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

[Colin Southern]

Why it doesn't, Colin - I don't subscribe to Adobe's Creative Cloud line of products.

So in summary:

- The primary reason you won't subscribe to Creative Cloud is "primarily because I don't want to have my photo editing computer endlessly tied to the Internet"

And when asked "why your PC needs to be endlessly tied to the internet?", you response is:

"Why it doesn't, Colin"

Makes perfect sense now - thanks for clearing that up

Are you not aware that the software is installed on your PC just like it was with the perpetual licenses, and only needs to be connected to the internet for a few seconds every few months to re-activate?

[Colin Southern]

I've just gone with this offer. I'm very happy with it, apart from the glitch (See my other thread)

I really don't understand the negativity that this has brought on.

I can only see the plus side; I get regular updates of ACR, Bridge and PS.

Seriously, what's not to like?

Apart from Lightroom?

+1 and AMEN to that!

[rpcrowe]

If I were concerned with the Adobe subscription model; I would think about using Lightroom and adding the OnOne Perfect Photo Suite onto Lightroom to provide layers and masking capability (as well as a lot of other neat stuff). The U.S. price for Lightroom has been as low as $110 (USD) on sale and the price for OnOne Perfect Photo Suite as a Lightroom plug-in is $130 (USD). This might provide photographers, especially, non-pro photographers, the editing capabilities they need and is a pretty inexpensive combination.

What do I use? Oh heck; I use a boxed CS6. I purchased one of the last box sets when Adobe offered it on sale for $240 (USD). I also have NIK and Perfect Photo Suite... Do I NEED NIK and Perfect Photo Suite? Probably not but, the enjoyment I get using then is worth the total $300 (USD) that the two plug-ins cost me. That's the price of a medium quality lens. I still have a total of $550 invested in my editing software. That is less than the original price of CS6...

I really don't think tahat Adobe is going to offer anything in Photoshop that will blow away the capabilities of my CS6 + my two plug-ins....

What will I do when CS6 is far past its prime? Honestly, I am 73-years old and I think that my CS6 + the two plug-ins will work for the time I have left to use them...

If I were shooting professionally, I would definitely jump on the band wagon and purchase the Adobe Cloud System...

[John Morton]

So in summary:

- The primary reason you won't subscribe to Creative Cloud is "primarily because I don't want to have my photo editing computer endlessly tied to the Internet"

And when asked "why your PC needs to be endlessly tied to the internet?", you response is:

"Why it doesn't, Colin"

Makes perfect sense now - thanks for clearing that up

Are you not aware that the software is installed on your PC just like it was with the perpetual licenses, and only needs to be connected to the internet for a few seconds every few months to re-activate?

I don't want to connect my photo editing computer to the Internet. Adobe says I have to do that in order to use their Creative Cloud software. If Adobe doesn't want my business, then I can and will take it elsewhere. That's the way a free market works. Now, if we were all tied into a system of State Capitalism, then things would be different because we would all be forced to pay for and use one select product range, regardless of whether we wanted to or not.

So I'm sorry Colin, I still don't understand: Why is it that you think I should have to, or, somehow need to use Adobe's Creative Cloud?

[Colin Southern]

Adobe says I have to do that in order to use their Creative Cloud software.

This is where I think you're getting confused - you don't need to REMAIN connected to use their software. You need to connect initially to download / install it, and from that point you only need to connect for a few seconds to renew the licence; if you're on a 1 year plan then you can operate offline for up to 180 days.

So after the initial download your total connection time is probably in the order of 20 seconds per year, unless you want updates.

[John Morton]

This is where I think you're getting confused - you don't need to REMAIN connected to use their software. You need to connect initially to download / install it, and from that point you only need to connect for a few seconds to renew the licence; if you're on a 1 year plan then you can operate offline for up to 180 days.

So after the initial download your total connection time is probably in the order of 20 seconds per year, unless you want updates.

I am not at all confused, Colin; but I can tell you where the confusion arises: it is one thing for Adobe to market their software, and quite another for them to market their marketing strategy. It is certainly in Adobe's best interests for people to conflate their product (image editing software) with their marketing strategy (pay until you die); but they are quite different things and if I can't have one without the other then I can do without both.

