Lee Saxon wrote:
As I alluded to above, that pretty much already happens. Yeah, you get to keep the CS4 disk even if you don't buy CS5 or CS6, but who cares when CS4 is obsolete? I've still got my Photoshop 6 disk, how much will you pay me for it?
Sure, it happens faster with CC, but how much difference does that really make?
You are guilty of some quite selective reading here.
You don't lose CS4, even if it isn't as good as the new version, and there are loads of tools in old versions which are useful even when the raw conversion isn't. The raw conversion is the least of my concerns, I can use any raw converter for that, and all raw converters that I know have some way to launch into Photoshop.
Secondly, you don't lose only the software, but also the access to any files you have built up. If you just convert and sharpen in Photoshop, then no problem, but artists typically build up very large and elaborate layered PSD files, and these will become inaccessible.
I am so happy that I recently upgraded to CS6, to be honest. I will be able to hold out a long time without getting into CC, and before I am forced to, perhaps there will be something else out there which can handle my needs (Acorn, Pixelmator, GIMP, et al).
And yes, the fact that the loss of access happens instantly with CC does make a difference. If I can squeeze 1 more year out of CS6 before facing a hard choice, then that is one more year of difference it makes.
While newer versions have better raw conversion, we used to make good shots with the old software, remember?
carstenw wrote:
...
Secondly, you don't lose only the software, but also the access to any files you have built up. If you just convert and sharpen in Photoshop, then no problem, but artists typically build up very large and elaborate layered PSD files, and these will become inaccessible.
Exactly! So much for saving complex .PSD files, before flattening and sending them to the print shop.
Was looking at adobe's financial statements out of curiosity
Last three years they've been doing ~$4bn in sales and ~$1bn in profits, which is a huge margin
Out of the $3bn in costs only about $700m-$800m is research and development, which is really what they should be doing, the rest is sales, marketing and admin, which is obviously the focus of their business model.
My conclusion: I don't like them. If they were charging something realistic, like $3 a month, and spent less money trying to find ways to squeeze more out of me, I'd consider it.
There's a simple way for Adobe to keep their Creative Cloud fun and not shaft consumers, but they won't do it, unfortunately.
The break even point for a new user of Photoshop on CC vs the old pricing is 5.6 years. Since upgrades weren't monthly before, it's pretty easy to simply say 5 years. So:
Develop Creative Cloud applications, and every year or year and a half or so, lock in a version. Just package that software as it exists at that time, and it becomes the "Stable Release" for that year. Still not purchasable outright, but it's there. I'll get to this later...
For new users: You pay $20 per month for Photoshop. License is month to month until you've been a subscriber for 5 years. At that point, your monthly payment drops to $10 per month, and you get to keep the last 'stable' version of Photoshop perpetually.
For existing users, or CC members 5 years+: License is month to month, you pay $10 per month for Photoshop (keeping similar upgrade pricing). If you were a CC member for the whole year, you get a perpetual license on that year's 'Stable Release.' If you cancel at this time, you get to keep the upgrade, and if you don't, you continue with CC. For every full time between Stable Releases that you've been a CC member the whole time, you get your perpetual license pushed to the newer Stable Release.
This encourages people to stay CC customers, since they need to be CC members for the full time between Stable Releases to get the perpetual license, and it doesn't leave the customer paying outrageously more money with nothing to fall back on should they stop paying.
They'll never do it, but it wouldn't be hard to implement, and it would make a lot of people just fine with this situation. (though I'm sure not all).
Spyro P. wrote:
Was looking at adobe's financial statements out of curiosity
Last three years they've been doing ~$4bn in sales and ~$1bn in profits, which is a huge margin
Out of the $3bn in costs only about $700m-$800m is research and development, which is really what they should be doing, the rest is sales, marketing and admin, which is obviously the focus of their business model.
My conclusion: I don't like them. If they were charging something realistic, like $3 a month, and spent less money trying to find ways to squeeze more out of me, I'd consider it.
This draconian move by Adobe looks like it was the result of keeping Wall Street/ shareholders happy with a continuous revenue stream which was not going to be possible using their old model for software because Adobe is no longer capable of providing software updates that would entice upgrades. They said as much here in the DpReview interview:
Question:Is a subscription model less prone to piracy?
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.
The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. The last 12 months of development was brutal. And there were results we were not happy with. We have decided to focus on the CC products.
