No more boxed Adobe apps/licenses

[John Morton]

I have nothing to contribute to this discussion other than to say that we GIMP users will be happy to help you all convert when you are ready to cut the cord.

But in the meantime, from the interview referenced by Mike, could someone translate; "The way we do that isn't necessarily to take what we're selling now and make it cheaper and cheaper because I think there is an inherent value that what we're creating gives creatives some of the new value we want. However, I think that there are decided opportunities that we can take some of the technology that we have now and surface them in different ways that are more affordable and more approachable to a broader set of customers. And so if you're asking: am I interested in leveraging this new platform and the flexibility it gives us? Then the answer is absolutely yes.", into English.

Do they make them eat jargon dictionaries before they allow them to go out and talk to the media. The thinking presumably is that if you talk this nonsense, then it must be pretty clever stuff. Oh God, people like this need a very large boot applied, with force, to a tender spot and be told to speak properly.

Well I'll have a go at it for you, Donald:

"We decided to go about selling more copies, not by making it cheaper but, by shoving it in peoples' faces as often as we can."

I may well be one of those who take you up on your GIMP offer...

[GrahamH]

Looking at the interview on dpreview - love the responses. Adobe are having some antics with semantics.
Here is my interpretation (please read the original for context, I don't want to take up too much space here), and I am sure many will have alternate interpretations - love to hear them (pro and con).
Actually reminds me of a large number of religious texts/promotional pamphlets.

1. We expected a higher degree of this type of reaction
- Attempt to trivialise the response but suggesting it is more minor than they already considered as being minor.
2. Less prone to piracy - except once downloaded.
- sympathy request, 'we have piracy issues and have not really made huge strides in that area - please be kind to us'.
3. Logistical problems were brutal
- very emotive word 'brutal' (hence sympathy request) and yet many jargon laden comments are also made (authority through confusion).
4. As far as future of CS ... no plans to continue perpetual licences... We are not ruling that out in the future
- I want my cake and to eat it. So they've said that they could go either way, so no actual information.
5. How do you justify the price increase to photographers?
- Don't like the question, so they change the question (without referencing it - to 'what nice things have you done for photographers recently?) and answer that one instead. I still don't know what how they justify the price increase to photographers. Politicians are trained to do just this sort of manouevre and have been for many years. If you don't like the question, answer one that you do like.

So, as you can see, I only got as far as the first three questions (haven't read further as yet, but will be doing so). Almost all total bunk in terms of the answers. I am already skeptical about the rest of the article as they have set the stage in this obfuscating (also means 'beclouding' according to dictionary - now ain't that apt).

Graham

[davidedric]

Heck I am slow on the uptake today.

Once you go down the CC route that's it. You are committed FOR EVER or until Adobe goes belly up. Miss a payment, and all your PSD files or LR catalogues are so much junk?

And I thought that Adobe was merely differentiating, not just raising two fingers to anyone who expects software to keep on working even when their financial circumstances change.

What makes it doubly frustrating is that for me LR is a damn fine product.

[plugsnpixels]

As for orphaned .PSD files, at present they can be opened, edited and resaved in GIMP and perhaps other editors. That's one possible lifeboat, unless Adobe makes later versions proprietary.

[Adrian]

I think it is likely that internet opinion is unrepresentative. In general people make an effort to criticise but do not bother to praise.

I suspect that for Adobe, the amateur consumer is not a critical part of their market. Some will go but many will stay. I was attracted to the cloud solution in our business much more than buying the apps. It is a good solution for business cash flow and very flexible, as there is no long term commitment.

Most people have already accepted cloud computing. This applies to anyone running google accounts in various guises (gmail etc), hotmail, apple mail and iTunes, anyone with Amazon accounts, anyone using eBay and paypal, anyone using internet banking services, hotmail and all the similar systems, most photo sharing websites such as flickr, phanfare, etc, not to mention numerous social networking sites including facebook and twitter...the list is almost endless.

It is a fact that cloud computing has taken over. What we now need to do is learn to use it intelligently and control the integrity of our data.

[davidedric]

This really isn't about distributed computing (now "The Cloud" in marketing speak), which has been around for decades. It is about a licensing model where software, and potentially access to proprietary data formats, ceases to function if licence fees, as set by the company, are not paid.

That is not the case with most of the examples quoted by Adrian, maybe with the exception of iTunes which I think has proprietary drm. Adrian is best placed to judge if it's a model that best suits his company, and it may well suit others, but I don't like it at all.

Let's say, for example, that the Canon 70D is launched after LR5 ships, has a different .cr2 format, and Adobe elects to offer support only through it's CC version of LR and not the standalone version (it's clear from the dpreview interview that the two product lines will diverge). Sorry,I may decide to live with the rented version, but I certainly don't like it.

[GrahamH]

accepted[/U] cloud computing. This applies to anyone running google accounts in various guises (gmail etc), hotmail, apple mail and iTunes, anyone with Amazon accounts, anyone using eBay and paypal, anyone using internet banking services, hotmail and all the similar systems, most photo sharing websites such as flickr, phanfare, etc, not to mention numerous social networking sites including facebook and twitter...the list is almost endless.

And I am quite happy to use hotmail and flickr (the only two that I use on your list) under the subscription cost that I currently pay. Zip diddly squat.They make their money from other sources (and many other free alternates abound).

Graham

[plugsnpixels]

Received this today from a colleague who was passing along a message from someone else in education for my information. It's the first mention of educational pricing I've seen thus far:

"PC Mag got the story half right. Adobe is not going to have CS versions past the current 6. But you can either purchase CS6 or go the cloud route.

Here is the half right story:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418602,00.asp

And Adobe's press release:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pres...otheCloud.html

And the cloud version is not only 50 percent more expensive in the first year, but then you would have to pay the same amount every year or you won't be able to use the software and you won't even be able to open the files.

The cloud math: $30 a month per computer for the education price. That's $360 a year. Ten computers: $3,600 every year, year after year after year. What happens when your print advertising disappears in a couple of years?

CS6 education price: $250 per computer, and you own it forever. Ten computers: $2,500.

We are planning to replace nine PCs with new iMacs this summer (thus our absence at the state convention), but we will have to purchase CS6 now to beat Adobe's June 17 deadline. On that date, no more CS (the cloud replacement will be "CC").

Is anyone using Quark? Its price is $199 per computer."

I asked my wife today (who dips into Photoshop on occasion to do something simple) what she thought of the new subscription plan, and she immediately figured it would cost way more in the long run. I would add it's like leasing a car. Although you get something new each year, don't you pay way more over time? That's high school level economics.

[DanK]

This really isn't about distributed computing (now "The Cloud" in marketing speak), which has been around for decades. It is about a licensing model where software, and potentially access to proprietary data formats, ceases to function if licence fees, as set by the company, are not paid.

Thank you, Dave. Much of the discussion has missed this point. It actually isn't cloud computing anyway--you use your own CPU, and you may or may not store in the cloud. The change is also not distribution by internet, which Adobe has had for years, and it is not the introduction of a subscription model, which they have had for some time. The change is simply removing all options other than the subscription model for access to the software. Great for Adobe's stockholders; great for companies that use a bunch of the CC apps; and not good at all for some consumers.

[pnodrog]

If Adobe had hoped camera manufacturers would adopt their DNG format I think they may well have knocked that on the head.

I am not to upset Photoshop PS6 does every thing I need. They may release updates that increase productivity for commercial users but functionality rather than productivity is the main for requirement photographers only processing a limited number of photographs. Ultimately camera support is my main worry.

[plugsnpixels]

Speaking of the cloud (and I know the topic has drifted in this direction but as OP I didn't have a problem with it), it seems even the Post Office in the US is moving toward a physical representation of this arrangement. From a comment on a local town newsgroup I am a member of:

"Yesterday when our letter carrier came up our steps as the mailbox as always been on the house by the front door, he told me how in many areas the postal service is changing over to pedestal mounted cluster lockboxes in neighborhoods so that mail can be delivered quicker."

[Adrian]

Graphic designers working commercially across print and web space (and in our case photo and video for web too) will typically use around 15 of the apps some of the time and around 10 a lot of the time. The subscription model makes a great deal of sense in this area. In a business context it is costing us roughly £500 per seat per annum, tax deductible. This is peanuts: trivial in the context of the overall cost of the media team we have in house. This kind of economic judgement won't get a second thought from many businesses.

Paying for licenses up front is an issue for small businesses: heavy upfront cash outlay.

I think Adobe understands their customer base perfectly well and has adapted its offering to their target market.

Photographers seem mainly interested in LR and Photoshop. There are surely alternatives for both. We use Aperture, DxO, various other things. Can't see Adobe dependence as a big issue personally. Hard to get excited about this whole issue really. I think it's a good move from Adobe

[GrahamH]

As an additional thought - many bricks and mortar photo stores are already having difficulties in competing.
Any business owners out there give info as to their income from selling software?
I know I bought virtually all of mine (PSE various versions and LR (plus Portrait Professional - hangs head in shame)) from a local camera store (before I moved anyway - gods I miss the big city).
Graham

[Colin Southern]

Glib responses to a serious issue, Colin.

To be honest John, it was more of a reflection of the amount of time I was prepared to invest when you've obviously made up your mind and nothing or nobody is going to change that.

What I will say in closing is that network security is part of my responsibility in looking after hundreds of PCs on a daily basis - for companies where "failure is not an option". You'd think that with all the nasties you mention that it would be a constant battle, but in reality - having done our prep - it's just a big yawn frankly. Number of PCs infected over the past few years on best-practice sites? Zero. Number of files "erased by the bad guys" Zero.

Anyone relying on just anti-virus to keep them safe is living in a fools paradise. Security comes from best-practice, and best-practice means keeping machine fully patched - sitting behind an appropriate firewall - having an anti-virus package as a precaution - educating users - but primarily staying away from high-risk sites (aka "porn sites"). The chances of getting infected from sites like microsoft.com, hp.com, stuff.co.nz, cambridgeincolour.com are practically non-existent. The chances of an infection attempt "xxxporn.com" is orders of magnitude higher (practically guaranteed in fact).

Most of the people are getting infected because for the most part they engage in risky behaviour without adequate protection.

Heck, if you're so worried about viruses and hackers then keep them in a sandbox by running a disposable virtual machine. Personally though, I just can't be bothered; I take appropriate precautions (as outlined above) and for me it's just a non-event. In my opinion there are pretty much equal amounts of ignorance and paranoia when it comes to all this hysteria over internet security.

Anyway, enough time wasted ...

[Colin Southern]

[Wayland]

I'm an Adobe customer and I bought in to all the non destructive editing stuff. Fat lot of good my layered files are going to be now.

I also bought into the DNG for long term file security stuff too. Why on Earth would I trust Adobe with that format any more?

I'm also one of Mr Schewe's customers having bought a couple of his books. But after reading his opinion about his customers on another forum I'll let you work out for yourself if I'll ever buy one again.

I'll have to keep using CS6 so long as my current machine and OS support it which should give me the time I need to learn some new software I guess.

So my questions are simple. What is now going to be the safest method of archiving my RAW files and does anyone produce a good book on the Gimp?

[Colin Southern]

I'm an Adobe customer and I bought in to all the non destructive editing stuff. Fat lot of good my layered files are going to be now.

I also bought into the DNG for long term file security stuff too. Why on Earth would I trust Adobe with that format any more?

I'm also one of Mr Schewe's customers having bought a couple of his books. But after reading his opinion about his customers on another forum I'll let you work out for yourself if I'll ever buy one again.

I'll have to keep using CS6 so long as my current machine and OS support it which should give me the time I need to learn some new software I guess.

So my questions are simple. What is now going to be the safest method of archiving my RAW files and does anyone produce a good book on the Gimp?

With all due respect Gary, I think that a reality check is called for (not just you, but with many here). On a subscription basis - for Photoshop only - for existing customers - it works out at about a dollar a day. A dollar a day for goodness sake. Think about it. That probably equates to about 2 minutes work for someone who'd on $30 an hour. Factor into that what existing upgrades are ALREADY costing them and the difference (if any) is even more insignificant.

If they have a problem with the principle of it then that's fine - their call, their loss - but if one were to rank in terms of what things cost in their everyday lives, I'm pretty sure a Photoshop subscription that delivers cutting edge-tools to get the most out of a hobby that they've already invested thousands of dollars in would rank well down the list. In most cases well below mortgages - electricity - fuel - coffee - camera and lenses purchases - junk food - internet charges - insurance - phone - and I'm sure many more things.

To be quite frank about it - and I appreciate that what I'm about to say isn't going to win me any friends - but in all honesty, all I'm hearing from most is nothing more than resistance to change - negativity - and frankly, nothing short of just "packing a tantrum and throwing the toys out of the cot".

My suggestion is that folks "build a bridge" and "get over it" - move on. They won't of course -- they'll continue to come up with all sorts of "justifications" and "rationals" (that's the sad part) - but I had to say it anyway, sigh.

I'm done with this thread - built my bridge - ran across it - and am already enjoying life on the other side.

[John Morton]

What I will say in closing is that network security is part of my responsibility in looking after hundreds of PCs on a daily basis - for companies where "failure is not an option". You'd think that with all the nasties you mention that it would be a constant battle, but in reality - having done our prep - it's just a big yawn frankly. Number of PCs infected over the past few years on best-practice sites? Zero. Number of files "erased by the bad guys" Zero.

Anyone relying on just anti-virus to keep them safe is living in a fools paradise. Security comes from best-practice, and best-practice means keeping machine fully patched - sitting behind an appropriate firewall - having an anti-virus package as a precaution - educating users - but primarily staying away from high-risk sites (aka "porn sites"). The chances of getting infected from sites like microsoft.com, hp.com, stuff.co.nz, cambridgeincolour.com are practically non-existent. The chances of an infection attempt "xxxporn.com" is orders of magnitude higher (practically guaranteed in fact).

Most of the people are getting infected because for the most part they engage in risky behaviour without adequate protection.

Well Colin I think you've made my case quite well.

I don't look after hundreds of PCs on a daily basis; but I have used a PC for a couple of decades now, and I do not wish to put the work I have stored on my PCs in jeopardy. If I worked on PC security for hundreds of PCs on a daily basis, that probably wouldn't be an issue for me: but I don't, and it is; and, most other people don't, either.

Interesting little development out on the Internet: most virus infections now original from religious sites, not porn sites. Neither are going to get me but, sooner or later, I can assume that something can and probably will. But it won't get my main computer; it will only get my expendable, second-hand, Internet computer.

Heck, if you're so worried about viruses and hackers then keep them in a sandbox by running a disposable virtual machine. Personally though, I just can't be bothered; I take appropriate precautions (as outlined above) and for me it's just a non-event. In my opinion there are pretty much equal amounts of ignorance and paranoia when it comes to all this hysteria over internet security.

Anyway, enough time wasted ...

Well, I've run a disposable PHYSICAL machine for as long as I have been able to do so: I have an Internet computer, and a main computer I use for writing and photo editing. Photo editing is just a part of what I do; and quite frankly, the other stuff is much more important to me. So, I don't appreciate Adobe telling me how I MUST configure my main computer when that decision is made on the basis of their profitability, not my own personal needs.

It is my computer, after all: I will set it up and run it as I like, not how Adobe tells me I have to; and if that means I stop using their products, well that's fine with me.

[orlcam88]

I wasn't going to add to this post and I was going to unsubscribe, but these last comments by Colin was enough.

With all due respect Gary, I think that a reality check is called for (not just you, but with many here). On a subscription basis - for Photoshop only - for existing customers - it works out at about a dollar a day. A dollar a day for goodness sake. Think about it. That probably equates to about 2 minutes work for someone who'd on $30 an hour. Factor into that what existing upgrades are ALREADY costing them and the difference (if any) is even more insignificant.

If they have a problem with the principle of it then that's fine - their call, their loss - but if one were to rank in terms of what things cost in their everyday lives, I'm pretty sure a Photoshop subscription that delivers cutting edge-tools to get the most out of a hobby that they've already invested thousands of dollars in would rank well down the list. In most cases well below mortgages - electricity - fuel - coffee - camera and lenses purchases - junk food - internet charges - insurance - phone - and I'm sure many more things.

To be quite frank about it - and I appreciate that what I'm about to say isn't going to win me any friends - but in all honesty, all I'm hearing from most is nothing more than resistance to change - negativity - and frankly, nothing short of just "packing a tantrum and throwing the toys out of the cot".

My suggestion is that folks "build a bridge" and "get over it" - move on. They won't of course -- they'll continue to come up with all sorts of "justifications" and "rationals" (that's the sad part) - but I had to say it anyway, sigh.

I don't see how you can compare paying for a subscription CC versus having a mortgages, paying for electricity, fuel etc. Seriously dude? Sorry but that is utterly ridiculous. CC is not a necessity. Those others are.

And as for resistance to change, It's not a matter of resistance to change, at least for me. It's a matter of money, ownership and control period. Hell I bought many software throughout the years as downloads. The problem with the CC plan is that one does not have ownership. If at some point in the future you're out of work for example and you need to cut expenses, CC would be one of the items I'll look into (Unless your Colin, then you'll look at Mortgages, Electric, fuel etc first). Once you cut CC out, now you'll have nothing to work with as you stopped your subscription. Whereas if you own the product you wouldn't have that issue. Unless of course you decide to cut electric. And yes I know you can restart once you get a job, but during that down time I can't use the software. So rather than going to the subscription route, I rather start learning GIMP.

Just because people don't agree with Colin's "build a bridge" motto, doesn't mean you need to attack peoples opinions.
Wondering if you own stock in Adobe?

[Colin Southern]

I don't see how you can compare paying for a subscription CC versus having a mortgages, paying for electricity, fuel etc. Seriously dude? Sorry but that is utterly ridiculous. CC is not a necessity. Those others are.

I was going to leave it too, but "what the heck" ...

No - CC isn't a necessity - neither is coffee, junk food, internet, paid TV, nor many of then myriad of things people waste money on in exchange for "zero value" returns (like lottery tickets). And I'm sure if people wanted to economize a little then they'd save far more than a paltry CC subscription for Photoshop, which ironically costs most people a similar amount (or more) in upgrade charges anyway.

It's a matter of money, ownership and control period. Hell I bought many software throughout the years as downloads.

I've got some bad news. Check your EULA. You don't own ANY of the software you think you do - all you've gone is enter a legal agreement with the software owners that you may use THEIR software. All that's changing is the length of time that you may use it, and in return, they'll keep it up to date (if you wish). Rather than pay a lot up front with the right to use it it in it's original form forever, you now have no up-front costs - can only use it for the lease period - and they'll keep it up to date.

So rather than going to the subscription route, I rather start learning GIMP.

Totally your call.

Just because people don't agree with Colin's "build a bridge" motto, doesn't mean you need to attack peoples opinions.
Wondering if you own stock in Adobe?

Uncalled for.