And no I do not connect my photo editing computer to the Internet and I am not going to make an exception just to satisfy Adobe's marketing strategy. In my opinion, they are just trying to outmanoeuvre whatever Google has in the works; but Google will probably offer the core of whatever photo editing option they are working on, for free; so it is in Adobe's best interests to lock in as many subscribers as they can before Google puts a photo editing suite out there… but I think I would rather wait and see what the future will hold in the way of alternatives to Adobe's product line.

[Colin Southern]

I am not at all confused, Colin; but I can tell you where the confusion arises: it is one thing for Adobe to market their software, and quite another for them to market their marketing strategy. It is certainly in Adobe's best interests for people to conflate their product (image editing software) with their marketing strategy (pay until you die); but they are quite different things and if I can't have one without the other then I can do without both.

And no I do not connect my photo editing computer to the Internet and I am not going to make an exception just to satisfy Adobe's marketing strategy. In my opinion, they are just trying to outmanoeuvre whatever Google has in the works; but Google will probably offer the core of whatever photo editing option they are working on, for free; so it is in Adobe's best interests to lock in as many subscribers as they can before Google puts a photo editing suite out there… but I think I would rather wait and see what the future will hold in the way of alternatives to Adobe's product line.

So let me see if I've got this right ...

- You start off by saying that:

primarily because I don't want to have my photo editing computer endlessly tied to the Internet

- I point out that this isn't the case:

- You respond with:

I don't want to connect my photo editing computer to the Internet. Adobe says I have to do that in order to use their Creative Cloud software.

- I point out it isn't necessary to stay connected.

And now the story changes again:

it is one thing for Adobe to market their software, and quite another for them to market their marketing strategy. It is certainly in Adobe's best interests for people to conflate their product (image editing software) with their marketing strategy (pay until you die); but they are quite different things and if I can't have one without the other then I can do without both.

So if you're not confused about the requirement to remain connected to the net, why state that as your primary concern when there is no need to remain connected at all?

You don't like Adobe John - I get it. And I have no problem what-so-ever with that (even though I might add that I think you're in essence "cutting off your nose to spite your face", but that is of course your call to make). My ONLY concern is others being mislead by inaccuracies and untruths being posted here.

[John Morton]

Colin, I realize that you are fully in support of Adobe's new approach to marketing their products; and of course they have every right to do so in any way they see fit.

I and many others have several serious reservations about engaging with this model, and those reservations are a product of the situation, not any "misconceptions" on the part of those who refuse to toe Adobe's marketing line.

As much as anyone might want to portray those who do not endorse Adobe's new marketing model as "not thinking properly" the fact remains that others can and do have different thoughts without having incorrect thoughts. I seriously question why you would want to mis-state my reservations in an overt attempt to play devil's advocate for Adobe: by substituting the concept of "continuously" for my use of "endlessly," for example; or by portraying my citing of several reasons why I do not wish to become a slave to Adobe's franchise as an inability to present a logical argument composed of necessarily linked propositions which lead to a singular conclusion.

I have nothing against Adobe; but i don't like their now marketing model and I am not going to buy into it. Instead, I am going to use alternatives to the Adobe line of products. I refuse to be coerced into making a decision against my better judgement simply because doing so will benefit a large multi-national company. Adobe makes a fine suite of software products but they are not the only players on the field; indeed, they have conceded the field in the hopes of redefining how their software is used and I personally think it was a huge mistake. Time will tell how that turns out; there will of course be advantages and disadvantages for Adobe but I see only disadvantages there for myself so I am going to start using other products that are more advantageous for my needs.

When I look at what I need Photoshop for - 16 bit files, layered TIFFs, levels and curves, healing and cloning tools for retouching, merge to panorama, insert text and symbols, selections, calculations and so on; and I then look at what I use plug-ins to accomplish - Fovea Pro for histogram shaping, deconvolution, set-up and store second image, fractal edge definition, hybrid median and associated filters to remove noise, general math calculations with a stored second image, and so on; Power Retouche filters for contrast, soft filter, black definition, sharpening, black and white conversion, white balance, toned photos, Golden Section guidelines, and so on; a Digital Film Tools plug-in for editing tonal zones; another program for resampling and resizing, and a couple of other programs for HDR work, I really don't have to have Photoshop in all of its newest manifestations. I do what I do and how well I do it is not limited by the software i have at my disposal, so signing on to pay for an endless cycle of payments and upgrades I may never use makes no sense to me at all.

