kwalsh, what your discussion (last few comments, anyway, I haven't gone back all the way) seems to leave out is the intellectual property implications of this change. I want to own my images outright, permanently. I don't want to have to pay royalties to Adobe to continue to access them. I worry that a time may come when I am retired, or semi-retired, with reduced income, and have to make a choice to give up access to my own archive, to avoid paying ongoing fees that will certainly be set with an eye to what active commercial enterprises can afford. Obviously, the workaround is to get out of the Adobe workflow, save to non-Adobe formats, or put selected images on paper—all costly, time consuming and inconvenient.
I'll bide my time a bit to see how the issue plays out. But I suspect I am going to become an ex-Adobe customer in the long run. And I was buying product from them before Photoshop was in their product line.
Luckily, I bought CS6 early, but I have to say it acts weird in Win 8 64-bit. That aside (and hopefully evenually sorted), I figure that I am good for at least a couple of years without feeling the need to upgrade. PS CS6 is pretty good, and with a range of plug-ins from nik and onOne (which will continue to see upgrades) I don't think I'll have an issue not sending any money to Adobe for a long time.
Adobe will see how this works for them. An update or so ago (I forget which one it was) but Adobe stopped upgrade pricing for more than version removed from the current one. There was a significant outcry to which Adobe relented and restored upgrade pricing for a limited time. This time, Adobe might just see a lot of people not joining the cloud service, see their revenues decline, and in response may eventually have to change their position. Further, this could create an opportunity for Google, given their recent purchase of nik software. They have the resources and expertise now to create a PS alternative -- and it could be quite a viable alternative for everyone outside of the highly integrated publishing/design crowd. The question is, will Google/nik go there?
@splathrop: No I completely understand the implications of that and think it makes the product really unworkable for hobbyists for exactly the reasons you (and others) state. The same issue occurs with the engineering software I use for work, as a business you can be "locked out" of a past design if you aren't maintaining the licenses for the software which was used originally. It is a real problem and concern.
And I am in no way advocating people should "suck it up" and purchase Adobe CC. I know for sure I'm not going to buy it - no way. My only real point is this kind of licensing term is neither new nor even rare. A lot of software used in commercial design has similar licensing terms. When you are a design house it is no big deal - either you are a going business concern and can afford the annual fees (and you probably would be paying for upgrades anyway) or you are out of business at which point you don't care you no longer have access to the designs.
So if Adobe thinks most of its CC customers fit into that model then maybe they will have success and can tell the rest of us to "shove it". Which sucks. And as a consumer deciding to not give any more money to Adobe because they took this action seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do (though personally I plan to continue with LR until something better comes along).
The only reason I brought this up was:
- People were getting on their high horse and being insulting to others claiming such a licensing model was some form of evil only idiots would subscribe to, when in fact many business subscribe to such software and have for decades.
- Some were acting as if this was some sort of monopoly practice the justice department should be involved in, which is also clearly not the case.
That's it - really a side show. The larger issue of such licensing sucks for nearly all of us and probably a large fraction of us will never pay for CC and may stop using all Adobe products all together - I'm on board with that. As long as people keep a civil tone about it (well, civil to people here, they can be as mean as they want to Adobe I think )
chez wrote:
I guess you need to decide who you are actually hurting the most, Adobe not getting you $79 or you not getting the advancements in LR5. I know what I'm going to do and it is what is right for me...upgrade to LR5.
Anyone actually "hurt" by staying with LR4 instead of upgrading to LR5 is more than a bit weak.
kwalsh wrote:
. . . when in fact many business subscribe to such software and have for decades.
I still think you have over-stated the degree to which businesses have adopted the Adobe model. The implication of your post was that practically every business is doing this and Adobe is finally getting on board. That's just not the case.
I checked a few of the companies you referenced. At least Autodesk, Matlab, and Xilinx still offer perpetual licenses. Even Altera, which talks about its "subscription licenses" still explains the license like this:
When you purchase a Quartus II software license, the license file supports the version of the Quartus II software you purchase, all previous versions, and all versions released within a year of the purchase date. You can use the version of the Quartus II software you purchase, and all related software, including the ModelSim-Altera Edition software and the MegaCore IP Library, indefinitely.
That is NOT the Adobe model. With the Adobe CC, when you stop paying, you lose access to the software.
SAAS-like models have been around for a while and they have gained steam in the last few years with the likes of salesforce.com, Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, and Google but many companies are still buying perpetual license software. I would be very surprised if the IT industry as a whole had even surpassed the 50% mark in terms of SAAS vs. perpetual license. I'll have to look up some Gartner reports when I have time.
