Adobe taking the p**s

jsrockit said:
Don't you think LR is next to go subscription?
Click to expand...

I guess that will depend on reception to this news.

I've never bought a copy of Microsoft Office in my life, but I did take out a subscription simply because I needed Office at the time, and the sticker shock is not too bad at $7.99.

Some people might feel the same about Adobe wares. If you use a lot of Adobe apps, it might end up being a good deal, or it may not.

I have no real issue with the subscription model, only that it should be reasonably priced. The Office deal is very reasonable I think, the Adobe one is a bit more mixed.
 
I expect most major pieces of software across the industry to take a route like this. This is a software industry trend overall along with stores like iTunes. There is simply too much money on the table for software companies to not change something here.

In the end, the only voices they are going to care about are those of people who regularly buy their software. Anyone pirating it or buying a copy every 10 years isn't giving them much money anyway so losing money to make those people happy makes little sense. I'm willing to bet that the 'what about training/pulling people in' side will likely be addressed by stripped down versions of the software like Elements or academic licenses.

All that said, I started using Gimp a few years ago as I couldn't justify buying Photoshop.
 
sepiareverb said:
It would appear that Lightroom is already on the list..
Click to expand...

LightRoom can still be purchased, outright; single license, for $149 or upgrade from $79 USD.

While Adobe may go that route with LightRoom (why wouldn't it after all, it seems to be doing it with their other "CS" applications. . . but LightRoom has never been considered part of the any Creative Suite to the best of my knowledge) it currently is not.

So, again, right now, Adobe LightRoom is not part of the creative cloud (CC) - note that the LightRoom name, while "included" in Creative Cloud does not mean you MUST buy a CC license in order to purchase LightRoom. :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
One thing is for sure, this is he first time in the history of photography forums on the internet that there is been a general consensus of agreement on ANY topic!
 
if you're a professional, $50 bucks a month for all of that software seems like a pretty good deal to me. people were buying $299 versions of capture1 just to decode x-pro1 files. as a not student / teacher, Photoshop CS6 is $589 at B&H, that's 30 months of subscription, it's not that bad of a deal that way either if you need new features.

if you're using the "Student and Teacher" version and not a student or teacher, you're already violating terms anyways and even more so for all the piracy that goes on. i've always secretly believed Adobe didn't mind piracy because it has allowed younger folks to learn Photoshop who will then use paid versions in businesses.

as to being part of the cloud, who of us doesn't use google? google mail? android phones? i would consider those to be way more dangerous to personal information security than whatever Adobe is doing with this software implementation whether i agree or not if it's the best way to go forwards.
 
I think it's actually fairly understandable from Adobe's perspective why they are taking this route. Having said that, it seems they have acknowledged the feedback on the potential of a photographers bundle with PS and LR and are exploring the possibility.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdot...t-photoshop-cc.html#JustPhotoshopAndLightroom

If this comes to fruition and is reasonably priced, it could make sense from our perspective too.
 
... there is often a misunderstanding as to the objectives that directors of joint-stock companies peruse, and what their companies exist to make ... Adobe are not in business to make software, they are in business to make money for their shareholders ... and have a statuary duty to do just that.
 
clayne said:
Welcome to how monopolies work folks.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the sentiment; that is, what you were trying to get at - Adobe is not a monopoly in this business. There are other makers of photo manipulation/processing software (and illustration software and film editing software etc.)

Adobe may be the most well known creator of such software (i.e. everyone seems to "know" of photoshop for example but how many know that Corel Draw is still around? :) ) but they are not the only creators of such software. If they were, then, of course, they would be considered as having a monopoly.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
While I agree with the sentiment; that is, what you were trying to get at - Adobe is not a monopoly in this business. There are other makers of photo manipulation/processing software (and illustration software and film editing software etc.)

Adobe may be the most well known creator of such software (i.e. everyone seems to "know" of photoshop for example but how many know that Corel Draw is still around? :) ) but they are not the only creators of such software. If they were, then, of course, they would be considered as having a monopoly.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

I understand the technical definition of monopoly and how there are actually other products out there (meaning Adobe isn't the only one who makes one). However, I think we can all agree that Adobe has a de facto monopoly on this market segment.

