. When I choose upgrade in the drop down menu it turns off the 'Add To Cart' button, turns it back on when full is chosen. Anyone else have this experience?
Edwin
I upgraded from CS5 to CS6 a few minutes ago without issue.
zhangyue wrote:
The company need a way to generate sustainable revenue. to be realistic, I guess for most photographer, even early edition of PS is more than enough. If People choose not to upgrade, where is the money come from to do R&D.
Again, I am subjectively angry about their decision but choose to letting Market to make objective judgement.
Michael, I think you need to read the thread a little more in depth. There are loads of different aspects of this change, from practical changes to licensing changes, and there are very many very valid reasons to feel very angry about this. It feels to me like you are only looking at the superficial change from standard licensing to cloud.
zhangyue wrote:
...Again, I am subjectively angry about their decision but choose to letting Market to make objective judgement.
carstenw wrote:
Michael, I think you need to read the thread a little more in depth. There are loads of different aspects of this change, from practical changes to licensing changes, and there are very many very valid reasons to feel very angry about this. It feels to me like you are only looking at the superficial change from standard licensing to cloud.
+1. For example, have you read the information on the new Adobe EULA, at the link in this post (from earlier in this thread).
Siddhu wrote:
Wow - I can't believe the EULA from Adobe. Read Loyd Chambers quick article on it here
carstenw wrote:
It feels to me like you are only looking at the superficial change from standard licensing to cloud.
I have to admit you are right about it and I didn't go over this long thread as well.
Can we think of any benefit of it? Just want to see a different way to look at it? Otherwise, is Adobe doing suicide?
zhangyue wrote:
I have to admit you are right about it and I didn't go over this long thread as well.
Can we think of any benefit of it? Just want to see a different way to look at it? Otherwise, is Adobe doing suicide?
There are benefits, but primarily to a few groups.
1. Midsize shops with varying licence requirements. Now they can add/remove licences as needed rather than buying for peak needs.
2. Users who can afford a monthly fee but for one reason or another a large outlay on a larger timeframe is problematic (generally those who find a budgetary win in a recurring fee that can be locked in to the budget even if it is more expensive over time. Those on a fixed income come to mind).
3. Those for whom maintaining the latest updates is a requirement. Trainers for example, such as Scott Kelby, faster rollouts of new features will improve their business. Production shops who need to have the latest software available to handle what their clients send as well.
Oh, and as an aside, this decision of Adobe's has already netted Corel $60 from me. I'm evaluating alternatives and AfterShot Pro (nee Bibble Pro) is on the shortlist along with Capture One (which I already own in v6)
zhangyue wrote:
I have to admit you are right about it and I didn't go over this long thread as well.
Can we think of any benefit of it? Just want to see a different way to look at it? Otherwise, is Adobe doing suicide?
I would say that if they would remove the new rude clauses from the EULA and revert to the old style, and offer cloud AND regular licenses, then yes, there would be benefits to going cloud, and simply backing out when you don't want to ride along any more. But the way it is now, the odds are so heavily stacked in Adobe's own favour that it isn't funny. I cannot believe that they released this in good faith, just deplorable.
There is an old narrative in marketing that simply states, "the train must slow down for sharp curves. This "sharp curve," it would appear, provides a rare opportunity for those competitors on the sidelines who are not normally strong enough nor fast enough, to jump on board." Adobe is taking a calculated risk in taking a sharp curve for an anticipated benefit. You can be sure they have evaluated the strength of their competition and decided very few are positioned to jump on board and disrupt their momentum.
The curve however is real. The high barriers to competition already established by Adobe will be temporarily lowered as irritated customers face the curve, sort out their feelings and response to this new and demanding "contract of loyalty." It will be the single moment in many photographers lives when they might be vulnerable to change and re-evaluate or re-visit a product decision which they have taken for granted. This is a real curve in the track! What a gutsy move by Adobe!
This temporary market disruption will be a test of Adobe's dominance and customer's apathy. If Adobe survives this totally unscathed (as they probably will) competitors will take note, and very few if any will renew their will to compete or commit capital resources to challenge Adobe in the future. Adobe can then decide who in the world can play and pay. A couple of years from now Adobe can do this all over again with the Lightroom customers who will be ready to look at their own curve in the track.
Perhaps we should consider it a privilege to be allowed to purchase such a fine product.Our satisfaction is evident in out numbers. But it would be really nice if Adobe would adopt a more conciliatory and benevolent attitude toward their captives.
I've been shooting digital and PP since my first Canon 350D purchased around '96. Somehow I've always avoided buying PS. I used Canon DPP and PSP for a long time, then I purchased LR and that has been my PP powerhouse ever since. If Adobe makes a similar change to LR it will be a very sad day for me.