This move has nothing to do with piracy of software. If anything, it will encourage more piracy.
Look at the new features in Photoshop CC. Would you upgrade now for these features? Ironically, some of the more touted ones look like they belong in Photoshop Elements along with red eye reduction. Camera shake reduction? That's certainly not aimed at the professional photographer. Photoshop CC looks like one of the most minimal upgrades in years. This is the reason behind this new model, plain and simple.
Jman13 wrote:
There's a simple way for Adobe to keep their Creative Cloud fun and not shaft consumers, but they won't do it, unfortunately.
The break even point for a new user of Photoshop on CC vs the old pricing is 5.6 years. Since upgrades weren't monthly before, it's pretty easy to simply say 5 years. So:
Develop Creative Cloud applications, and every year or year and a half or so, lock in a version. Just package that software as it exists at that time, and it becomes the "Stable Release" for that year. Still not purchasable outright, but it's there. I'll get to this later...
For new users: You pay $20 per month for Photoshop. License is month to month until you've been a subscriber for 5 years. At that point, your monthly payment drops to $10 per month, and you get to keep the last 'stable' version of Photoshop perpetually.
For existing users, or CC members 5 years+: License is month to month, you pay $10 per month for Photoshop (keeping similar upgrade pricing). If you were a CC member for the whole year, you get a perpetual license on that year's 'Stable Release.' If you cancel at this time, you get to keep the upgrade, and if you don't, you continue with CC. For every full time between Stable Releases that you've been a CC member the whole time, you get your perpetual license pushed to the newer Stable Release.
This encourages people to stay CC customers, since they need to be CC members for the full time between Stable Releases to get the perpetual license, and it doesn't leave the customer paying outrageously more money with nothing to fall back on should they stop paying.
They'll never do it, but it wouldn't be hard to implement, and it would make a lot of people just fine with this situation. (though I'm sure not all)....Show more →
I suspect they actually will have to end up doing something like this (though I would prefer a larger upfront down payment with maybe a two year period when the software becomes perpetual without monthly fees. They will also have to make a non subscription version available for certain customers (non profit institutions and those who for security reasons can't do subscriptions). It almost seems like Adobe's marketing folks really didn't fully thing this move through.
For those of us who don't see enough value in the upgraded functionality, they will want to get us by not supporting compatibility with CS6 for plug-ins, basically ACR and and Nik and the likes. For Nik, it could turn out a more interesting business model to release future upgrades with CS6 compatibility, otherwise they will lose possible customers.
So we get to trade in that "perpetual license" for a perpetual lease with "easy monthly payments". Some folks prefer to buy a house and not always be renters.
For those of us who don't see enough value in the upgraded functionality, they will want to get us by not supporting compatibility with CS6 for plug-ins, basically ACR and and Nik and the likes. For Nik, it could turn out a more interesting business model to release future upgrades with CS6 compatibility, otherwise they will lose possible customers.
The thing about NIK is that any future Photoshop compatibility is now in major doubt due to the combination of this Adobe move and their acquisition by Google. Google will become more of an Adobe competitor, I don't think there is any way around that. Google may integrate NIK technology into their own product - Picasa Pro or whatever it is - and kill off the plugins. The dramatically reduced price bundle that Google made available could be seen as a harbinger of this future NIK possibility.
Google offers nothing remotely resembling the confluence and breadth of Adobe apps. It would take years for them to assemble a competitor, and they haven't announced any plans to do so.
"Earlier this week I proudly welcomed +Nik Software to Google. They've been making pictures more awesome for 17 years, and we're excited to bring Nik's expertise to the entire Google+ community!
I also want to make something clear: we're going to continue offering and improving Nik's high-end tools and plug-ins.
Professionals across the globe use Nik to create the perfect moment in their photographs (e.g., http://goo.gl/aDtkO), and we care deeply about their artistry."
There's plenty of FUD already in forums, why add to it?
grahamb3 wrote:
Google offers nothing remotely resembling the confluence and breadth of Adobe apps. It would take years for them to assemble a competitor, and they haven't announced any plans to do so.
"Earlier this week I proudly welcomed +Nik Software to Google. They've been making pictures more awesome for 17 years, and we're excited to bring Nik's expertise to the entire Google+ community!
I also want to make something clear: we're going to continue offering and improving Nik's high-end tools and plug-ins.
