Ranchu
Veteran
I'm not confused Bob, yates' link says the same.
Adobe taking the p**s
- Thread starter ReeRay
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 251
- Views 25K
I'm not confused Bob, yates' link says the same.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Not liking the new payment model is one thing but constantly denying things about the need for online storage is another thing.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Even if one saves files in an Adobe specific format, it's not like Adobe deletes the original raw file from your hard drive.
And BTW, you don't own your OEM copy of Windows that came on that PC you bought. Ever tried transfering an OEM license to a PC you build from parts? Doesn't always work, and MicroSoft's EULA states that, if one reads it...
And BTW, you don't own your OEM copy of Windows that came on that PC you bought. Ever tried transfering an OEM license to a PC you build from parts? Doesn't always work, and MicroSoft's EULA states that, if one reads it...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Exactly...
I used to own Elements, lost the disk, may buy again. But there are plenty of alternatives. Maybe he should read about MicroSoft Office 365 moving office in the same direction Adobe is taking CS. It mat be the future of software. And BTW, if people think they own that book they bought on their Nook or Kindle, they don't...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Yeah, his analogy is wrong. In the film days we were held hostage to Kodak and the local C41 processor, not the seller of the camera.
And from what I've seen your original RAW of JPEG files from the camera are still yours, but yeah, you may have trouble using the Adobe specific files. As long as I have the orignial output files from the camera, I still can access them. maybe not the ones created by CS, but do they delete your input files when they create the output? I doubt it...
jarski
Veteran
only "action" personally has been stop to convert to DNG, just store RAW files as it come from camera. there's still plenty of time, years, to prepare switch from Adobe.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Fine for us (film/hobbyist/ex) photographers. But for graphic artists and the large majority of current professional photographers (where post-pro is a inevitable major part of the job) the PSD is the raw file - that is, the only file that is both modifiable and looks like what you shipped to the client!
Hereabouts it does - MS sometimes try to make it hard, but in doubt you can always force them by court order, as the EU (and indeed EFTA) laws clearly state it must work. We even have companies in Europe whose entire business model is buying and re-selling used Windows and Office OEM copies.
3rdtrick
Well-known
We all understand that our raw files and JPGs will not be affected but if Adobe is no longer functional, then we will lose PSD and LR catalogs/libraries. Nothing important, just years of work... Adobe is giving us the P***S. I am looking for an alternative to Lightroom and will continue to ride my current CS4 until the end.
Pete
Pete
Ranchu
Veteran
That's a non sequitur, Tom, (or the Chewbacca defense?) I said nothing about online storage or it's perverted needs. But now that you mention it, it seems to me that once all the homunculi are signed up to Adobe's rent scheme, Adobe could just change their terms of use and say if a sucker lets their rent lapse, all their work on the cloud becomes 'orphaned' and property of Adobe. What are you going to do then?
Does anyone think all this has not been gamed out by Adobe? They've been talking about exactly these issues for months/years.
Ranchu
Veteran
Yeah, Al, I am actually the CEO of Canon. I'm thinking I could probably make more money if I give dslrs away for free and then rent access to the files they make. Just like Adobe's doing!
MaxElmar
Well-known
Happy to see Adobe has now assured us that there are no plans for Lightroom CC in the "foreseeable future."
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/15/adobe-lightroom-5-beta-google-hangout#comments
That really would have been the end for me and Adobe (at home). My employers are free to spend their money any way they see fit - I'll use it. At home it will be light room>Pixelmator (when needed). Unless Aperture gets updated with better RAW conversion, noise reduction, retouching, and lens correction. Last year I switched from Aperture to LR. At this point I would definitely consider switching back if Aperture came roaring back with a competitive upgrade.
Pixelmator is a dandy program for Apple types. It would be a very, very serious contender as a PS replacement (for photographers) with 16bit image support. (It will open 16bit images but it converts and saves to 8bit. If you shoot jpg it doesn't matter.) It already has CMYK support. It's quite amazing for $30. Everything you need for home use.
I have no commercial interest in Pixelmator, I just like competition among my vendors.
Thom Hogan modified his statement about Photoshop CC motion reduction. When that feature was first demonstrated is WAS cloud based. Image data was sent to a remote server for analysis and returned. Thom reported this on his Nikon website. Someone from Adobe contacted him and told him that the final version would NOT be cloud based. Man, they are in full-on "damage control" mode.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/15/adobe-lightroom-5-beta-google-hangout#comments
That really would have been the end for me and Adobe (at home). My employers are free to spend their money any way they see fit - I'll use it. At home it will be light room>Pixelmator (when needed). Unless Aperture gets updated with better RAW conversion, noise reduction, retouching, and lens correction. Last year I switched from Aperture to LR. At this point I would definitely consider switching back if Aperture came roaring back with a competitive upgrade.
