# Goodbye Photoshop



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

Adobe will start charging a monthly fee for their software. No more buying it out right.  Read about it. http://mashable.com/2013/05/06/adobe-subscription-pricing-only/


----------



## SCraig (May 6, 2013)

Glad I don't use it much or I'd be looking for a different editor.  No way in the world I'll pay a monthly fee to use software.


----------



## Tiller (May 6, 2013)

Well, that's unfortunate. I know there are a few companies out there that have created alternatives to photoshop. I wonder if they will become more predominant now.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

No big whoop, cheaper in the long run with butter support.


----------



## ronlane (May 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> No big whoop, cheaper in the long run with butter support.



I don't know about cheaper in the long run but not having to upgrade every couple of years would be nice. This way you always have the latest and greatest. Couldn't make myself do it last year before I bought lr4 but the more I learn about CS6, the more I want it.


----------



## tirediron (May 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> No big whoop, cheaper in the long run with butter support.


Cheaper if you upgraded every year perhaps, but how many small businesses or individuals would or could afford to do that?  This is going to take some serious thought.


----------



## fjrabon (May 6, 2013)

Probably hurts the middle class hobbyist market, who have chunks of cash, and prefer the overall savings to a monthly recurring charge (and who are also less used to the subscription model).  Probably good for professional and 'barely scraping by artist' markets.  The former like constant monthly costs over a 1.5 year cost that is hard to make year to year cash flows work for, the latter can't afford the up front fee, but could maybe squeeze it in on a monthly basis.


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2013)

Bend over, grab your ankles, and brace...it's Adobe $y$tems coming up behind you!!!

Wow, talk about ra**ng the customers that helped build their business...

Who the heck needs "support" for Photoshop...load it on your Mac and it just "works". Support is a joke for much of their core market.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Bend over, grab your ankles, and brace...it's Adobe $y$tems coming up behind you!!!
> 
> Wow, talk about ra**ng the customers that helped build their business...
> 
> Who the heck needs "support" for Photoshop...load it on your Mac and it just "works". Support is a joke for much of their core market.



Oh really? As a person who uses 90% of adobe's products on a daily basis this is a godsend. Saves me a ton of money in the long run. 

If you read the article you would have noticed that the core group of users are the ones that supported this move. I being one of them.

You can always switch to something like gimp or corel if you are so offended.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 6, 2013)

A move with the interests of the company in mind before the customers, is a move to lose customers' interest in the company.


----------



## sm4him (May 6, 2013)

I'm really struggling with this decision right now, because I just bought a new desktop and intended to get CS6. I already knew they are pushing that Creative Cloud like nobody's business, but I am balking at it.

For work, I'm okay with the Cloud, because I run two computers--one Mac and one PC--and the software there needs to be kept *fairly* updated in order to not have issues with the different printers we use for our out-of-house items.  In fact, I've already run into an issue today with one of our printers because they're running CS 5.5 and I'm running CS5--they had to export an .idml file for me instead of an InDesign file even though it was essentially the SAME file I'd originally sent to them in the first place.
We'll actually not spend any more to use the Cloud, since currently we have to buy the software for both platforms.

But personally--this stinks. I rarely, if ever, upgrade from one version to the next. I almost always wait at least ONE upgrade, like from CS5 to CS7 (I don't count those silly .5 marketing ploys as upgrades), and depending on the software, sometimes I don't upgrade for years. Heck, I was still running Office 2007 until my son made me upgrade that last year.

It's going to be way more expensive for me, since it's going to mean a commitment to a monthly or yearly fee--AND, if you get in a bind and decide you just can't pay that anymore, well as soon as your subscription runs out, you don't even have the outdated software to limp along on. You're just out of luck completely. It's like leasing a car--and I detest the idea of leasing.

If I only used Photoshop, I think I'd probably start looking at Gimp or something else that would do instead--I really don't do THAT much editing to my photos, and I'm fairly sure I could manage with something else.
However, I have a few contract jobs through the year--one in particular that generally pays pretty well--and I really need InDesign and Illustrator to do most of those jobs. Or at least, to do them efficiently and well.  So, I guess I'm kinda stuck with Adobe for the immediate future.
I'll probably up my hourly rate I charge just a little bit to try to plan for this expense for next year, without pricing myself so high that I lose the contract work.

In the meantime, right now I'm thinking I'll still go ahead and buy the CS6 outright. That way, if I move to the Cloud next year with CS7, I'll still have CS6 to fall back on if I needed it.


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2013)

I laughed..the so-called core group of users that is quoted in the article "supports" being charged on a monthly basis...

zOMG...wow...gullible much???


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I laughed..the so-called core group of users that is quoted in the article "supports" being charged on a monthly basis...
> 
> zOMG...wow...gullible much???



The full version of Photoshop CS6 is $650, and if you do the new membership it's only $20 a month so that's 32 months or 2 years and 7 months. 

Most people are on a two year upgrade cycle so you are actually saving money in the long run. 

What is you creative cloud username?


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2013)

Read what ACTUAL Adobe Photoshop customers are saying...this idea is being seen and condemned for the blatant rip-off that it actually is. I don't mean the people that Adobe payed to say they want a good ass-reaming in a press release, but their actual, current user base...

Adobe heralds subscription-only future for Photoshop and Creative Suite: Digital Photography Review

This latest money-grab is being met with the response that a blatant money-grab is typically met with...meaning jeers of derision and expressions of disgust and contempt. Nice going Adobe!!!


----------



## fjrabon (May 6, 2013)

Is it any more of a money grab than raising the price on the next release?  The people it hurts most are the people who skip upgrade cycles.  If you were the kind of user that upgraded every cycle, it's likely equalled out, when you consider future price hikes.  

The weird thing to me is how people seem to be discussing it as a different type of price raise?  Would CS7 getting a $100 price bump generate this much outrage?  Unlikely.  And outside of the price raise, isn't instant updates a good thing?


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Read what ACTUAL Adobe Photoshop customers are saying...this idea is being seen and condemned for the blatant rip-off that it actually is. I don't mean the people that Adobe payed to say they want a good ass-reaming in a press release, but their actual, current user base...
> 
> Adobe heralds subscription-only future for Photoshop and Creative Suite: Digital Photography Review
> 
> This latest money-grab is being met with the response that a blatant money-grab is typically met with...meaning jeers of derision and expressions of disgust and contempt. Nice going Adobe!!!



Whine whine whine.

The math doesn't lie. I upgrade every other version, so not only would the initial cost be rolled into the following years the upgrades wouldn't cost more. Not to mention this is so much easier to budget for.


----------



## Benco (May 6, 2013)

Corel will be laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## KenC (May 6, 2013)

I agree with Derrel, and apparently a lot of other people.  I'm on my third version of PS.  I had the first two (PS4 and PS CS) for 6 years each and was able to get the upgrade price when I went to CS.  I now have CS5, which I've been using for 2 1/2 years and intend to use for at least a couple more.  I would guess that most PS users are not professionals who can justify frequent upgrades, but people like me who keep a version for a while until operating system changes obsolete it or there are enough new features to make it worth changing over.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> No big whoop, cheaper in the long run with butter support.



The butter support is worth it IMO. No more dry toast.


----------



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

I know many people think a monthly payment is a way of life. It is not for me. When I buy something I want to own it. PS is not going to become like a cell phone or cable bill in my life. It may work for the high end user with big profits but I am just a guy that likes to take pictures and I will be dammed if they think I will make monthly payment to them.


----------



## jake337 (May 6, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > No big whoop, cheaper in the long run with butter support.
> ...




Toast,lol.  


Completely off topic but my son asked me the greatest question the other day.


Jacob "Daddy, can I have some toast please?"
Me "Sure"
Jacob "Can I have it with no butter and don't toast it please?'
Me "Huh?
Jacob " I want some raw toast"


----------



## nmoody (May 6, 2013)

As a home user who does not use these products to make money it basically means I will be sticking the CS6 LR4 until they are so outdated I have to move to a different product suite. 

If this is true like we are assuming NIK and other similar suites are primed to take over the home market.

EDIT: will be also interesting to see how the NAPP reacts to this.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 6, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > No big whoop, cheaper in the long run with butter support.
> ...




_mmmmmmm buttered toast
_


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 6, 2013)

Jad said:


> I know many people think a monthly payment is a way of life. It is not for me. When I buy something I want to own it. PS is not going to become like a cell phone or cable bill in my life. It may work for the high end user with big profits but I am just a guy that likes to take pictures and I will be dammed if they think I will make monthly payment to them.
> Here is my conversation with a Adobe rep online
> 
> .




can't see the convo, host somewhere else.


----------



## Tee (May 6, 2013)

I'll just edit all my photos in Instagram now.  But in all seriousness, it'll be interesting to see how the likes of Kelby, etc weigh in on this.


----------



## ronlane (May 6, 2013)

Tee said:


> I'll just edit all my photos in Instagram now. But in all seriousness, it'll be interesting to see how the likes of Kelby, etc weigh in on this.



RC was already talking about the Nik stuff that Google bought up and offered as a full suite for $149. But it will be interesting.


----------



## Light Guru (May 6, 2013)

Photoshop by it self is only $20 a month for the cloud subscription, that's $5 a week.  

If your complaining about $5 a week then your in the wrong profession or hobby people.  Skip a few trips to starbucks and get over it.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 6, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Photoshop by it self is only $20 a month for the cloud subscription, that's $5 a week.
> 
> If your complaining about $5 a week then your in the wrong hobby people.  Skip a few trips to starbucks and get over it.



Or we could not make blanket statements thinking $x is a small amount to everyone, just because it is to you. 

If you think because a pricing model fits *your *needs, that means it will fit _*everybody's *_needs, you're being presumptuous at best.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> If your complaining about $5 a week then your in the wrong profession or hobby people.  Skip a few trips to starbucks and get over it.



*Exactly. *


----------



## SCraig (May 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> The full version of Photoshop CS6 is $650, and if you do the new membership it's only $20 a month so that's 32 months or 2 years and 7 months.
> 
> Most people are on a two year upgrade cycle so you are actually saving money in the long run.
> 
> What is you creative cloud username?



Personally I'd never have paid $650 for it anyway.  In my opinion it isn't worth it.  I got my copy during a one-day sale for $250, and the ONLY reason I bought it was because it was $250.  Even then I think I've only used it a couple of times since I got it.

I swore off Adobe years ago when Photoshop was going from version 3 to 4.  It cost something like $100 to upgrade from 3 to 4, and no sooner had I upgraded than I got a note from them wanting me to upgrade to some later version.  Not for free, of course.


----------



## fjrabon (May 6, 2013)

I think Adobe has already decided they're not going to be able to compete on the low end with Aperture, Nik, etc over the long run. In many ways it seems like it's a repositioning of CS into a new market segment.  Well, really, taking CS back to the market segment it had occupied before the 'democritization' of photography/design.  

