No more boxed Adobe apps/licenses

[Macmahon]

From the DPReview interview:


Lightroom is for photographers. And the Lightroom team is very aware of the reaction by photographers to Photoshop CC. We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for CC members using Lightroom.



Non-offensive comment is impossible!

Dave

This was surfaced on the Luminous Landscape Forums and the the answer was that that the added functionality was to do with integration of the product to other parts of the suite that the graphics enterprise people will be renting. Apparently (I think this was from Eric Chan, ACR and Lightroom engineer) there are no planned differences in functionality in terms of RAW processing or plans to alter it's primary sales route.

I'm sure this point has been made before but it's worth repeating: photographers make up only a very small proportion of the market for the Creative Suite. The CC rental thing is not being setup with photographers-as-a-market in mind: it's pitched at large commercial graphics and design houses and their corporate clients.

As Colin often points out, these serious boys don't take LR seriously; they don't really want LR. On the opposite side, LR's primary market doesn't contain too many members for whom most of CC package will be useful.

It seems pretty apparent that Adobe thinks it is satisfying its small (in terms of their customer base) market of photographers by supplying Lightroom and Photoshop Elements via the traditional route.

I remain optimistic

Tim

[pnodrog]

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?

Unfortunately it could easily be concluded that it is an attack on other peoples circumstances as much as opinions.

I have no doubt any void apearing in the market will be filled so I am not going to have any sleepless nights over it.

[William W]

.

[Wayland]

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.

If usual Adobe practices prevails it is likely to be more than that in the UK. We have had to put up with inflated prices over here for years so I doubt that will change.

The real issue is that I will not be working forever and my plans for retirement do not include having money to burn, even if it is just one dollar a day. I did rather plan on retaining access to the work I put in to my photography though, and that doesn't just mean the end result.

I have recently re-edited some of my older images and I was able to do that because I set them up in a way that allowed me to do that.

That continues to be OK providing I do not step beyond CS6 and I can maintain a machine that will run it. However, if I venture into CC then I will probably lose that ability in ten years when I can no longer afford to waste a dollar a day.

The ability to plan for the future is on of the things that makes us human and my plans do not include being ransomed for the rest of my life if I want to access my own work. That is simply unacceptable.

I currently have access to my back catalogue and I will now start to migrate them to a system that will retain as much backward compatibility as possible. That will involve learning new software just as it did when PSP could not handle my need for 16 bit editing and I had to learn PS. I've done it before and I will do it again.

Just because Adobe believes it can hold us all to ransom doesn't mean that it's true. I will indeed build a bridge. I will use the software I currently have to build that bridge and I will move on to whatever software I need to continue my photography but it is very unlikely to be Adobe.

Like many other formally loyal customers, I am very angry.

As quoth the raven, Nevermore....

[John Morton]

Just because Adobe believes it can hold us all to ransom doesn't mean that it's true. I will indeed build a bridge. I will use the software I currently have to build that bridge and I will move on to whatever software I need to continue my photography but it is very unlikely to be Adobe.

Like many other formally loyal customers, I am very angry.

As quoth the raven, Nevermore....

To me, the real issue here is one of business ethics or, more accurately, morality. We each make our own ethical decisions for ourselves, and the wider implications of these decisions define what comes to constitute a shared public morality, a "normal" or agreed upon way of acting together in a community.

I choose to configure my main computer in such a way that it is not connected to the Internet; and I have very real and easily demonstrable reasons for doing this. Adobe has decided that it will dictate to everyone who uses their software that the computers on which their software runs must maintain or regularly establish an Internet connection; and their reason for doing so is just simply an issue of the profitability in doing so.

Is it an ethical business practice to force others to undertake risks in order to increase ones own profits? Is it a moral choice to institute a business model which places profit above the safety of those who constitute a business's clientele?

Of course not. It is however becoming more and more common to see a new breed of bottom-liners bringing their bottom-feeding business practices more and more into the forefront of modern society. If Adobe chooses to adopt an unethical and immoral business model, that is fine for them (and their profitability) but I certainly do not intend to support that kind of behavior with any further purchases of their products.

[Clactonian]

Sorry Colin a dollar a day represents 2.5% of my income and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that's far from 'just'!!

[John Morton]

Sorry Colin a dollar a day represents 2.5% of my income and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that's far from 'just'!!

Old loyal users leaving immediately; other software companies rushing to fill in the gap, eroding Adobe's market share: the only people who benefit big time are Adobe corporate executives who no doubt stand to make huge bonuses over the next few years (before things fall apart for Adobe, and the shareholders / Board of Directors sacks them).

[Wayland]

I've just taken another look at PSP. It's come on a long way since I stopped using it and most, if not all of the tools I regularly use are there now.

I used it from way back in it's freeware days but I left because they didn't support 16 bit editing on the last version I had. Apart from that it was always a very capable tool.

Given the couple of years that I can still rely upon using CS6 to allow for a changeover of my files and the residual memories I have of using it before, that gives me a head start in getting to grips with the new version. As I've been a long term user of CorelDraw the integration of their software is an added bonus as well.

As I currently lecture on post processing techniques to various camera clubs in the UK and given the widespread sense of betrayal amongst the people I've been talking to about this, I think I may have just found my new direction and possibly a mission.

[Ady]

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.