Professionals across the globe use Nik to create the perfect moment in their photographs (e.g.,http://goo.gl/aDtkO), and we care deeply about their artistry."
There's plenty of FUD already in forums, why add to it?...Show more →
Well, hopefully I'm wrong but look at previous Google acquisitions. They have a history of killing products off, at least how they existed before the acquisition. It is clear Google intends to at least use the NIK technology for server-side image manipulation. http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/09/17/the-importance-of-google-acquiring-nik-software/ With Photoshop CC becoming the cloud wildcard now - and Google firmly in the cloud with everything - It's not "FUD" to postulate an uncertain future for NIK plugins. It is a distinct possibility.
Given Adobe's CC subscription move - and what you linked to was said before that move - we will just have to see how this all pans out.
The utter arrogance displayed by some people who worship Adobe is staggering.
Read the responses to some comments over on Photofocus, from Rich Harrington and Scott Bourne. They are pushing an agenda so hard, or have blinders on and simply aren't reading. According to them, if you don't like this move, you are an "Adobe Hater."
Jeff Schewe, Adobe's pet brain dead bulldog is doing the same thing over on LL, defending Adobe with non nonsensical arguments and abuse for anyone who disagrees.
What this is doing is putting into perspective the loyalty of these Adobe side liners. Especially with the abuse they are pouring out. I wonder why they can't see how much this is damaging their own businesses. Calling your main client base 'haters' and 'piraters' and other nasty names is not good business. That they ever had any legitimacy is now beyond a doubt. They are alienating their own client base to dance to Adobe's tune. Would you buy stuff from them any more?
Yeah, it's difficult to view any remark as objective by someone with such an obvious vested interest in Adobe. Look at what almost all customers are saying in any forum. I'm not seeing an overly positive reaction here.
I've been noting Scott Bourne arrogance on the Photofocus podcast increasing over the past year or so, and as such, I've all but stopped listening to it (I listen to maybe one every 3-4 months now...I used to catch every one). His POV seems to be, if you agree with him, great...if you don't, you're an idiot fanboy loser who doesn't know how to take a photograph. I'm done with them.
Adobe apps reside on your computer, as they always have.
There seems to be a lot of ignorance about what constitutes the "cloud". As far as Adobe's version, it's essentially unchanged from what we've know for years. Yes, there's cloud storage, one may publish files to the cloud, there's help and tutorials available, but that's all "gravy" as far as I'm concerned. If one never want's to take advantage of the cloud services, one can continue using Adobe apps as always.
The difference between Adobe's version of the "cloud" and Google's, is like night and day. Google may compete with Adobe for low powered tablet/phone apps, but Google has shown no interest in professional graphics applications. As I said in my previous post, it would take Google years, assuming they were ready to release today, to achieve the level of convergence of Adobe applications.
If one takes the time to learn, it's amazing what can be accomplished with Adobe's complete collection. I suspect most of the negative feedback on Adobe's change in business model comes from the hobbyist. Professionals realize this is a good deal on many levels. Of course, they're covering their monthly fee in the first 1/2 hour or so of use.
Perhaps Adobe's professional software will revert to what it once was, software used mainly by professionals.
Lets stop comparing the Autodesk or other small players with Adobe, the biggest player in the market with most expensive products (CS = Crap Suits).
Since the PS 3.0 most "upgrades" were at best minor. The dreadful UI was never improved, many bugs never fixed and dragging for many subsequent versions. LR is the first Adobe product (butu after how many years?) with improved UI, but terrible archiving system which I would use.
Ditto for the DW horror-application which has become the standard after they bought the Go Live, screwed it up royally, and finally killed a better product which the GL was.
Then the recent example, the CS6 vs. CS5 - mostly cosmetics. Adobe hired a bunch of icon artists to change graphics while other changes aren't improvements at all.
Adobe will gladly screw the suckers. Just bend over. That's what monopoly is all about.
This is a great opportunity for others to offer a better, reasonably priced alternatives.
Watch the darktable. A new kid on the block under development. Still unstable, at least on the Mac, but very interesting product with some unique features and the price is right - it is free.
I don't think people are confused about the 'cloud' version of it at all. Those who are supporting this move don't seem to understand that most people don't want to pay huge amounts of money for software for years with nothing to show for it, should they ever decide to stop paying for upgrades.