Whether that's a sound business move is certainly up for debate, seems weird to give up the low end market COMPLETELY when you have such a good brand name.  

Again though, it seems like people seem to mostly be upset with the way the payment works out, not the actual $ amount.  Which just seems weird to me.  

In a lot of ways though, this may be doing a lot of the people who are most upset with it a favor.  Many of them probably could have had all their editing needs solved with the Nik suite or Aperture, anyway.  I have CS6 and I only use it when I need to, which is pretty rare.  If I didn't get it for free through my job, I don't even know that I'd buy it.  I just don't find that I really, actually need layer masking for very much of the stuff I do, and most any other program does just as good a job at everything that doesn't require layer masking as PS does.  

Now, the thing that probably sucks the most if this does cost market fragmentation, is that we lose the 'industry standardness" of photoshop.  The great benefit of the ubiquity of CS was that it was so easy to find tutorials and/or classes on it.  While I think a lot of other programs were actually more intuitive to use than CS, you could easily find a pretty decent tutorial for virtually any topic, on youtube, for just about anything you'd want to do in CS.  If CS becomes primarily a "business professional" suite, with most people who don't do this for a living using other products, I fear it will be a lot harder to find information on any one in particular.  

That being said, the google/youtube/Nik partnership does seem pretty promising int hat regard.  They already go through fairly great lengths to offer tutorials, and if/when their products become more popular, I only imagine that will increase.

Regardless, it's a pretty interesting development, given that i'm fairly ambivalent overall on it, as someone who doesn't actually have to pay for CS.  I do know that my bosses are very happy with the development, as from an accounting standpoint, they pretty much wish everything was a monthly lease.  The 1.5 year update cycle drove them CRAZY from an accounting standpoint.


----------



## fjrabon (May 6, 2013)

Jad said:


> I know many people think a monthly payment is a way of life. It is not for me. When I buy something I want to own it. PS is not going to become like a cell phone or cable bill in my life. It may work for the high end user with big profits but I am just a guy that likes to take pictures and I will be dammed if they think I will make monthly payment to them.



You do realize that due to ToS agreements, even when you buy something up front, you don't "own it" any more than if you pay monthly.  The only difference is that you currently pay your monthly subscriptions all up front.


----------



## Tiller (May 6, 2013)

I'm wondering how the pricing will be for students? That's why I was going to buy cs6, bc it was cheap.


----------



## Steve5D (May 6, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> A move with the interests of the company in mind before the customers, is a move to lose customers' interest in the company.



The primary responsibility of any for-profit business is to itself. Making the customers happy is meaningless if it means damaging your business or your brand. To suggest that a company should act with the customer's needs at the forefront is short sighted.

I would be willing to bet a very, very large sum of money that Adobe did not make this decision without a mountain of market studies to support the decision. Whether we like it or not will, and should, be secondary to whether or not it makes sense to Adobe. Again, if they didn't think it would be profitable, do you honestly believe they would do it?

Are they going to subscription pricing for _all _of their products? I don't get that impression from the article, but I may have missed it, I suppose...


----------



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Photoshop by it self is only $20 a month for the cloud subscription, that's $5 a week.
> 
> If your complaining about $5 a week then your in the wrong profession or hobby people.  Skip a few trips to starbucks and get over it.



Until they start raising prices and don't forget the tax that will most likely be added. I don't like a monthly payment at any cost. That is why I buy outright and pay cash for what I buy. I know that makes me an oddball in todays world.


----------



## Tiller (May 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> To suggest that a company should act with the customer's needs at the forefront is short sighted.



I'm sorry, but this is so incredibly wrong I have to say something. I generally try not to get into arguments, but I couldn't help myself this time.

If customers feel as if they're getting screwed, they'll walk away from the product. Even if they want it, and nobody else has it, humankind's innate pride will make people walk away from a business if they feel like they're not being treated well.

Again, no personal attack meant. I just think your point is flawed.


----------



## Benco (May 6, 2013)

For me whether it's good value for money or not is a moot point, Creative cloud subscription isn't available for where I live, maybe it will be in the future but for now...that's it, bye bye Adobe.


----------



## Light Guru (May 6, 2013)

Jad said:


> Light Guru said:
> 
> 
> > Photoshop by it self is only $20 a month for the cloud subscription, that's $5 a week.
> ...



I dont think they are going to start raising prices anytime soon.  the move to cloud only is a real hit to those who pirate forcing them to pay for what they use and Photoshop is one of the most common peaces of software pirated.  This increase of paying users will keep the price down and allow for more money to go into development of the software.


----------



## Benco (May 6, 2013)

Tiller said:


> If customers feel as if they're getting screwed, they'll walk away from the product. Even if they want it, and nobody else has it, humankind's innate pride will make people walk away from a business if they feel like they're not being treated well.



Quite, ideas like this are fine on paper but they never take into account the very prevelant willingness that people have to cut of their nose to spite their face. I don't like that a new concept is going to be applied across the board that will effectively deny me a product that I have been able to use in the past, even if they fix it I may well still say 'F..k you Adobe'.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > A move with the interests of the company in mind before the customers, is a move to lose customers' interest in the company.
> ...



Goes against basic, fundamental business concepts, and for that matter goes against common sense, but okay.


----------



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Jad said:
> 
> 
> > Light Guru said:
> ...



I will agree that there is a problem with piracy when it comes to all software. According to what I read at Adobe web site. It will be $30 to $50 per month for PS in cloud depending of the package. All of their software will be in cloud. So how that works if you use PS and Lightroom, I don't know. Maybe a separate fee each month for the programs you want to use. It could add up. This will benefit schools and businesses but not the individual. I guess we will have no choice in the long run because any new camera you buy won't be recognized by the older software.


----------



## JacaRanda (May 6, 2013)

I know it stings guys, but seriously - It's almost always about the $$$$$ these days.  There are millions of unhappy, disatisfied, disgruntled, ticked off customers all over the place.  Guess what, somebody or some company did and does not give a damn.  

I am with SteveD on this one.  If Adobe's plan means profit to them,  then we have to suck it up or move along.  If their plan does not result in $$$$ then they will adjust and hope they can recover from the fallout.  

EW&F That's The Way Of The World


----------



## SCraig (May 6, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Photoshop by it self is only $20 a month for the cloud subscription, that's $5 a week.
> 
> If your complaining about $5 a week then your in the wrong profession or hobby people.  Skip a few trips to starbucks and get over it.



Nope.  Not gonna do that.  It isn't the cost, it's the principle behind it.  I blow more than $5 a day in soft drinks.

$30 a month is $360 a year or $720 every 2 years, so every 2 years you've paid for a copy of Photoshop.  They are effectively forcing their customers into the 2-year upgrade period that they always want for people to do.  I am not willing to do that.


----------



## rlemert (May 6, 2013)

I don't use PhotoShop so this is somewhat academic to me, but the big problem I have with this is the same problem I have with everyone moving to the (somehow magical) "cloud" - it's putting control over what I do in someone else's hands. To give just one semi-hypothetical example, I could be in the middle of a project that I want to finish before I consider upgrading because I can't afford the time to learn the new features (or the risk of serious bugs that prevent me from completing my tasks). If the service provider decides to upgrade, though, without maintaining the old code, I'm screwed.

  (For the record I do most of my work on 'a' cloud. This cloud is mantained by the company I work for, and everything I do on it is the companies business, so I don't really have control over it in the first place. Thus, I can stand the cloud at work - but not for my personal computing needs.)


----------



## Buckster (May 6, 2013)

I don't need or want the whole creative suite.  All I use from it is Photoshop.  I've upgraded every time a new version came out, typically every 18 months, and I was okay with that cost for what I was getting.  But there's no way I'm doing $600 per year just to use Photoshop.  When my current CS6 stops meeting my needs for whatever reason, I'll be moving on to something else.


----------



## Overread (May 6, 2013)

Cynical mode - Adobe say this, get masses of backlash and then change their minds to what they really wanted all along which is something slightly different but still a pain, but less of a pain than this  They get away with it because they basically own the market.


----------



## Tiller (May 6, 2013)

Overread said:


> Cynical mode - Adobe say this, get masses of backlash and then change their minds to what they really wanted all along which is something slightly different but still a pain, but less of a pain than this  They get away with it because they basically own the market.



Oh you little conspiracy theorist you!


----------



## jake337 (May 6, 2013)

Buckster said:


> I don't need or want the whole creative suite.  All I use from it is Photoshop.  I've upgraded every time a new version came out, typically every 18 months, and I was okay with that cost for what I was getting.  But there's no way I'm doing $600 per year just to use Photoshop.  When my current CS6 stops meeting my needs for whatever reason, I'll be moving on to something else.



Which version would you need?  

Membership plans: Pricing, upgrades, and subscriptions | Adobe Creative Cloud


I see the "single app" one for $19.99 per month with "limited access to services".

I wonder which services will be limited because if it is just PS for $19.99 I wouldn't have a problem with that.


Just asking.  Not sure what would be limited in the $19.99 per month route.


----------



## Overread (May 6, 2013)

Hey they almost pretty much did it just recently anyway after the upgrade fiasco that blew up  

Honestly their panic is like many software companies; they FEAR the second hand market of older software making fewer people need to buy their core software; whilst also reaching a point where most people just don't need to upgrade. Heck a good number of photoshop features are just taking the core tools and applying a set number of them in a certain order to re-create an effect (eg the clarity tool is mostly just a highpass sharpening filter). Whilst many of the background improvements are smaller - expensive and big to code, but smaller in importance for the average user. 

I suspect they are also trying to get over the "Its so expensive" argument and also reduce the "I'm a student" discount groups by going for the small weekly/monthly fee.


----------



## Buckster (May 6, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need or want the whole creative suite.  All I use from it is Photoshop.  I've upgraded every time a new version came out, typically every 18 months, and I was okay with that cost for what I was getting.  But there's no way I'm doing $600 per year just to use Photoshop.  When my current CS6 stops meeting my needs for whatever reason, I'll be moving on to something else.
> ...


I don't use the extended version.  I'd need to know exactly what "limited access to services" means before I could even assess whether it'd interest me at all, at any price.

My last upgrade was $210 and, like I mentioned, they were typically every 18 months.  That comes to $11.67 per month, not $19.99.  That's about a 42% increase, or $150 per 18 month period, and that's pretty hard for me to swallow, unless there's some fantastic benefit I'm not seeing to seriously sweeten the pot.

Right now, I don't see me going for it, and I think I can go a pretty long time before I need to deal with it.  CS6 works great for me, and I expect it will keep working just as great for me over at least the next couple or few years to come, as is, and maybe even longer.


----------



## table1349 (May 6, 2013)

People picking up new bodies are going to be the ones most effected in the beginning.  Camera Raw is never backwards compatible from Adobe.


----------



## IByte (May 6, 2013)

MY GOD it's Window s 8 aaaaall over again >.<


----------



## Ysarex (May 6, 2013)

Anybody out there in the cloud know how well add on products like Nik and Topaz manage to plugin to the cloud? Did Adobe just p*ss off somebody else besides their customer base?

Joe


----------



## Steve5D (May 6, 2013)

Tiller said:


> I'm sorry, but this is so incredibly wrong I have to say something. I generally try not to get into arguments, but I couldn't help myself this time.



It's not wrong at all. If a business doesn't put their own interests first, they're doomed. Period. You can disagree with it all you want, but it's not wrong at all...



> If customers feel as if they're getting screwed, they'll walk away from the product. Even if they want it, and nobody else has it, humankind's innate pride will make people walk away from a business if they feel like they're not being treated well.



If there's onlly one place to get it, if people want it, sooner or later they will succumb to the urge for it and pay for it. It's simple human nature...



> Again, no personal attack meant. I just think your point is flawed.



Trust me, this isn't the first time I've had this conversation with someone. A business isn't going to be much of a business for too long if they don't do what they need to in order to ensure their viability.

It's great to get a warm fuzzy by winning customers over by giving them everything they want, but warm fuzzies don't pay the bills. In this case, Adobe has determined that subscriptions will pay the bills...



Rotanimod said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Rotanimod said:
> ...


----------



## Overread (May 6, 2013)

Additional cynical mode - panic purchases of CS6 will begin now as people panic buy until Adobe changes their policy. Even if they don't change it they'll likely do well pushing a lot of people over the edge to either upgrade or buy CS6 to get a hole of it as it the last version free of the monthly  charges.


----------



## Light Guru (May 6, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Anybody out there in the cloud know how well add on products like Nik and Topaz manage to plugin to the cloud? Did Adobe just p*ss off somebody else besides their customer base?
> 
> Joe



LOL your not actually using an online version of photoshop the program installed on your computer just like it always has. The only differences is instead of using a DVD to install the installer is downloaded, and the software checkers the cloud server to make sure your subscription to the program is current. 

Plugins work just like they always have.


----------



## cgw (May 6, 2013)

Always wondered how many people using Adobe products actually paid for them. Tell me this wasn't a factor in this decision.


----------



## Ysarex (May 6, 2013)

Light Guru said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody out there in the cloud know how well add on products like Nik and Topaz manage to plugin to the cloud? Did Adobe just p*ss off somebody else besides their customer base?
> ...



Yeah, I figured out that it couldn't actually run in or from "the cloud" given bandwidth limits but I've no idea what they're trying to otherwise control once they've got you plugged in.

Joe


----------



## Josh66 (May 6, 2013)

cgw said:


> Always wondered how many people using Adobe products actually paid for them. Tell me this wasn't a factor in this decision.



According to the article, piracy was not a factor (they pretty much said that it would be a 'nice bonus' if it had an affect on piracy), but I somehow doubt that.  Right after they said that piracy wasn't a factor, they said that it was in fact lowering piracy.

I think it's well know that probably 90% of PS users are using a pirated version...  We'll be able to tell who was using what when there is a drop in PP quality on the forum.


----------



## Tiller (May 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> It's great to get a warm fuzzy by winning customers over by giving them everything they want, but warm fuzzies don't pay the bills. In this case, Adobe has determined that subscriptions will pay the bills...



Customers pay the bills, so it's usually in the company's best interest to keep them happy.


----------



## kathyt (May 6, 2013)

I could live on LR anyways. I own CS6 and rarely even use it. I am sure others could find a program that could do the things that LR can't that is non-Adobe.


----------



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I could live on LR anyways. I own CS6 and rarely even use it. I am sure others could find a program that could do the things that LR can't that is non-Adobe.


                                          According to Adobe customer service rep. Lightroom will be a monthly fee service as well.


----------



## Benco (May 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> If there's onlly one place to get it, if people want it, sooner or later they will succumb to the urge for it and pay for it. It's simple human nature...



We'll see how many humans are simple. It's a good product but it's not the only show in town and if they try to force users into some compulsory creative cloud cuckoo land....yeah, we'll see.


----------



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

jake337 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > I don't need or want the whole creative suite.  All I use from it is Photoshop.  I've upgraded every time a new version came out, typically every 18 months, and I was okay with that cost for what I was getting.  But there's no way I'm doing $600 per year just to use Photoshop.  When my current CS6 stops meeting my needs for whatever reason, I'll be moving on to something else.
> ...



That is the introductory price offer if you sign up for a year in the next month . It will go up after that. You have to sign a one year contract or you will pay double for a month to month rate. Why join now if you already have a version of PS. You will pay them a monthly fee just to use what you already own. If they had a brand new software then it may be worth looking into. As it is right now you start paying them to use what you already have. Not to much sense in that.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

The sky is falling.


----------



## pixmedic (May 6, 2013)

ill just make do with CS5 and LR4 for a while I guess.


----------



## Jad (May 6, 2013)

runnah said:


> The sky is falling.



No, just your bank account


----------



## Greiver (May 6, 2013)

Not gonna upgrade PS anymore then. No big deal.


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

Jad said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > The sky is falling.
> ...



I be making it rain up in harh!


----------



## manaheim (May 6, 2013)

As a guy who has been around in technology for quite a while now, I have one thing to say on this topic...


----------



## runnah (May 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> As a guy who has been around in technology for quite a while now, I have one thing to say on this topic...
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44137"/>



Cmic


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2013)

As is the case in the internet age, Adobe has slapped up a Facebook page for this new hijack--and is getting HAMMERED by irate, upset customers.

*https://www.facebook.com/adobecreativecloud

A few lowlights:

Josh Murphy Where is the dislike button? Looks like I'm never updating again. You guys suck.

Sean Sohl Even more important is that we loose access to our own property, the content we create with these tools. If I can't afford the subscription to the tools for some reason, I now loose the ability to access my files.
Like · Reply · 4 · 4 hours ago

Gary Smith Sorry, Adobe as a long time photoshop user please don't try to paint this as anything other than a money grab. I don't need or want most of the stuff in cloud. I want to be able to purchase the software of my choice with out a subscription. You are really hitting the small users, like myself. Bad move.
Like · Reply · 4 · 4 hours ago

Bill Fuller Kills me for sure. Can't afford to pay for all of the stuff I don't need just to have the stuff I do need suddenly quit working when times get tough and I can't keep up. I know Adobe doesn't care, but as a 20 some odd year user of Photoshop, I sure feel like I'm getting screwed.
Like · Reply · 11 · 5 hours ago

Jen Willett Adobe CC is a horrible business model. It will price freelancers out of the market. You could raise rates to access this software at anytime. And to use software I'd have already invested a bunch of money in for a subscription...if I choose to stop my subscription, you stop my "access" to it? Really? WTF, Adobe?  (snipped, it goes on)

Phaneendra Gudapati Very disappointing decision from Adobe. Renting a software? Who came up with that idea? Even though I might continue using it, but I am actively looking for alternatives. Hope some of the alternative softwares will take this opportunity and step up. Yes, I am also looking for 'dislike' or 'hate' button.
Like · Reply · 9 · 4 hours ago

*


----------



## Greiver (May 6, 2013)

Derrel said:


> As is the case in the internet age, Adobe has slapped up a Facebook page for this new hijack--and is getting HAMMERED by irate, upset customers.
> 
> *https://www.facebook.com/adobecreativecloud
> 
> ...


It's quite entertaining going through the page.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 6, 2013)

My professors tell me cloud computing is our future.  This very well could be an early model of how we purchase any software in the future.


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2013)

Look out people--it's "*The Revenge of the Sixth*"!!!!!


----------



## manaheim (May 6, 2013)

This is what all software vendors WANT.

It gives them more control over their software and it gets them out of the perpetual "have to create new features to sell software" cycle, which is particularly challenging when the existing software is PLENTY good, giving users no compelling need to transition.  (Windows 7 anyone?  Hell, Windows XP was damn near close to fine...)

The vendors will say "oh it lowers support costs because it's all in the cloud!" (as if justification for all this), but it's really all kinda just what that one guy said... a money grab.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 6, 2013)

The Cloud is the future of computing, the high end machines and the software that runs "on" them are the past. 

Adobe may up or lower their price depending on market demands, but in the not to distant future any "half decent" software at all (whether on the cheap or free), will be in the cloud too. Pick up some Cloud stocks on the cheap, thank me later


----------



## SCraig (May 6, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> My professors tell me cloud computing is our future.  This very well could be an early model of how we purchase any software in the future.



Yeah, or it could go over as well as Microsoft WebTV, New Coke, or the Edsel.  All of which were touted as being the wave of the future.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 6, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Well, if it's so fundamental and "common", I'll be happy to read your examples of businesses the size of Adobe which have thrived after deciding not to care about whether or not they did.
> 
> I mean, you _can _provide examples of that, right?



www.google.com

^ enormous, successful, well-liked, doesn't throw customers under the bus repeatedly.


----------



## texkam (May 6, 2013)

Perhaps everyone should consider making a donation to Open Source projects.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 6, 2013)

SCraig said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > My professors tell me cloud computing is our future.  This very well could be an early model of how we purchase any software in the future.
> ...



What happens is definitely anyone's guess.  All I know is that it's being pushed.  CompTIA has a cloud certification available now.  Time will tell.  For now I'm glad I keep it simple and just use DPP for editing.


----------



## bhop (May 6, 2013)

I'm still on the fence if I like it or not.. 

this Facebook comment kinda resonates with me:
_"But you NEVER get a hard copy of the product with all the money you paid! You just keep paying! And once your subscription is over. You have no access to the software you shoveled hundreds if not thousands of dollars for. This is a SERVICE, not a product."_

Thing is.. I have CS4.  It still works fine for me, just as it did when I got it.  I haven't felt the need to upgrade, so once it was paid for, that's it.  I can use it as long as it works.  Now, with the new model, i'd have to continue paying monthly without the option of just keeping on using my 'old but works' software.  

It's like my car.. I paid it off and it was awesome driving it not having car payments.  Some people like to lease a car and always have the newest stuff.. I don't care about that.  I'd rather have the money in my pocket.


----------



## KmH (May 6, 2013)

If you want to keep track of how Adobe stockholders and the financial community feel about the policy change, just follow the stock price.

Here is Adobe Systems stock price for the last 3 months, but you can change the time interval - Adobe Systems Incorporated Stock Chart | ADBE Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## Buckster (May 6, 2013)

For giggles, pull up NetFlix's stock for the 3 months prior to their foray into corporate greed based price restructuring while you're at it.


----------



## Steve5D (May 6, 2013)

Tiller said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > It's great to get a warm fuzzy by winning customers over by giving them everything they want, but warm fuzzies don't pay the bills. In this case, Adobe has determined that subscriptions will pay the bills...
> ...



I always get a kick out of people who believe that big companies have some obligation to bend over backwards for customers.

Because they don't.

I don't know what Adobe's bottom line was last year, and I'd be willing to wager that you don't, either. "Happy customers" doesn't always translate into dollars. Hell, _I'm _a happy Adobe customer, and they haven't gotten a dime of my money in over a year and a half, and I don't see them getting any of my money in the foreseeable future. 

But, boy, I sure am happy, and that should be enough to keep Adobe in the black, right?

You equate "happy customers" with "customers who regularly spend money with a particular company", and you're just wrong. They are _not _one in the same.

Having worked for a large manufacturer, I've seen the kinds of things that go on before a major shift in how business is done, or even how a product is manufacteured. _None _of it is undertaken lightly, or with the cavalier attitude many customers suspect is present.

Again, I would love to see an example of a large company choosing to not care about its own health and financial well being just to keep the customer happy...


----------



## ZimPhoto (May 7, 2013)

gosh darnitt!!!!did't get in on this thread.  I use ligtroom and PSE11.  Would have liked to upgrade to CS6 some day.  Looks like I can't and can only subrscribe.


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if it's so fundamental and "common", I'll be happy to read your examples of businesses the size of Adobe which have thrived after deciding not to care about whether or not they did.
> ...



So you're saying that Google didn't care if they were successful or not? They didn't care if they made money or not? When was the last time you made a check out to Google to purchase their product or their service? I've been using Google for years, and I've never given them a dime.

But, just to play along using your poor example: I'm not talking about enormous companies that are successful, well-liked, and who don't throw customers under the bus. I'm talking about huge companies that decided their bottom line was not something they chose to be concerned about.

Google is not an example of such a company...


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 7, 2013)

Well considering that i'm already subscribed, that means I get new updates and more features! Woohoo! 

As someone who makes about half their total income off photography and photo related services, the creative cloud has been a no-brainer addition to my workflow.

-Offsite backup of files
-Two licenses which can be used simultaneously (workstation PC / Tech MBP)
-Guaranteed latest versions
-Use of just about all their software
-Better support
-$24 cheaper than Photoshop by itself (as of 5/6/2013 on Amazon.com)
-PLUS, it's a tax write-off!


The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.


----------



## Tailgunner (May 7, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.



Yes, this is an unwanted expense to the average hobbyist. 

As mentioned above, it forces people who get by on running older versions to have to sign up for a monthly service. Its like having to pay for monthly Windows updates instead of just sticking with Windows Vista or Windows 7. You can't keep using the same license as you did in the past...no monthly payment, no access.


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

Is it supposed to be just on CS, or on all Adobe products?


----------



## texkam (May 7, 2013)

Steve,
I understand what you are getting at, but disagree. The quickest way to kill a brand is to piss off it's loyal customers. Ask JCPenney.

Read and learn: J.C. Penney ad addresses ?mistakes,? says co. learned to listen to customers - The Washington Post


----------



## Jad (May 7, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Well considering that i'm already subscribed, that means I get new updates and more features! Woohoo!
> 
> As someone who makes about half their total income off photography and photo related services, the creative cloud has been a no-brainer addition to my workflow.
> 
> ...


 Yeah that is right I don't make much money off of my photography so what does that make me? Inferior to you I guess. You are currently paying Adobe a monthly subscription just to use your current software you have already bought and paid for. The only thing you bought is 2 gigs of cloud space. There is no new software release with this new creative cloud program. Why buy it if there is no new product involved. Of course you have the money from all of the photography you are selling, so it is a no brainer.


----------



## sleist (May 7, 2013)

This is the future of software.  I don't like it much, but new PC's aren't selling enough to drive new software development and sales like they used to.
People used to get significant increases in computing power with each upgrade cycle and software developers were happy to add bloat - er, features -to use up all that extra power and call it an upgrade.
It worked in the opposite direction as well.  Huge increases in software capability drove the need to upgrade hardware as well as software.
The upgrade curve is leveling out and so are sales.  Something has to give.


----------



## manaheim (May 7, 2013)

I don't even have a problem with the subscription model exactly, but I do have a problem with unreasonable prices.

Figure if I had to pay that kind of money for every major package on my system... let's see... that would be...

$30 per month for Windows, $30 per month for Photoshop, $30 per month for Illustrator, $30 a month for Office (I could easily argue a single office app should be considered one major one, and I use Word and Excel a lot... oh and Outlook).

That's $120 a month just for my PC.  $1,440 a year?  I don't think most people have that kind of money to spend yearly on their systems.

Oh and don't forget my wife's system...

Oh and don't forget I have two daughters who will need laptops soon...

Oh and I have a good 5-10 games and a good 5-10 utilities and smaller apps on here, so we'll need to factor those in...

It just gets totally unreasonable after a while.  If this continues down the road it's on you're going to see alternatives start to show up and people will begrudgingly move to them (despite their shortcomings) because they'll have no other reasonable choice.

GIMP has the worst interface on the planet... but for $360 a year, I can deal with it if I have to.


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

> Various people: google google google



You're not a customer of google's, you're the product. The customers are the advertisers. Also, they spend a LOT of time throwing their "products" under the bus.


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

Gee, it's almost as if there has to be some sort of BALANCE between customer satisfaction and revenue. There might even be some lines, of opposite slopes, that cross at some point.

None of your blokes are exactly gonna get an invite to an endowed chair at Harvard Business School, are ya?