Pixelmator is a dandy program for Apple types. It would be a very, very serious contender as a PS replacement (for photographers) with 16bit image support. (It will open 16bit images but it converts and saves to 8bit. If you shoot jpg it doesn't matter.) It already has CMYK support. It's quite amazing for $30. Everything you need for home use.
I have no commercial interest in Pixelmator, I just like competition among my vendors.
Thom Hogan modified his statement about Photoshop CC motion reduction. When that feature was first demonstrated is WAS cloud based. Image data was sent to a remote server for analysis and returned. Thom reported this on his Nikon website. Someone from Adobe contacted him and told him that the final version would NOT be cloud based. Man, they are in full-on "damage control" mode.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I can see into the future for about 15 seconds at best.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Adobe is doing nothing of the sort. The are selling a service, do you get that? You seem quite ignorant as to what is really going on.
And BTW, Gillette does quite well giving away razor handles and selling the blades...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
That depends. If CC does well, then expect Lightroom to follow. I expect more software to move this way if Adobe and MSFT succeed with CC and Office 365.
Ranchu
Veteran
Service is when you get the car fixed, Al, it's not when you rent one. Yes?
Here is what you're doing, Al.
"Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Obviously, you haven't heard the acronym SAAS. You know not what you speak. I work in the IT area with software licensing. The new trend is "software as a service". Here's a link to wikipedia that explaiins SAAS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service
Go read Information Week, Info World, or other industry press.
Last edited:
Ranchu
Veteran
Just for you, in response to PKR.
"The [...] monopoly is dividing the population into a corporate class who gets to control what objects may be used for what purpose, and a subservient consumer class that don’t get to buy or own anything – they just get to think they own things that can only be used in a predefined way, for a steep, monopolized, fixed price, or risk having the police sent after them."
http://torrentfreak.com/jail-terms-for-unlocking-cellphones-130512/
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I've had the same experience with software execs from other companies. I am trying to explain to Ranchu where the software industry wants to go. I want to control my files on my own PC, but a lot of software companies I work with want me to move all my stuff to the cloud. If not that, they have re-written fast, slick GUI PC front ends in Java or some other slow browser-based "solution" that I would rather not use. Especially since Corporate America forces me to use Intimate Explorer rather than Chrome or Firefox, which are generally faster. (or were. haven't tried anything later that IE8, as that is corporate standard at a lot of places.)
I do understand why longtime CS users are hacked off, but I don't think Ranchu gets what I'm saying. Of course, he may be as bored as I am and just poking the bear....
bensyverson
Well-known
To be fair, Adobe CC is not SaaS in the traditional sense... The applications and your data files are stored locally, and don't require the network except to periodically check activation.
But yes, this is the way virtually everything is going, and I don't think there's any going back. If a company can make $400 from you on a single sale, or sign you up for $20/month, they will always choose $20/month—even though they're making less money in the first year than they would have with an outright sale. They do this because you're likely to stick around out of inertia or laziness, and in the end, they'll make much more than $400. And it's much easier than hard-selling you on a new update every year.
But there are gaps in Adobe's plan. If you stop paying for CC, you should still be able to open and export your own work. It's really crazy that you can't right now. Adobe bigwig John Nack has acknowledged this flaw:
Once they figure that out, it will address CC's only truly fatal flaw. People are upset about the pricing now, but many of them will cave after a few months or a year. If you need Photoshop, you need it.
But yes, this is the way virtually everything is going, and I don't think there's any going back. If a company can make $400 from you on a single sale, or sign you up for $20/month, they will always choose $20/month—even though they're making less money in the first year than they would have with an outright sale. They do this because you're likely to stick around out of inertia or laziness, and in the end, they'll make much more than $400. And it's much easier than hard-selling you on a new update every year.
But there are gaps in Adobe's plan. If you stop paying for CC, you should still be able to open and export your own work. It's really crazy that you can't right now. Adobe bigwig John Nack has acknowledged this flaw:
Once they figure that out, it will address CC's only truly fatal flaw. People are upset about the pricing now, but many of them will cave after a few months or a year. If you need Photoshop, you need it.
Ranchu
Veteran
Well, now. Nack is forced to issue a statement regarding all that rights grab stuff I 'didn't understand'. He seems to be implying that people will be able to open their layers Without Paid Up Photoshop. I'm doubtful. Any buyers?
Similar threads