I would be very interested in seeing Google update Nikon's various software issues; that would be a very good thing indeed.

On top of that, I do want to own the software I am using and I want to be able to use it on a computer that does not need to connect to the Internet; so, Adobe is no longer a company I will choose to support by purchasing their software.

All along, I've been entirely straightforward about my reasons for not wanting to sign up for Adobe's Creative Cloud; and any "misleading statements" along the way here are more properly traced back to Adobe's marketing hype and what I expect will be an ever growing level of desperation on their part as they try and stop their customer base from haemorrhaging, leading them into insolvency.

That's a pretty big company with a lot of acquisitions which requires a substantial cash flow to support. Profits are one thing, but they are not everything; and sheer through-put of income counts for a lot more than profit margins these days. Adobe is obviously trying to maximise this through-put but that doesn't necessarily secure the bottom line of the profit margin their shareholders demand to see; so it will be interesting to watch how all of this plays out over the next few years.

Having divested myself of future upgrades to their products, I won't be cheering for any particular outcome.

[Colin Southern]

I seriously question why you would want to mis-state my reservations in an overt attempt to play devil's advocate for Adobe: by substituting the concept of "continuously" for my use of "endlessly," for example; or by portraying my citing of several reasons why I do not wish to become a slave to Adobe's franchise as an inability to present a logical argument composed of necessarily linked propositions which lead to a singular conclusion.

I have nothing against Adobe; but i don't like their now marketing model and I am not going to buy into it. Instead, I am going to use alternatives to the Adobe line of products. I refuse to be coerced into making a decision against my better judgement simply because doing so will benefit a large multi-national company. Adobe makes a fine suite of software products but they are not the only players on the field; indeed, they have conceded the field in the hopes of redefining how their software is used and I personally think it was a huge mistake. Time will tell how that turns out; there will of course be advantages and disadvantages for Adobe but I see only disadvantages there for myself so I am going to start using other products that are more advantageous for my needs.

When I look at what I need Photoshop for - 16 bit files, layered TIFFs, levels and curves, healing and cloning tools for retouching, merge to panorama, insert text and symbols, selections, calculations and so on; and I then look at what I use plug-ins to accomplish - Fovea Pro for histogram shaping, deconvolution, set-up and store second image, fractal edge definition, hybrid median and associated filters to remove noise, general math calculations with a stored second image, and so on; Power Retouche filters for contrast, soft filter, black definition, sharpening, black and white conversion, white balance, toned photos, Golden Section guidelines, and so on; a Digital Film Tools plug-in for editing tonal zones; another program for resampling and resizing, and a couple of other programs for HDR work, I really don't have to have Photoshop in all of its newest manifestations. I do what I do and how well I do it is not limited by the software i have at my disposal, so signing on to pay for an endless cycle of payments and upgrades I may never use makes no sense to me at all.

I would be very interested in seeing Google update Nikon's various software issues; that would be a very good thing indeed.

On top of that, I do want to own the software I am using and I want to be able to use it on a computer that does not need to connect to the Internet; so, Adobe is no longer a company I will choose to support by purchasing their software.

All along, I've been entirely straightforward about my reasons for not wanting to sign up for Adobe's Creative Cloud; and any "misleading statements" along the way here are more properly traced back to Adobe's marketing hype and what I expect will be an ever growing level of desperation on their part as they try and stop their customer base from haemorrhaging, leading them into insolvency.

That's a pretty big company with a lot of acquisitions which requires a substantial cash flow to support. Profits are one thing, but they are not everything; and sheer through-put of income counts for a lot more than profit margins these days. Adobe is obviously trying to maximise this through-put but that doesn't necessarily secure the bottom line of the profit margin their shareholders demand to see; so it will be interesting to watch how all of this plays out over the next few years.

Having divested myself of future upgrades to their products, I won't be cheering for any particular outcome.

John,

I wish you all the best with your photographic endeavors.

