There is another question in the FAQs if it's possible to restrict the use of certain cloud services (cloud storage, community function,..) Answer is, that each individual servicecall can be disabled. The whole sharing, sync and backup in the cloud is completely optional.
But I see a real benefit for the Adobe cloud services. If you have the problem to work on more than one device or you are working in a small team without a dedicated network, how do solve this issue today? You already use some 3rd party cloud services like dropbox or skydrive to share your data. So you already rely on external services. Switching to Adobe services makes this situation not better or worse but now brings native connectivity from Adobe products to the cloud storage.
There are obviously many points that need an awful lot of clarification, and it'll be difficult to bring out
valid points when those who completely agree that this Idea is 100% flawless cannot understand how this possibly couldn't be a Good Idea.
Let's leave the user data storage out of the equation (mainly to simplify the arguments, because to some all humans are mammals, and since horses have four legs and are mammals, therefore humans have four legs, it's just as simple as that you see?).
Moving from an ownership model over to a subscription model is a huge shift for those people who would rather buy than rent. Some would swear on the awesome benefits of renting, others on the awesome benefits of ownership.
Furthermore, having a subscription model where the only means of installation is network-based (i.e. so-called "cloud") poses a huge problem for businesses and individuals who themselves are in a physical location where there are different realities: working remotely, working on different desktops, the workplace is behind a highly secure firewall, a school infrastructure which is still in the late 20th century...
Say you're on the field for over a year, and your laptop has absolutely no Internet access. How will Adobe reconcile that? What happens if your equipment is toast, and you need to get one right away, sent to you from elsewhere?
It's not like in a case where let's say your car breaks down and you need to buy another and then have someone deliver it to you in the field: no, this model will force you to either 1) move from the field to take care of this and back or 2) transmit your personal/financial information to someone else so that they can get it for you and deliver it to you.
These are things that high-level big wigs do not think about, and comes burning them when a significant clientbase tells them their means of delivering services no longer functions for them.
This is one of the many dangers of oversimplifying "the cloud". That concept was conceived to provide
convenience to end-users. This model is not convenient to a significant number of end-users, and if Adobe is happy with their decision, then they should be happy about the exodus from those who will not accept it.
This issue is more about poor vision from executives than it is about consumers being "too dumb" to accept their vision. Companies cannot get paid if there are no consumers to pay them (unless you're in a business-welfare or wholly communist system, which is an entirely different debate).
Taking "the cloud" out of the equation: forcing
all users to take it or leave it when it comes to de facto leasing is a Very Bad Idea.
When Netflix decided they'd get rid of physical deliveries, they took a huge hit. It wasn't because all users were ludites, it's because 1) they didn't understand their clients' habits and expectations and 2) customers felt betrayed. Before that, Netflix did amazingly well with their "cloud"-based offerings (TiVo, Wii, PC content delivery). But taking an option *away*, specially one which is thought of as a Right and is at the very foundation of Capitalism,
ownership, is bad bad bad bad when that's what your client base is used to.