With my education hat on: Going by the UK education pricing it looks like that cost comparison is between Creative Cloud Student and Teacher, which gives you the equivalent of the 'CS6 Master Collection', versus a perpetual education licence for 'CS6 Design Standard' suite.

In the UK (for education institutions) the cost of the CS6 Master Collection is equivalent to 31 months of Creative Cloud on an individual 'Student and Teacher' licence.

OK it may still not be for you, but the cost comparison should be between the same suite of applications. And lets face it if you get education pricing on Adobe products they are ridiculously cheap compared to the commercial costs no matter which way you slice it.

-

Speaking personally now: I will be moving to Creative Cloud. Looking at past usage and the frequency with which I upgrade, the costs of perpetual licences and Creative Cloud are about the same. However with CC I get more applications for the same outlay (I may not use any of the other apps but at least I have the option) and the cost is split into more manageable monthly payments rather than one big chunk of cash once every 18 months or so.

I would also add that I don't understand where the arguments about morality, fairness and ethics fit in. Adobe is a business and like all such public businesses has a duty to it's shareholders first and foremost. If Adobe suffer financially from this in any way that impacts on shareholders they may reconsider, but if they do it will be for the sake of the business and its shareholders and not for reasons of morality, fairness or ethics (no matter how they dress it up). If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their products or services.

Cheers,
Ady

[shoshanna]

"If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their products or services." I won't. I was planning on purchasing LR5 when it came out and I would have been a brand new customer. Now I will not be a customer of theirs at all...more power to them.

[Ady]

"If you don't like what they are doing, don't buy their products or services." I won't. I was planning on purchasing LR5 when it came out and I would have been a brand new customer. Now I will not be a customer of theirs at all...more power to them.

Good for you.

I mean that quite sincerely, your choice to purchase or not is the only practical influence you have, other than becoming a shareholder. Personally I get enough value from Adobe products to outweigh any reservations I have, you clearly don't and that's fair enough.

Cheers,
Ady

[orlcam88]

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.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know that. That wasn't my point. It's accessibility without monthly payment.

[plugsnpixels]

I'm not a GIMP user but I keep up to date with the downloads because I like the concept. I used to enjoy showing people how GIMP could open and edit layered PS files, then resave them. I haven't checked this lately but it's worth everyone doing so. Paint.net also supports layers as does Pixelmator, etc. it's just a question of if there is anything proprietary about PS layers that's not supported elsewhere.

[davidedric]

I thought this discussion had got a bit bad tempered (for CiC) till I dropped in and read the one on Luminous Landscape. Sheesh

[plugsnpixels]

I probably shouldn't have brought it up, ha!

[Glenn NK]

I thought this discussion had got a bit bad tempered (for CiC) till I dropped in and read the one on Luminous Landscape. Sheesh

At times the LuLa forum can become a bit testy.

I've been following the whole affair with a somewhat detached attitude on several other forums in addition to this one; detached because I don't use CS (the latest CC developments surely won't entice me).

Without doing an accurate count, it appears that the unfavourable reactions towards Adobe are running about nine or ten to one.

Whether or not the effective cost will increase or decrease; whether or not one likes the cloud concept; and whether or not one is for or against them, Adobe has stepped on a hornet's nest.

Someone has suggested that it's all misunderstanding (Scott Kelby):
http://scottkelby.com/2013/my-take-o...ax-conference/

Most simply don't buy the misunderstanding position:
http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/v...p?f=2&t=232333
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...?topic=78094.0
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...?topic=78085.0
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1210789
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/ (too many threads on DPP to list)

Some are attempting to do something about it:
http://www.change.org/petitions/adob...cription-model

I'm not sure that annoying your supporters is a good business decision - intended or not.

Glenn

[Wayland]

If I treated my customers like Adobe have I would be out of business by the end of the year.

[Abitconfused]

Like it or not, eventually everyone will be pushed into the cloud. Yes, it will rain on your privacy and independence parade. Every marketing genius I know wants to get a piece of you every month for a "service" rather than sell you a tangible product. In time, only cloud software will work with available hardware and all your "obsolete" stand-alone software will be worthless. New cameras and new production and distribution techniques will complement the financial whims of cloud dominating super-corporations. Feel manipulated? Get used to it. Corporations will own the future and the influence of nation states will diminish. You object? How sporting of you! In the future the corporate police will lock you in a corporate prison and there will be no Bill of Rights to rescue you. We will be peasants all over again to corporate kings. Now pardon me while I turn off my Apple monitor and turn on my Samsung TV while my significant other uses her corporate comp time to fetch us a burgers from Jack. Oh wait, her boss just called to cancel her comp time, seems there is an emergency at corporate...Flash...hungry Indian software engineers have just released a stand alone RAW converter. Too bad too sad, they didn't get the corporate memo, their work will not be compatible with Windows 9.

[davidedric]

If I treated my customers like Adobe have I would be out of business by the end of the year

Yes, but you are probably not an 800 pound gorilla (well, maybe in Saddleworth )

[plugsnpixels]

Kelby's always been in a tough spot re:Adobe, since his business is built on Photoshop training. But notice how in past years they've moved more towards "photographers" in general. I've been to several Photoshop Worlds starting in 2001 and have seen the difference in the class and vendor offerings as time went on.