farlymac
PF McFarland
I've got mixed emotions about this whole "cloud" thing, and where the software industry is going with it. I prefer to have the software on my system, so I can use it without having to go online. Adobe's move would force me to upgrade my Internet connection, and replace my computer, which would negate any advantage of paying monthly for the CS suite, instead of having to pony up the whole cost at once.
And on that subject, I took the bait when Adobe offered me Elements 10 at half price for downloading it instead of getting the CD. I thought this was great to be able to get the "healing tool" fix at a lower cost. What they neglected to say was that I would also only be getting half the program, as a lot of the features I used in earlier versions are now shut off. With my budget, I can't afford to be buying every years new version, and feel that Adobe took advantage of me. So adios, Adobe, you're not screwing me again.
PF
And on that subject, I took the bait when Adobe offered me Elements 10 at half price for downloading it instead of getting the CD. I thought this was great to be able to get the "healing tool" fix at a lower cost. What they neglected to say was that I would also only be getting half the program, as a lot of the features I used in earlier versions are now shut off. With my budget, I can't afford to be buying every years new version, and feel that Adobe took advantage of me. So adios, Adobe, you're not screwing me again.
PF
thegman
Veteran
If Adobe works this subscription thing the same was as Microsoft does, you don't need to be online all the time for it to work. It just checks every now and again that your subscription is still valid, these applications are not particularly 'cloudy' like they want us to believe, they are fairly regular desktop applications which use the 'cloud' (the internet, plainly speaking) to validate your license.
If you can run CS6, I expect you can run the new version too.
This could impact the camera industry too with people holding onto cameras a lot longer so they don't need to upgrade software.
kuzano
Veteran
Well for sure.. DNG does one thing well.
Well for sure.. DNG does one thing well.
Quite Simply, DNG is just another proprietary function of Adobe. It pulls you even farther into their camp. I won't try to tell you it's good or bad features, but the Adobe ploy that, at last, we have an industry standard image file format is ridiculous.
Nothing is industry standard until everybody accepts it as such.
The only thing that could even begin to show acceptance of DNG as an industry standard, would be if every camera manufacturer would adopt the format. Every camera would be capable of shooting Adobes manufactured industry standard... ie DNG, and could either still shoot their own RAW, or drop it.
When all cameras shoot DNG optionally, and no cameras shoot their own "proprietary" RAW, then I will begin to think of DNG as a standard.
Adobe is far too big for their "Britches" and they continue to prove this point over and over.
It's pretty obvious they have a need for a constant cash stream, and the "LOCK" on their user base. That's the reason for this move... and, I don't care how you wrap a "turd"... it still smells when you handle it.
Adobe has now closed ranks with Microsoft on things such as Windows 8, Vista, ME and other great mistakes of the past.
Well for sure.. DNG does one thing well.
Quite Simply, DNG is just another proprietary function of Adobe. It pulls you even farther into their camp. I won't try to tell you it's good or bad features, but the Adobe ploy that, at last, we have an industry standard image file format is ridiculous.
Nothing is industry standard until everybody accepts it as such.
The only thing that could even begin to show acceptance of DNG as an industry standard, would be if every camera manufacturer would adopt the format. Every camera would be capable of shooting Adobes manufactured industry standard... ie DNG, and could either still shoot their own RAW, or drop it.
When all cameras shoot DNG optionally, and no cameras shoot their own "proprietary" RAW, then I will begin to think of DNG as a standard.
Adobe is far too big for their "Britches" and they continue to prove this point over and over.
It's pretty obvious they have a need for a constant cash stream, and the "LOCK" on their user base. That's the reason for this move... and, I don't care how you wrap a "turd"... it still smells when you handle it.
Adobe has now closed ranks with Microsoft on things such as Windows 8, Vista, ME and other great mistakes of the past.
daveleo
what?
This would be a good time for folks to re-evaluate what they really NEED in
terms of photo editing software. There are very nice and inexpensive
programs out there that may do everything you need to do (and more !).
I never quite understood why non-pros spent big $$$ for picture editors, and
then all they ever do is gently tweak a curve or very slightly modify colors. Is
that worth a lot of cash flow to you? (Not to me it isn't.)
terms of photo editing software. There are very nice and inexpensive
programs out there that may do everything you need to do (and more !).
I never quite understood why non-pros spent big $$$ for picture editors, and
then all they ever do is gently tweak a curve or very slightly modify colors. Is
that worth a lot of cash flow to you? (Not to me it isn't.)
CliveC
Well-known
I don't think this happens to a large degree. Most of the time, people upgrade their cameras and find out afterwards that their software won't loads its files.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
I'm an independent graphic designer (print and web). And I switched to the subscription model in December.
I like it as I already owned CS5 (design premium), Lightroom and had a subscription to Typekit. Now everything I use is part of the subscription and I can access all the other Adobe products (such as video stuff) when I want to dip into them.
Ultimately, it is going to cost me more. But the truth is (just don't pass this on to Adobe) I make my living using these products and they are, IMHO, very good products. So the cost of the subscription is not a big deal in the grand scheme of my yearly expenses vs. earnings.
For me, right now, there really aren't alternatives to the Adobe suite. Yes there are other programs I could use but they are not real alternatives.
If you are purely a photographer I think there are some viable alternatives.