Even when big business considers using a SAAS model, it does so with caution and skepticism, much like has been expressed here on FM. Companies also negotiate those contracts aggressively because they know:
- a software company moving to that model may be on the ropes in one way or another
- the software company may have a pseudo-monopoly in the space and it will be expensive for them to pull out of the SAAS model once they're in
- the simple comparisons that the software company shows them regarding what they used to pay vs. the SAAS payments are BS
splathrop wrote:
kwalsh, what your discussion (last few comments, anyway, I haven't gone back all the way) seems to leave out is the intellectual property implications of this change. I want to own my images outright, permanently. I don't want to have to pay royalties to Adobe to continue to access them. I worry that a time may come when I am retired, or semi-retired, with reduced income, and have to make a choice to give up access to my own archive, to avoid paying ongoing fees that will certainly be set with an eye to what active commercial enterprises can afford. Obviously, the workaround is to get out of the Adobe workflow, save to non-Adobe formats, or put selected images on paper—all costly, time consuming and inconvenient.
I'll bide my time a bit to see how the issue plays out. But I suspect I am going to become an ex-Adobe customer in the long run. And I was buying product from them before Photoshop was in their product line....Show more →
If you want to talk about an inconvenience, try working with Gimp and a slew of other applications just to match what PS provides. If you think saving your PS work in an non-proprietary format is a lot of work...wait until you dive into all these other applications with their own quirks and try to keep your data current with them 19 years down the road.
Eyeball wrote:
I still think you have over-stated the degree to which businesses have adopted the Adobe model. The implication of your post was that practically every business is doing this and Adobe is finally getting on board. That's just not the case.
Absolutely. There is a LOT of disinformation going on in support of Abode's brazen cash grab.
snowboarder wrote:
no more updates beyond CS6 (!)
We are forced to a monthly subscription (cloud).
No, we are not.
We always have the option of saying "no," but we should have done so already when Product Activation was introduced. We need to stop making compromises. Who should control the software on a computer, the software company or the user?
The computer software we need in order to access and work with our own data must be entirely user-controlled.
That means that three criteria have to be met:
1. The software must be capable of being installed independent from the manufacturer at any time and with no ties or need for "activations."
2. The software must be capable of being copied and backed up with no restrictions, because this is the only way to ensure that future installations and re-installations are possible.
3. The software must be capable of running indefinitely on compatible hardware, and with no ties at all to the manufacturer.
We also need to say a consistent no to Product Activation, which is a precursor to Cloud Computing and Software-As-A-Service (SAAS) and puts the user at the mercy of the activation service and its availability. Both Product Activation and Cloud Computing destroys user control, and therefore software programs that are activation-crippled or that needs a subscription have to be rejected without fail.
And please let us stop accepting the justification that "there are so many software pirates out there." The existence of pirates does not change the fact that if software is activation-crippled or delivered as a service, the user is put at the mercy of the activation or subscription service - and the software company can at any time refuse to activate or stop the subscription. The ramifications of having to pay a rent for using the software we need to access and work with our data must be fully appreciated, and we need to say a consistent and uncompromising "NO" to both activation-crippled software and software subscription.
chez wrote:
If you want to talk about an inconvenience, try working with Gimp and a slew of other applications just to match what PS provides. If you think saving your PS work in an non-proprietary format is a lot of work...wait until you dive into all these other applications with their own quirks and try to keep your data current with them 19 years down the road.
Soooo your saying what Chez ? Your going to bend over and give up already ? You will be able to run CS6 for a while......in the next 2 to 5 years ether Adobe will give up or someone else will come along and replace them ..... with probably a much better Photoshop hopefully N based and we will be better off then ever. There are lots of very smart programmers in the world ( many of them photographers also) and lots and lots of capital available........ even companies like Google may show an interest here. This could all be a very good thing in the long run........give it time and don't sell out to the greedy Btards so soon.
Eyeball wrote:
I still think you have over-stated the degree to which businesses have adopted the Adobe model. The implication of your post was that practically every business is doing this and Adobe is finally getting on board. That's just not the case.
That is a fair point. I wasn't try to say everything is like that, just that such licensing terms aren't new. So much so that everywhere I've worked using a pretty wide swath of electronics design software has primarily been annual licenses.
Also another important distinction is that in some of the cases I'm thinking of you can get a perpetual single node locked license. If you go for the often more practical multiple floating licenses option then you are forced into annual only. Most businesses choose the later over the former as it ends up costing less. However, Adobe isn't going to offer the option - and this CC option really isn't a floating license either thought it has some flexibility.
Anyway, wandering further off topic I think - sorry for dragging the thread in that direction.
bogatyr wrote:
The computer software we need in order to access and work with our own data must be entirely user-controlled.
That means that three criteria have to be met:
1. The software must be capable of being installed independent from the manufacturer at any time and with no ties or need for "activations."
2. The software must be capable of being copied and backed up with no restrictions, because this is the only way to ensure that future installations and re-installations are possible.
3. The software must be capable of running indefinitely on compatible hardware, and with no ties at all to the manufacturer. ...Show more →
This all sounds very nice, but those days will never come back. You can decide not to buy software that does not meet these criteria, but you'll soon be without software, then.
That said, Adobe did go to far. I develop software for a living, and a common model in the industry is to charge a yearly maintenance fee, which entitles the customer to upgrades and support. If the customer stops paying, he can keep whatever software version he has at that point indefinitely. If he later decides he wants an upgrade after all, he can either buy the full price version (no upgrade), or pay back-maintenance fees for missed years. I think this is a fair model for both sides. Disabling the software on the customer computer when he stops paying is not.
Peter Le wrote:
Soooo your saying what Chez ? Your going to bend over and give up already ? You will be able to run CS6 for a while......in the next 2 to 5 years ether Adobe will give up or someone else will come along and replace them ..... with probably a much better Photoshop hopefully N based and we will be better off then ever. There are lots of very smart programmers in the world ( many of them photographers also) and lots and lots of capital available........ even companies like Google may show an interest here. This could all be a very good thing in the long run........give it time and don't sell out to the greedy Btards so soon. ...Show more →
Only to sell your soul to the greedy bastard you don't knownof yet. Anyone getting into this business will do so to make money. Software is a very resource intensive business that requires not only a huge upfront capital investment for years withou any revenue, but also even more investment in follow up years as the expected yearly feature releases start to way in. Too boot, we have outright stealing ( piracy ) rampant these days. Do you notnthink whoever tries to replace Photoshop won't also want to make a buck for their investors?
If it was so easy...why have we not seen someone step up to the plate and challenge Adobe? Corel is a joke and its the closest out there.
We always have the option of saying "no," but we should have done so already when Product Activation was introduced. We need to stop making compromises. Who should control the software on a computer, the software company or the user?
The computer software we need in order to access and work with our own data must be entirely user-controlled.
That means that three criteria have to be met:
1. The software must be capable of being installed independent from the manufacturer at any time and with no ties or need for "activations."
2. The software must be capable of being copied and backed up with no restrictions, because this is the only way to ensure that future installations and re-installations are possible.
3. The software must be capable of running indefinitely on compatible hardware, and with no ties at all to the manufacturer.
We also need to say a consistent no to Product Activation, which is a precursor to Cloud Computing and Software-As-A-Service (SAAS) and puts the user at the mercy of the activation service and its availability. Both Product Activation and Cloud Computing destroys user control, and therefore software programs that are activation-crippled or that needs a subscription have to be rejected without fail.
And please let us stop accepting the justification that "there are so many software pirates out there." The existence of pirates does not change the fact that if software is activation-crippled or delivered as a service, the user is put at the mercy of the activation or subscription service - and the software company can at any time refuse to activate or stop the subscription. The ramifications of having to pay a rent for using the software we need to access and work with our data must be fully appreciated, and we need to say a consistent and uncompromising "NO" to both activation-crippled software and software subscription.
Maybe it's time to pile all the software and digital cameras in the town square, set them on fire then go down in the basement and pull out the 4x5's and return to film. As photographers have we have given up to much to pursue the promise of digital? I am amazed when I take out an old 8x10 transparency and feel let down by digital promise, just like an original Ansel Adams print does. I long for the day when our efforts and knowledge in perusing the art of photography was fulfilled when we delivered a few sheets of film to a client.
Well, I just bought Corel PS Pro X5 Ultimate for $41.99 from Amazon's lightning deal. Kind of a serendipitous app for a lightning deal at the moment......... or not.
I feel like I'm going on my first date all over again.
Congratulations, you'll need some patience but version 5 is quite good. You'll probably probably get a free update to version 6 when it comes out. I hope it's soon and 64 bit.
This is another over-seen area, often forgotten.
I do NOT have a business!
Nor do I want one.
I just want to purchase a license for use, that doesn't go away.
I dislike the current disabling/extortion scheme dis-"agreement".
chez wrote:
After saying NO, then what. How do we run our business?
)
