Believe it or not, I JUST found out about Adobe's new model!

[FlyingSquirrel]

Isn't that what we start eating when the entertainment is about to begin?

LOL. That had occurred to me after I made my last post.

[Mike Buckley]

Isn't that what we start eating when the entertainment is about to begin?

Ahhhhhhhhh. Your subtle humor evaded me. Ummm, even if it's not subtle, it still evaded me.

On the other hand, consider that popcorn is ideal material for a food fight.

[Colin Southern]

Ahhhhhhhhh. Your subtle humor evaded me. Ummm, even if it's not subtle, it still evaded me.

On the other hand, consider that popcorn is ideal material for a food fight.

Judging my the amount of left on the floors of the local cinemas, I think you're right. I'd like to think that my two "angels" would play no part in that, but sadly, I think I'm kidding myself

[xpatUSA]

You have a computer that you don't ever connect to the internet? Can I ask why? To each his own, but this puzzles me.

Question was not addressed to me but there are still some unconnected machines out there. In my studio, a Macintosh Performer running OS9 sits connected only to a MIDI system, thus allowing me to compose and play "Band-in-a-Box" backings for my guitar-pickin' efforts. No malware is going steal my licks ;-).

[revi]

(...)
Anyway guys, it was not my intent to start up a flaming thread or anything. The initial post was because I was shocked by the news and wanted to get a little talk going to help me decide what to do. I am sorry it got all crazy here!

It always gets a bit crazy when you get several participants with strong and conflicting opinions
At least here it stays polite (most of the time anyway).

[Colin Southern]

It always gets a bit crazy when you get several participants with strong and conflicting opinions
At least here it stays polite (most of the time anyway).

Personally, I've always felt that I get the best results from Nikon cameras, so long as the images were shot without a UV filter attached, and they were processed on a Mac, using free software!

[Didace]

[John Morton]

You have a computer that you don't ever connect to the internet? Can I ask why? To each his own, but this puzzles me.

That's easy enough to answer. When I started putting together a dedicated digital image editing setup, I had a computer custom built for editing images and added to it a minolta DiMage 5400 digital film scanner (which I waited for, as I had heard about it before it hit the market) and a QMS/Minolta 300 EX color laser printer, which I had to hover over the Minolta website for 8 months in order to finally find one which was a factory refurbished model. That cost me about $1,000 for a $8,000 - $10,000 prepress capable, oversized tabloid color laser printer.

Since that printer had its own hard drive and processor, I decided that the last thing I wanted was any kind of malware or virus getting into it where I would have virtually no chance of dealing with it (and such viruses were around then, having been used to infect Iraqi printers before the Gulf War. Little chance of getting one but no chance is a better chance). Since I was only scanning my 35mm negatives and printing them as color 11" X 17"'s at home after editing them, I decided that I didn't need to hook that computer up to the Internet: I was using it all the time anyway without surfing the 'net. A cheap, disposable second-hand PC served that purpose much better, and gave me something to work on when my image editing computer was working on scanning negatives.

A few brushes with early browser re-direct viruses, such as "Cool Web Browser", made me realise that I was farther ahead keeping my image editing computer isolated from the Internet. Since then, players on the virus and malware landscape have proliferated wildly, and all of the measures suggested by those in the IT know about how to keep one's digital assets safe are basically permutations on ways to simulate isolating a computer from the Internet.

Keeping my dedicated image editing computer isolated as it already is has proven to be the simplest solution available. I could "cut corners" and agree that "Oh it won't hurt to connect to Adobe once a month" but that is a slippery slope I have no intention of starting down. Really, I don't need anything else from Adobe beyond what I have already bought and paid for so I have no qualms whatsoever over parting company with them.

My firm opposition to Adobe's new marketing strategy is probably based in the idea that it isn't really proper to counsel others to undertake risky actions even if one does so themselves. 999.99% of the time there is no problem but when dealing with thousands of people eventually someone gets hurt and it seems there is never anyone will to take responsibility for providing what turned out in one instance to be bad advice.

As a philosopher, I put this down to the divide between ethical and moral actions: we can decide for ourselves what is an ethical course of action for us to take in any given situation, but when we convey that course of action as preferable to others than we are making a moral choice as to what is the greater good for everyone. Clearly, Adobe's choice of subscription based software services is in the best interests of Adobe; and many have made solid arguments as to why it would be in the best interests of Adobe's customers to sign up for their Creative Cloud software delivery system. Personally, I really only see an advantage there for Adobe; certainly, there is no advantage to be gained by me in signing up for Adobe CC.

I think it is a decision everyone has to make for themselves but I also think it needs to be an informed decision made with the realities of the situation openly discussed, rather than the somewhat cultic party lines of Adobe's marketing mantras being the primary factor weighing in on peoples' decision whether or not to go along with this marketing strategy.

[pnodrog]

The problem Adobe has is once a product has matured and been refined as much as its products any improvements are so minor that most people will not bother to upgrade. So the market rapidly diminishes and only exists of a very small number of new buyers, the few users that see a particular value in some minor new feature or fashion followers. The bulk of the users like me will remain with the version they have - why pay for something with just a few new gimmicks. This becomes an increasing commercial and marketing nightmare for Adobe and hence the new model of treating the product as an ongoing service. If they had waited much longer they would have been in real trouble.

[Colin Southern]

The problem Adobe has is once a product has matured and been refined as much as its products any improvements are so minor that most people will not bother to upgrade. So the market rapidly diminishes and only exists of a very small number of new buyers, the few users that see a particular value in some minor new feature or fashion followers. The bulk of the users like me will remain with the version they have - why pay for something with just a few new gimmicks. This becomes an increasing commercial and marketing nightmare for Adobe and hence the new model of treating the product as an ongoing service. If they had waited much longer they would have been in real trouble.

The new subscription model solves that problem completely.

The other thing I suspect that people don't appreciate is the fact that it's not just new features that make an upgrade attractive -- it's also improvements to existing tools. I jumped from CS5 to CC and immediately noticed very significant improvements in the "smarts" of things like spot healing brush tool / healing brush tool; in the past things like a single hair than runs through an eye and across the mouth could be quite a PITA to remove in a high quality way -- one would have to carefully work each background separately - and now it just seems to understand more of what I'm trying to do. That alone has saved a lot of time.

Keeping in mind too that although PS is a major product, it's only a tiny fraction of Adobe's huge range of products.

[Richard Lundberg]

Adobe has created a lot of ill will by this move. I think most of it could be resolved if Adobe would agree to let a person in CC keep their current version in perpetuity if they have subscribed for, say, eighteen months. That would answer the objection to not being able to open images worked on in CC only versions. I don't see how they could lose by doing this, and it would lessen the appearance of rapaciousness.

[Mike Buckley]

Adobe has created a lot of ill will by this move.

While that may be true, I don't think they have created much ill will among those with the user profile that they care most about.

[Colin Southern]

Adobe has created a lot of ill will by this move. I think most of it could be resolved if Adobe would agree to let a person in CC keep their current version in perpetuity if they have subscribed for, say, eighteen months. That would answer the objection to not being able to open images worked on in CC only versions. I don't see how they could lose by doing this, and it would lessen the appearance of rapaciousness.

Economically, that wouldn't make sense for them.