user237428934
User deletion pending
Naaa. If you owned the content you bought on iTunes (Apps, music, books) you could resell it, but you can't. OK, maybe technically you can, but it's illegal to do so.
Adobe taking the p**s
- Thread starter ReeRay
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 251
- Views 25K
Naaa. If you owned the content you bought on iTunes (Apps, music, books) you could resell it, but you can't. OK, maybe technically you can, but it's illegal to do so.
user237428934
User deletion pending
biomed
Veteran
This seems to be a trend in software. I guess I will upgrade to CS6 this month and live with it and LR4. Big business often schemes ways to squeeze money out of the consumer. Look at how well it worked out for JC Penney!🙄 I would guess that this will open the market for Adobe's competition.
user237428934
User deletion pending
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
But the software that can display/convert them will shut down if it cannot access the cloud for too long or gets an expiration signal from the cloud. This may seem no big issue for old style photographers, as these have negatives, raw files or jpegs to fall back upon. But the modern pro usually is half photographer, half post-processing artist, and the latter generally ties him pretty firmly to the software he works with, so he will be locked out of his entire back-stock of marketable material and half his skills if anything goes wrong.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Not exactly true, say you didn't connect to the 'cloud' (just an internet connection) for the three months you need. Those jpgs won't self destruct, if you have a windows PC you can open them in paint or preview on a Mac (which will open most raw formats too).
You can at any time stop using the Adobe software and still access your files (unless you choose to keep them in the Adobe server only–short sighted but acceptable as it's their iron)
The bigger problem is for other parts of the suite like Premiere Pro imagine having your projects stored in a file that can only be opened by that program.
Also programs like InDesign and Illustrator tend to have non backward compatible files, so if you keep your old CS5/6 when someone sends you a CS7 .Ai or .indd file you can't open it.
That's going to be a bigger issue from the pro perspective, someone who gets sent work to print etc.
If the server de-activates your software because of non payment you're files will still be there, and to a degree they'll be open-able or transcode into another format.
Activation has always been a bugbear but it's one both Adobe and Microsoft have used for many years.
My father in law lost his right to use XP because of the 'Genuine Advantage' system which effectively bricked his PC which was flagged as 'fake' software–he now owns a Mac.
So don't panic people, there are ways round just about any imagined impasse.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
To me this seems to be potentially locking hobbyists out of an expensive piece of software. Fifty dollars a month will be nothing to a professional using the software on a daily basis but for a casual shooter doing it in their spare time ..... ?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Keith the $50 is for the whole Creative suite (we paid £1,800 for our CS6 disk), Photoshop only is $9 a month for the first year (for existing owners) and $20 thereafter.
In reality 'hobbyists' need to ask themselves if they need the Pro level features or might be better off with Photshop elements or Corel...
In reality 'hobbyists' need to ask themselves if they need the Pro level features or might be better off with Photshop elements or Corel...
GaryLH
Veteran
I can c this announcement made a lot of other sw vendors happy.. If nothing else given the negative response, the other sw vendors will at least have more people evaluating it as potential replacement...
I think they should have offered it as an option like "buy our next version of cs 7 for xx off, but if u subscribed to our cloud base service u can have all the cc services for xx dollars a mouth type of thing". Human nature is such that if u force a change like this, expect a negative reaction.
I don't use adobe products that much. What I have already is more than enough for what I do..
Reading the comment section today from other forums today, they certainly opened up a hornets nest.
Gary
I think they should have offered it as an option like "buy our next version of cs 7 for xx off, but if u subscribed to our cloud base service u can have all the cc services for xx dollars a mouth type of thing". Human nature is such that if u force a change like this, expect a negative reaction.
I don't use adobe products that much. What I have already is more than enough for what I do..
Reading the comment section today from other forums today, they certainly opened up a hornets nest.
Gary
peterm1
Veteran
For me I simply would not be prepared to subscribe. It would not be worth it. I do not even think that Adobe Photoshop is ideal for photographers. It was designed for graphic designers who need its vast capabilities. I find its simply too complex and slow for most of what I need. PS Elements is much better and does 90% of what the full product can do - for photographers. Plus its learning curve is easier. Speaking personally though, I much prefer Corel's Paintshop Pro X4. Corel's products have come a long long way in the past 4-5 years and are now better IMHO that PS Elements - again for photographers. Besides which, it sells for about 2/3 the cost of Elements and has more features in the package. Why would I be tempted to "upgrade" to a much more difficult to use (albeit more capable) product like the full PS and pay good money each month for the privilege? Especially when I do not need about 75% of that extra capability. Simply not an option.
Mr. Fizzlesticks
Member
I haven't used Capture One for years and looking at it now, man! I remember back when it was version 3 or 4 and was just barely passable.
I have been stuck with Adobe for many years now. I recently looked at a 200meg scan I made over a decade ago and I probably couldn't do much better today with the editing. That scan was edited in Photoshop 6. In fact the differences would be so minor that I decided it wasn't worth the time to redo it. Adobe keeps updating but the changes are so minor it is almost criminal to have to pay for them.
By the way, another option is Hasselblad's Phocus software. It says it will do 150 different camera's raw files and it is free! Powerful software. If you can't do something interesting with it you should hang up your spurs!
The camera maker's raw software is usually as good as any alternative. There is always Aperture as well (at least on a Mac). I have always thought color was better from Aperture vs. Lightroom but I got on the Lightroom bandwagon early on mainly for cataloging so it would be difficult for me to change at this point. I guess that is what Adobe is counting on.