A monopoly does not necessarily mean 100% market share either.
 
hopefully this will open up the market to cheaper options, or open people's eyes to options that are there (if they are there, i don't personally know).
 
I use darktable on Ubuntu Linux on my laptop.
I practically run my Data Warehouse consulting business on Linux. I only go Windows when my clients must be serviced on it.

I haven't used my Lightroom for a while now.

Adobe's strategy is sound for pro-graphic artists, but I too hope that this will open doors for Corel (do they still in business??) or some new companies to fill the gap between pros and casual users.
 
clayne said:
I understand the technical definition of monopoly and how there are actually other products out there (meaning Adobe isn't the only one who makes one). However, I think we can all agree that Adobe has a de facto monopoly on this market segment.

A monopoly does not necessarily mean 100% market share either.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh.. no.. we don't "all agree" - there are a LOT of other options in this segment.

Dave
 
Like it or not, people like the idea of ownership, this is why the iTunes model is so successful compared to music 'rental' service, despite the rental service being a better deal for all but the most casual of music buyers.
People like something tangible, that it's owned and controlled by them. Adobe will cave to the pressure, you read it here first.
 
jsrockit said:
This could impact the camera industry too with people holding onto cameras a lot longer so they don't need to upgrade software.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have just about come to the point of "enough is enough." I buy another digital camera, and either Aperture doesn't support it, or I would have to upgrade from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion (or pterodactyl, or . . .); or else my Lightroom 4 doesn't support it; or both.

Phooey. I had a neighbor, Roberta, who used to say, "Use it up, make it last, make it do, wear it out." I think I like the idea. Let's all start wearing out what we have.
 
For my work, I use Lightroom, Premiere Pro, Audition, After Effects and Photoshop in that order of importance. My mainstays are LR and PP, and I've spent a long time becoming familiar with their workflows and functions. At the moment, CS6 does everything I want, and will allow me to process footage from a Canon C300, Sony FS700 or even a Red Epic if I need to, although I'd need to upgrade my computer and reload CS6 to do the last. I'm sticking with LR4 and CS6 for as long as I can, then look at alternatives if the situation has not improved.

One problem for people moving to other software is the time spent learning their functions and quirks. When you do this for a living, time is money, and time you spend figuring out where everything is in a new program is time taken away from current projects. Unless the alternatives are very Adobe-like in interface and effect, this is likely to be a lengthy and sometimes frustrating process. The GIMP bothered the crap out of me back in 2006 because it didn't work like PS.

Right about now, someone will bust out the good old, 'this is why I shoot film, no need to upgrade software all the time'!
 
I have used every photoshop upgrade since PS3. I used to wait with baited breath for the new version. Lately I have upgraded only very grudgingly as the intent of adobe to control, overcharge and force upgrades without much to gain from them except the use of ACR has really gotten under my skin. So this is no surprise, just another step in the continuum.

The good news is that thee are now many very good RAW converter apps available and there are even some great choices to move to from photoshop. I'll keep using CS6 for a while (it does sound like they will "allow" us to use the next version of ACR even without going for the monthly bill but will cripple it to enable some of the features only to the suckers who go for the new improved upgrade). By that time, I will probably be pretty content with what ever app I chose as the adobe replacement and won't need the new ACR from them.

So sad... Adobe (at least Photoshop) used to be the company we loved... it has become the company we love to hate (and with plenty of good reason).
 
I cannot imagine why a hobbyist would need photoshop, there are so many alternatives. But lets face it, Nikon/Canon sells most of their pro grade cameras to hobbyists.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the only difference between pro and hobbyist is that one of them earns money with what the other does for enjoyment. So some hobbyists are just as serious with what they are doing and want the same tools as the pro.

If the alternatives offer the same tools and work just as well, then you have a point and it could/should apply to pros too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom