No more boxed Adobe apps/licenses

[DanK]

just to satisfy the desire of a very few who - for what-ever reasons - choose to remain unconnected to the internet.

The vast vast vast vast majority of ALL software is now internet-delivery based - for good reason - and I can see no reason why Adobe should be any different. It's not about forcing anybody to do anything - it's about moving with the times to remain competitive.

Colin, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point. Of all the negative posts I have read, only one was a complaint about internet delivery. All of the others, including mine, were complaints about being forced into a subscription model. I've used mostly internet delivery of software for years, but I am still pissed off by this.

Is it a small minority? I don't think we have any real data about this yet. Moreover, even if we did, it might not be indicative of reactions over the longer term--in part because none of us has any information whatever about how Adobe will behave once we have all been forced into a subscription model. A lot of people seem to be assuming that what they see now is what they will see down the road, but there is no way to know if that will be the case.

My hunch--and it is only a hunch--is that over the long term, this won't be a whole lot more popular than bundling by cable companies, which forces people to pay for what they don't want in order to buy what they do. But that is speculation, and we may never know, unless a serious competitor to Adobe appears and chooses not to offer only a subscription model.

For myself: I'm pissed off by this. I don't like any company taking advantage of its market power to push me into buying what I don't choose to buy.

Dan

[plugsnpixels]

Great summary of the situation, Dan.

[Colin Southern]

I was referring to the "who has access" perspective. I don't doubt there are times when cloud access is helpful. I ran my phone through the wash and they were able to restore (my small amount of data) from their cloud.

Data security is an interesting animal -- I'd suggest that vetted employees of a company who's reputation will always be on the line with respect to privacy of data are far less likely to allow unauthorized access to that data (amongst a sea of data that they're custodians of) than are people who go out to lunch and leave their PCs logged in - or share passwords (the latter I come across all the time).

Interestingly, I've setup many iPhones & iPads to backup to the cloud - and restored several of them without losing any data after users had decided to put them through the wash - slam them onto their desk - initiate an iOS upgrade and then shut it down to board a plane - upgrade to new devices - replace the phone after the old one died after being taken for a run in the rain (to name just a few). I've also had people who didn't setup cloud backups who lost everything. My phone backs up to the cloud - my eMail is stored in the cloud - my back account is in there - my files are in there - this forum is in there.

As for blowback, we must be reading different comments ;-). Of course, it's unknown whether only unhappy people post though. Anybody who does seem happy in such comments (and I'm not referring to you) is accused of being an Adobe shill.

I've read the same comments, but they're what I call the "vocal minority". Those who are happy with the move aren't going to seek out outlets to vent. Many who are posting such comments also have no appreciation of how it works (judging by the many blatantly incorrect things they're saying). We had the same "storm in a teacup" over things like iPhone 4 reception - Canon 1D3 sub-mirror alignment - ad-nausium. You can never please all of the people all the time.

[Colin Southern]

Colin, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point. Of all the negative posts I have read, only one was a complaint about internet delivery. All of the others, including mine, were complaints about being forced into a subscription model. I've used mostly internet delivery of software for years, but I am still pissed off by this.

Dan,

With all due respect, I'm not missing the point.

I'm very much aware that the changes apply to both product deliver and licencing; (a) I mentioned it in Post 15, and (b) I'm signed up for it!

Of all the complaints I've read, they're complaining about this, that, and sundry -- and most of it is wildly short of the mark.

The bottom line is that - for the majority of people who upgrade annually or biennially it'll cost them the same or less whilst at the same time giving them free access to the worlds finest range of software tools for the markets that they cover. And for the majority of us in that position, that's a very good thing.

Why does everyone assume that Adobe is going to "do the dirty" on it's customers? I'm afraid it's attitudes like that that piss me off (aimed at everyone with that attitude). In my opinion they've proven themselves to be one of the most successful companies of all time; not necessarily in just financial terms but in terms of innovation in the products they've delivered - that people buy of their own free will (in the face of much cheaper and even free products) - the products are powerful - dependable - and reliable - and the company even wins awards for being a great employer. And yet they continue to be treated with suspicion that (to my knowledge) is completely without foundation. A small minority seem to have an amazing sense of self-entitlement and seem to think that their minority needs should be put head and shoulders above the need of the company to be profitable and successful.

For myself: I'm pissed off by this. I don't like any company taking advantage of its market power to push me into buying what I don't choose to buy.

Nobody is "pushing you" into buying anything you don't choose. If you don't like it, don't sign up for it. I'm sure that there's no functionality that's going to be life-and-death essential that's not already in a boxed copy of CS6.

[Colin Southern]

So, how will subscribers' wallets feel after, say 4, 5, 10 years-?

Considering that I'll be enjoying the latest technology for less than it would have cost me, my wallet will be feeling great.

I think folks need to step back and get some perspective on this. Folks don't bat an eyelid paying $5 for a cup of coffee - or $20 for a lunch - or $200 on groceries - or $1000+ a month rent on a house - and yet there's supposed to be sympathy when a company asks for $1 a day for you to always have access to their latest and greatest developments (for 1 product, or a couple of bucks a day to have access to the whole lot).

[plugsnpixels]

Colin, points taken, and I do actually hope you're right.

As for my concerns about data storage, it's not the employees but external hackers that would be the main worry. "Anonymous" has been doing a pretty good job...

As for the long-term price of licensing, extrapolating the monthly fee into the distant future (10, 20 years) has got to cost more than buying every other version of the suite every several years or more (I won't even attempt to do the math...).

Finally, if what you say about Adobe is indeed true, then they have a serious PR problem that needs to be addressed better than it is at the moment.

PS: I should mention you've got some really nice work on your facebook page!

[Colin Southern]

As for my concerns about data storage, it's not the employees but external hackers that would be the main worry. "Anonymous" has been doing a pretty good job...

I think most people are "masters of their own destinies" in that respect; in most cases it's not a security flaw within the data center that's letting the bad guys in - it's the user making it easy for them with weak passwords and compromised PCs. I'm a big fan of 2-factor authentication; in the case of my Gmail, I could give you may username and password (or pass-phrase to be more accurate) but you'd also need my cell phone because they call me with an authorisation code everytime a login from an unknown PC. I could give you the password & login details for my bank account too, but unless you have my security token then you won't be getting far. Contrast that with home users who load their PCs up with Kazaa - Limewire - Napster - and a plethora of other file sharing software with gawd-knows how many security bugs ...

As for the long-term price of licensing, extrapolating the monthly fee into the distant future (10, 20 years) has got to cost more than buying every other version of the suite every several years or more (I won't even attempt to do the math...).

The math is pretty easy. In these parts, upgrades cost about 1/4 the cost of the full product, and come out more or less annually. Photoshop CS6 extended is - off memory - $1800 here - so $450 a year for upgrades. CC single app licence for a year is about NZD $25 - so NZD $300 a year. If you were a power-user of - say - 1/2 dozen products then the savings would be massive.

Finally, if what you say about Adobe is indeed true, then they have a serious PR problem that needs to be addressed better than it is at the moment.

I don't think so - just a vocal minority venting.

PS: I should mention you've got some really nice work on your facebook page!

Thanks

Most of it's still on my (cough, cloud-hosted) gallery at www.pbase.com/cjsouthern

[plugsnpixels]

Thanks for doing the math! Yes, the best deal is for those who use most of the suite, not just a couple of things.

At any rate, it'll be an interesting show to watch.

[Colin Southern]

Thanks for doing the math! Yes, the best deal is for those who use most of the suite, not just a couple of things.

At any rate, it'll be an interesting show to watch.

Be interesting to keep an eye on the stock price over the next year.

[plugsnpixels]

Good point, great indicator.

[Macmahon]

Oh SWELL. No worries at all then. But at $15/month, isn't that $180.00/year? Didn't it only cost about 1/2 that to actually BUY a copy of Lightroom that would be yours to keep?

Scott
No drama. Lightroom is available as part of the 'CC' suite. But not exclusively. LR (and Photoshop Elements) are still available as buy the box as 'perpetual license' purchases (at least according to Adobe's website).
That's what I would expect.
The 'CC' approach, as Colin has more than adequately argued, is eminently suitable for enterprise purchasers. The vast majority of users of the suite are graphics and design companies whose cost plus pricing regimes more than adequately offset the possibly greater (or lower, if you accept Colin's argument) cost of the subscription. Individual photographers, particularly hobby photographers are not Adobe's target market for the suite.
My guess is that Lightroom, and PSE will continue to be marketed to enthusiast photographers as stand-alone products for as long as anyone can see ahead in this game.
Just my 2¢.
Cheers
Tim

[John Morton]

Sorry John, but I can only describe this as "stink'in think'in". Mr. Spock made the statement that "Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and I think it's unreasonable to expect a company to have to continue with an entire boxed-delivery infrastructure just to satisfy the desire of a very few who - for what-ever reasons - choose to remain unconnected to the internet.

Well Colin, I believe Mr. Spock said: ""Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the ONE."

Now, over here in philosophy, we sometimes make this distinction (along with Henri Bergson): "It is not a question of The One versus Many but, rather, What kind of multiplicity are we dealing with?"

It is a logical error to substitute a singular subscription model for multiple delivery systems and then present that substitution as "more (customers) replacing less (customers)." Less choice for more people is still less choice.

I've kept my photo editing computer unconnected to the Internet for over a decade now. Over the years, I've heard people say again and again: "That's so old fashioned! There is no need to do that, anti-virus software is much better now. You really don't need to run two computers, that's a waste of money."

After being told that, again and again, it has usually taken about two to three months for me then to hear about a new form of computer virus which has successfully evaded the best anti-virus software, or has lain dormant for who knows how long and is now waking up at a pre-programmed date, or has been designed to exploit an unknown hole in this or that software package... and has begun to shred hard drives, or delete files at random, or is messing with the temperature monitoring of computer chips, or is re-writing files with nonsense code; and on, and on, and on.

So: I keep my photo files, backed up as they are to dual external drives, connected to a computer which does not connect to the Internet. I've never had a virus or any other problem on that computer as a result.

I'd prefer to maintain this configuration option; because every time I have heard "Oh it's okay now" from someone I soon hear from everyone that no, it isn't okay and it never was okay.

Let's face it: it never will be okay, and telling ourselves differently is just lulling ourselves to sleep with pleasant dreams of a secure Internet which has never actually been and never will be, ever.

I would think that Adobe would understand why photographers would prefer to keep their digital images as safe as they can; but it seems to me that they have instead put their ONE business model ahead of the needs of the MANY photographers who use their products. Well, maybe Adobe never has had the needs of photographers at heart: after all, the main strength of their foray into digital photo editing came by way of their buy-out of Aldus, makers of Photostyler and Pagemaker... a buy-out which was essentially a business decision.

[William W]

I like having the little programme discs all stacked neatly in the filing cabinet.
That's just one other layer of my system's redundancy.
I don't need to connect to anything to re-install the programme and get going and keep working, even if I have to run out and buy a new computer.

Also, I think it is an ethically rude move to sell a product and not allow the purchaser to take possession of at least the original purchase.

It is akin to the rudeness of Governments insisting that cash remains the only "Legal Tender" but then NOT allowing workers to have the option for their wages to be paid in cash - or insisting that tolls on government roads be paid out of a bank account - with no method of cash payment available.


Well, that's what I think: but I think lots of things in the world are a bit wonky . . .
We should have a gab-feast thread – “what I think is wonky in the world today”.

WW

PS -

"I'm sure that there's no functionality that's going to be life-and-death essential that's not already in a boxed copy of CS6." CS

I am buying them all up and I'll make a killing selling them second hand, when the cloud-burst comes.

[Adrian]

People are getting hung up on very odd things. All Adobe have done is offered a delivery mechanism for software via the internet rather than via a boxed DVD. The former is a cheaper solution if you use multiple applications, and deals with upgrades automatically.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with storage in the. If you don't want to store your data in the cloud you don't have to. You can use a mix of DVD, local hard drives in various formats, and multiple cloud solutions from different providers if you want.

Adobe image files are not likely to be a high risk target for hackers, but the risk is easily eliminated with multiple storage solutions.

We deal with a variety of graphic design professionals. The universal view so far is that the new move by Adobe is regarded very positively. No one wants to be focussed on the software, either in terms of maintaining it or dealing with multiple licences. The one (cheap and tax allowable) price per seat / every seat gets everything / whole business is integrated and can share easily, approach is excellent for business. It is also excellent for professional users.

I am not a graphic designer: I happen to run a financial services business. We have a great deal of experience of both software development and cloud based solutions. We operate multiple back up systems (including tape, for those who remember tape back-ups) and they all have pros and cons. We need to be super safe so this multiplicity is necessary. However, the cloud based solutions bring a whole new level of functionality not previously available. We can achieve complete system restoration of both client date data (hundreds of thousands of clients), market price history and operating software within 2-4 hours.

Cloud systems do not have to be in the public domain. Many hedge funds use private clouds for example. Clouds have been here for years and all it means is remote data storage with data transferred to and from the remote server via the internet (in our case high speed leased lines). This data can be encrypted on transfer and stored encrypted if desired. It can be replicated in different versions (back-up from 3pm can go to a different place than backup at 2pm if we want) on as many servers in as many different locations as we like.

I think the doom mongers who worry about viruses infecting their home computers have a point, but the point is mainly relevant to their own rather unsophisticated set ups. Even large systems can fail (as RBS discovered last year) but good back up methodology will allow recovery relatively easily these days.

[William W]

All Adobe have done is offered a delivery mechanism for software via the internet rather than via a boxed DVD. The former is a cheaper solution if you use multiple applications, and deals with upgrades automatically.

Um?

That's not the way I read the press release.

I read that Adobe intend to change to ONLY that method of purchase.

That is not an offer to the purchaser of 'this method' rather than 'that method'.

That's my gripe (as written above): the (intended) withdrawal of the boxed item and the lack of consumer choice.

Did I misunderstand Adobe's intent?

It's not semantics or pedantry or about arguing with you - but it goes to the core of the correct description of exactly what Adobe is proposing to do.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Did I misunderstand Adobe's intent?

To the best of my knowledge, they've done a couple of things:

(1) Internet only delivery, and

(2) Subscription based licencing only (for their major products).

Pop onto www.adobe.com - I think you'll only find CC options for the likes of Photoshop.

I don't need to connect to anything to re-install the programme and get going and keep working, even if I have to run out and buy a new computer.

You'll still need to connect to the net to download updates (the update rollup for Photoshop and Premiere was close to 1GB when I did it last night).

[plugsnpixels]

Colin, that reminds me - there's a different set of updates for CC users not available to standard users, right? What is the version number for PS? What are the fixes/features that are being offered?

[Colin Southern]

It is a logical error to substitute a singular subscription model for multiple delivery systems and then present that substitution as "more (customers) replacing less (customers)." Less choice for more people is still less choice.

Less choice is moot when the vast majority are more than happy to have internet delivery. Unless you're one of the minority I guess.

I've kept my photo editing computer unconnected to the Internet for over a decade now. Over the years, I've heard people say again and again: "That's so old fashioned! There is no need to do that, anti-virus software is much better now. You really don't need to run two computers, that's a waste of money."

After being told that, again and again, it has usually taken about two to three months for me then to hear about a new form of computer virus which has successfully evaded the best anti-virus software, or has lain dormant for who knows how long and is now waking up at a pre-programmed date, or has been designed to exploit an unknown hole in this or that software package... and has begun to shred hard drives, or delete files at random, or is messing with the temperature monitoring of computer chips, or is re-writing files with nonsense code; and on, and on, and on.

I think you need to tell those folks to stay away from sex sites.

Let's face it: it never will be okay, and telling ourselves differently is just lulling ourselves to sleep with pleasant dreams of a secure Internet which has never actually been and never will be, ever.

I think we live in different worlds John, so I'm just going to leave it there.

I would think that Adobe would understand why photographers would prefer to keep their digital images as safe as they can; but it seems to me that they have instead put their ONE business model ahead of the needs of the MANY photographers who use their products. Well, maybe Adobe never has had the needs of photographers at heart: after all, the main strength of their foray into digital photo editing came by way of their buy-out of Aldus, makers of Photostyler and Pagemaker... a buy-out which was essentially a business decision.

What on earth has internet product delivery and subscription based licencing got to do with image safety?

[Colin Southern]

Colin, that reminds me - there's a different set of updates for CC users not available to standard users, right? What is the version number for PS? What are the fixes/features that are being offered?

Wouldn't have a clue sorry - My Photoshop is 13.1.2 if that helps.

I don't worry about fixes/features lists -- Adobe know a lot more about the software than I do, and if they think I should have an update then that's good enough for me.

[plugsnpixels]

Seems the standard version is 13.0.4, hmm. http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/135...-photoshop-cs6