[Mike Buckley]

John,

what I expect will be an ever growing level of desperation on their part as they try and stop their customer base from haemorrhaging, leading them into insolvency.

That's a pretty big company with a lot of acquisitions which requires a substantial cash flow to support.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the quality of Adobe's financial statements. Instead, I'll just put it out there that anyone truly interested in your argument pertaining to Adobe's potential financial issues with regard to insolvency, acquisitions and cash flow would surely want to compare your thoughts with the data being regularly presented in the financial statements.

[Colin Southern]

John,



I'm not going to get into a debate with you about the quality of Adobe's financial statements. Instead, I'll just put it out there that anyone truly interested in your argument pertaining to Adobe's potential financial issues with regard to insolvency, acquisitions and cash flow would surely want to compare your thoughts with the data being regularly presented in the financial statements.

One had better add Microsoft and a whole host of other companies to that list too, because subscription-based models are the way many are heading.

I've put several of my IT clients onto subscription-based models for Microsoft Office and the general consensus is that when you compare the relative $$$ involved, it's a no-brainer. I don't see the Adobe model as being any different; reports to date are showing it to be extremely successful for them -- and it's not hard to see why.

[John Morton]

Well I do wish Adobe the best of luck in the future: there is no denying that they changed photography immensely for the better.

After witnessing Google's great success with Sketch-Up, and seeing that they have purchased Nik Software, I can certainly see why Adobe would want to move toward a more secure business model of income.

If it does come down to a battle between these two for photo editing software supremacy, I really don't think that Adobe has much of a chance...

[Colin Southern]

If it does come down to a battle between these two for photo editing software supremacy, I really don't think that Adobe has much of a chance...

If I had to bet on Adobe's business acumen being right, or your vision of their future being right, I'd bet the house, the car, all my bank accounts, all my other assets, the wife, the kids, all of my future income, and anything else I can think of on Adobe ... without hesitation.

[davidedric]

Mumm I don't know, of course.

I think that Adobe's position is mostly secured by the investment millions have made in learning their products, and which most wouldn't want to write off.

Otoh the past decade or three is littered with software and hardware companies that looked impregnable and disappeared without trace.

I'm not sweating, though.

[Colin Southern]

Mumm I don't know, of course.

I think that Adobe's position is mostly secured by the investment millions have made in learning their products, and which most wouldn't want to write off.

Otoh the past decade or three is littered with software and hardware companies that looked impregnable and disappeared without trace.

I'm not sweating, though.

Looking good so far

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe/stock-chart

[Didace]

And no I do not connect my photo editing computer to the Internet.

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.

[Colin Southern]

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.

[Mike Buckley]

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.

I am regularly in touch with a person through a photo forum (not CiC) that also has a computer that never connects to the Internet. That particular computer is the one that he uses only to post-process his photographs. He downloads updates to his post-processing software to a different computer, makes sure that no viruses and the like are involved, and then copies the update files to the computer that never "sees" the Internet.

The theory as I understand his explanations is that taking such precautions prevents anything from adversely affecting the post-processing software. The context of his decision is that the software that he is using, which is Nikon Capture NX2, is renowned as was the one earlier version of it for quirky behavior that affects some people and not others. This person proudly explains that he has never been affected by such quirky behavior.

I won't speak for John about why he chooses to use a computer that is connected little or never to a computer. Instead, I'm only offering one person's reasoning who is not available to respond to you because he doesn't participate in this forum, at least not that I know of.

I use the same software and have been affected by the quirky behavior, though not as severely as others. So, I understand his thinking about that.

As to why Colin responded with a photo of popcorn, I'm clueless.

[FlyingSquirrel]

....he uses only to post-process his photographs....makes sure that no viruses and the like are involved

If I could afford to have a second, nice computer for photo use and editing only, I would do exactly the same thing. Aside from keeping it as isolated from everything as possible, I'd also make sure not to load any software that needn't be on it, to keep things clean/fresh/working fast. I don't expect many people to agree, but it makes sense to me.

As to why Colin responded with a photo of popcorn, I'm clueless.

I was a little baffled as well, but hey, it made me laugh anyway!

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!

[Colin Southern]

As to why Colin responded with a photo of popcorn, I'm clueless.

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