The whole cloud thing is ludicrous to me. Why would I want anyone else to have any control over the images I create? I want them with me, backed up by me. I don't need them flying around out there in the netherworld. No thanks. Remember that companies do what is their best interest. Period. They don't care about the thinking man one bit.
I have been stuck with Adobe for many years now. I recently looked at a 200meg scan I made over a decade ago and I probably couldn't do much better today with the editing. That scan was edited in Photoshop 6. In fact the differences would be so minor that I decided it wasn't worth the time to redo it. Adobe keeps updating but the changes are so minor it is almost criminal to have to pay for them.
By the way, another option is Hasselblad's Phocus software. It says it will do 150 different camera's raw files and it is free! Powerful software. If you can't do something interesting with it you should hang up your spurs!
The camera maker's raw software is usually as good as any alternative. There is always Aperture as well (at least on a Mac). I have always thought color was better from Aperture vs. Lightroom but I got on the Lightroom bandwagon early on mainly for cataloging so it would be difficult for me to change at this point. I guess that is what Adobe is counting on.
The whole cloud thing is ludicrous to me. Why would I want anyone else to have any control over the images I create? I want them with me, backed up by me. I don't need them flying around out there in the netherworld. No thanks. Remember that companies do what is their best interest. Period. They don't care about the thinking man one bit.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Ahh ... nine dollars a month is the price of a couple of cups of coffee I guess. People just seem to object to being locked into another sytem that you have to drip feed! 😀
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Adobe is really shooting themselves in the foot if they're aiming to expand market share in a growing global market.
Software companies greatest prize lies in capturing market share. Piracy actually serves a very important function in this regard, allowing companies to establish dedicated user bases in market segments where the purchasing power would not otherwise afford access.
It's analogous to the way so-called "illegal" migrant labor actually plays a crucial role in capitalist accumulation, providing extremely low cost labor while boosting political support for anti-labor policies in general.
If CC-based proprietary software closes the spigot on access through piracy, that will just have the effect of guiding those streams towards other software, giving an opening to the development of wholly new alternatives.
The last two years have seen an enormous tidal wave change in internet governance and property rights management. It would be hardly hyperbolic to call it a kind of war. US-based companies have enjoyed enormous advantage due to the dominance exercised by the US through global institutions such as the TRIPS Agreement under the WTO. They're kidding themselves, however, if they think that kind of geostrategic convergence will continue to last. Perhaps this latest move by Adobe just means that Adobe has given up on global markets long term and is expecting only to dominate G7 markets.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is nine a month the first year, twenty the second, and something yet to be determined after that... 😎
The issue is not really the money (but of course, if Adobe decides to turn greedy, they could raise the bar above the pain threshold at any time) but the implicit risks of operating a business entirely dependent on third party support:
What if Adobe ceases to exist?
What if Adobe rises prices past the level where you can still live on your work?
What if Adobe decides to quit still photography support?
What if the US government decides that the part of the world you live in is on a embargo list?
What if you declare insolvency? Can you still access (and sell) your past works if your bank account has been locked down, or do you go into death spiral mode?
If you temporarily quit photography and return later, will you still be able to access your legacy files if you haven't been in on all intermediate upgrades? (Adobe already had a similar issue with Audition)
What if you die? Will your heirs still be able to access your works, or do they effectively lose ownership as they are refused to step into your cloud account?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
What if an asteroid smashes in the Adobe server and wipes out most of the life on the planet?
All your post shows is a vivid imagination. the answer to all the questions is yes, you can always access your files if you save them on a local disk-whether you use Adobe or not. If you store your files in the cloud only you're in the same position you'd be with any off site server based back-up like PBase.
There's a lot of mis-information on the internet about this move, a lot of 'fantastical' imagination involving far stretched scenarios.
Here are some of the questions answered:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
No need to get insolent... And no, mechanical access to a heap of bits falls rather short of access to the information within - if you use any of the new features not available in past Photoshop versions (or competing products that reverse engineered a older version of the PSD format) you will need the current PS version to view, convert, alter and resize (in other words, sell) your stored files.
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm not very clear what you mean here, are you saying that you would archive your images on Adobe's cloud server in the form of a psd document?
Why wouldn't you archive on local disks in camera raw, dng, tiff or even jpg?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I'm not being insolent just accurate in my arguments. And Yes you will always be able to access and edit your PSD files, the features used to create them within the program are largely irrelevant. You will not need to use the latest version of PS to open old PSDs and resize them.
In fact you can open PSD files from any version of PS from version 2 right up to CS6 in any program that can open a PSD as it's basically a layered TIFF.
Just tried this by creating a PSD in CS6 and them opening in OS X preview 10.4–works fine...
Also please note you don't HAVE to save in the PSD format or on Adobe's servers; TIFF or another file type stored locally will be fine
You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill...
Sparrow
Veteran
... I assumed the "Cloud" thing was just a smoke screen ... that it would be regular software that sat on your own hard drive and periodically checked in with Adobe to make sure you had paid your rental, and if you had not it would simply disabled itself.
I expect if you save as a dedicated Adobe file type you'd be stuck, but tiff or jpg would obviously open in other programs. I got fed up with the up-date merry-go-round at version 7 or 8
I expect if you save as a dedicated Adobe file type you'd be stuck, but tiff or jpg would obviously open in other programs. I got fed up with the up-date merry-go-round at version 7 or 8
Similar threads