I do, however, think this is an anti-consumer move. It is a very cable/telecom decision. It's certainly hurting the casual user.
I like it as I already owned CS5 (design premium), Lightroom and had a subscription to Typekit. Now everything I use is part of the subscription and I can access all the other Adobe products (such as video stuff) when I want to dip into them.
Ultimately, it is going to cost me more. But the truth is (just don't pass this on to Adobe) I make my living using these products and they are, IMHO, very good products. So the cost of the subscription is not a big deal in the grand scheme of my yearly expenses vs. earnings.
For me, right now, there really aren't alternatives to the Adobe suite. Yes there are other programs I could use but they are not real alternatives.
If you are purely a photographer I think there are some viable alternatives.
I do, however, think this is an anti-consumer move. It is a very cable/telecom decision. It's certainly hurting the casual user.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
A lot of complaints here. and from so many hobbyists it seems somewhat valid.
When you look at this from a professional's point of view its perfect. I will be getting creative cloud at home for my graphic design work on the side.
This also opens doors for so many like minded amateurs and professionals to hone their skills with the latest and greatest software. For users like me who use programs like After Effects for animation and design there isnt a cheap solution as After Effects is almost industry standard these days. This lets freelancers and studios all keep consistent file types. It's great.
This also will inevitably take a huge toll on software piracy as well.
When you look at this from a professional's point of view its perfect. I will be getting creative cloud at home for my graphic design work on the side.
This also opens doors for so many like minded amateurs and professionals to hone their skills with the latest and greatest software. For users like me who use programs like After Effects for animation and design there isnt a cheap solution as After Effects is almost industry standard these days. This lets freelancers and studios all keep consistent file types. It's great.
This also will inevitably take a huge toll on software piracy as well.
VTHokiEE
Well-known
I have a feeling this will turn into a battle similar to "jailbreaking" mobile devices, where people figure out a way to subvert the constant checks...
VTHokiEE
Well-known
Depending on how this is implemented this may do very little to stop online privacy and may actually make people pirate more since someone may find a way to disable the system of checks and balances. The only way I could see this defeating piracy was if the software was in the cloud and you actually had to log into a seperate infrastructure to use it.
N.delaRua
Well-known
...maybe this is secretly a good thing. It opens a niche that was long dominated by one player. Someone out there must be satisfied with the profits margin created by Adobe doing this...
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Have you used creative cloud before. Im pretty sure there is a separate UI and licence server you have to be logged into to get upgrades and updates.
huddy
Well-known
I'm not to thrilled about it as I would have preferred to eventually pick up a teacher version of PS6. The price on that was jacked up and now I guess it is gone.
I've sucked it up and gotten a 1 year subscription. Once GIMP gets full 16-bit support included in version 2.9, 2.10, 3.0 etc., it's adios Adobe.
I've sucked it up and gotten a 1 year subscription. Once GIMP gets full 16-bit support included in version 2.9, 2.10, 3.0 etc., it's adios Adobe.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
that.
And combine it with Lightroom which is more useful for photographers anyway since it can do batch processing without any difficult actions you need to 'record'.
I use Lightroom 95% of time and only resort to Photoshop when I need some scratches or other strangeness on my scan sorted out. The Lightroom dust-busting tool is sufficient almost all the time.
Lightroom is much cheaper and when combining it with GIMP I'm set. Once my current Photoshop expires I will definitely only use Lightroom and GIMP.
FrozenInTime
Well-known
But ... I bought the CS6 upgrade ( from CS4 ) only because Adobe said it was the only way to get future upgrades.
Now they are saying there will be no future upgrades
Now they are saying there will be no future upgrades
thegman
Veteran
If the only reason you bought the update, was to get updates, why would you not just stay on the release you had?
If what Adobe told you is in an email or something, perhaps you could use it to get a refund/discount.
Rogier
Rogier Willems
Well then we are simply going to stick with the last version we own.
MS is pushing really hard on the same concept for Office. But there are plenty of alternatives for that ;-)
MS is pushing really hard on the same concept for Office. But there are plenty of alternatives for that ;-)
lynnb
Veteran
see also Bill Pierce's thread on this subject
Don't you think LR is next to go subscription?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It would appear that Lightroom is already on the list.
Piracy prevention seems to me the most likely reason. Forcing the software to check in monthly for an updated OK is a simple fix. The IT department at my college is going crazy trying to figure this one out. They're not too happy when it comes to modern software like iPad apps, auto updating, etc. I have to call them every few days to come update something from Adobe or Apple on my desktop computer. None of us are trusted to manage our office machines any more, because they saw how well we did it. This is going to be a very difficult transition for us.
Most annoying will be the monthly updates and having to work out changes to tools & the like so much more often. Presto, CC checked in today and now the blur tool I used yesterday has changed...
Piracy prevention seems to me the most likely reason. Forcing the software to check in monthly for an updated OK is a simple fix. The IT department at my college is going crazy trying to figure this one out. They're not too happy when it comes to modern software like iPad apps, auto updating, etc. I have to call them every few days to come update something from Adobe or Apple on my desktop computer. None of us are trusted to manage our office machines any more, because they saw how well we did it. This is going to be a very difficult transition for us.
Most annoying will be the monthly updates and having to work out changes to tools & the like so much more often. Presto, CC checked in today and now the blur tool I used yesterday has changed...