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

And finally: The Cloud is just mainframe computing all over again, complete with leased everything. Welcome to 1975 again. It went away after a while. The great wheel of software turns and turns. This is largely because persuading everyone that the status quo sucks is the way you sell everyone new stuff.


----------



## manaheim (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Gee, it's almost as if there has to be some sort of BALANCE between customer satisfaction and revenue. There might even be some lines, of opposite slopes, that cross at some point.
> 
> None of your blokes are exactly gonna get an invite to an endowed chair at Harvard Business School, are ya?



I don't begrudge them trying it... and if it works the world of software is going to become a very rich place for me... and my career. 

But I do think there is a line somewhere and they've drawn it a lot closer to the big business and the question is how many sales of end consumers will be lost?  And if they care?

I once worked for a software company that had 75% of their web traffic coming in from Asia... and 5% of their sales.  Needless to say when I had to choose a web acceleration vendor, and the one that worked best out of all of them in Asia (and was most expensive) was Akamai... I chose the one that was less good with Asia and cost me about 1/10th the price.

In business you have to make these decisions and someone is gonna yell and complain... the question is... again...do you care?  Maybe Adobe doesn't.


----------



## ronlane (May 7, 2013)

I think that Adobe does care but someone has them drinking the cool-aid thinking that the best thing that they can deliver is a subscription where everyone gets to keep the latest greatest version of it's software.

I still have mixed feelings about this since I purchased LR4 and PSE11 in the last year. I don't need to upgrade for a while (but I like some of the features in the beta LR5) so I have time to sort it out and see how things play out.


----------



## bhop (May 7, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.



well.. yeah..


----------



## manaheim (May 7, 2013)

bhop said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.
> ...



That's QUITE a few people.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 7, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.



And silly me, here I was thinking I was "b*tching" about this (read: expressing perfectly legitimate frustration about a fundamental shift in their business model) and I make quite a nice secondary income from my photography. 

Nice try with the over-generalization fallacy though.


----------



## Tiller (May 7, 2013)

I agree with manaheim. I don't think the cloud service is a bad idea, I just don't like it being my only choice.


----------



## pixmedic (May 7, 2013)

manaheim said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> > Sw1tchFX said:
> ...



Really? Im honestly not seeing the correlation between being successful, and wanting to incur a mandatory monthly charge.  What if Matco or Snap On used this same business model? Would every mechanic be happy with it?    And would do it yourself mechanics be ridiculed for liking to have the ability to own the tools they use? Why is it so difficult to believe that there are successful photographers that want to purchase their software outright and only upgrade when they feel it absolutely necessary? Adobe will do what they feel is in the best interest of the company, and the consumers will have the same option they have always had.  Use the product or not.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 7, 2013)

As much as I want to get flaming mad about this, the simple fact is that it won't affect me much at all. And I suspect it won't affect a great many "smaller" photographers who predominantly use LR in their post work.

How many of you guys are like me? Be honest. My workflow is 90-95% LR and then I finish up the "heavy" edits in Photoshop CS6. Now, with the new Lightroom 5 (which won't be restricted to the cloud AFAIK) including a true cloning/healing brush, radial gradient tool and the improved RAW support, the develop module in LR5 will more or less duplicate ACR.

There goes two of my biggest reasons for ever visiting Photoshop. So, all that to say, I imagine I'll be perfectly content to rock Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6 for a LONG time to come. Definitely long enough for the market to provide a high quality alternative to Adobe Slavery. (I'm looking at you, Google/Nik).


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

PROPERTY IS THEFT!


----------



## Ysarex (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> PROPERTY IS THEFT!



:thumbup:


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 7, 2013)

There is lots of industry specific software that is sold in this very same way.  I think my company pays around a $1k monthly for our inventory management/routing system software.  It works for business.  The difference is that I'm guessing there aren't a lot of amateur or semi-pro propane companies out there that use the same software.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 7, 2013)

I want to lease Adobe Products just about as much as I want to lease Minesweeper.


----------



## Tiller (May 7, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> I want to lease Adobe Products just about as much as I want to lease Minesweeper.



I do love minesweeper!


----------



## ronlane (May 7, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> As much as I want to get flaming mad about this, the simple fact is that it won't affect me much at all. And I suspect it won't affect a great many "smaller" photographers who predominantly use LR in their post work.
> 
> How many of you guys are like me? Be honest. My workflow is 90-95% LR and then I finish up the "heavy" edits in Photoshop CS6. Now, with the new Lightroom 5 (which won't be restricted to the cloud AFAIK) including a true cloning/healing brush, radial gradient tool and the improved RAW support, the develop module in LR5 will more or less duplicate ACR.
> 
> There goes two of my biggest reasons for ever visiting Photoshop. So, all that to say, I imagine I'll be perfectly content to rock Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6 for a LONG time to come. Definitely long enough for the market to provide a high quality alternative to Adobe Slavery. (I'm looking at you, Google/Nik).



I agree with you James. I use LR4 for most of my editing and then anything else I use PSE11. I was thinking that LR was included in this but when I went to try to select a single app for the $19.99, LR was not a choice. I'm sure that it's possible for them to add that later if this all works but since that is not the case now, I am just going to keep using LR4 and probably upgrade to LR5 when time comes.


----------



## KmH (May 7, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> consumers will have the same option they have always had.  Use the product or not.


QFT.


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

texkam said:


> Steve,
> I understand what you are getting at, but disagree. The quickest way to kill a brand is to piss off it's loyal customers. Ask JCPenney.
> 
> Read and learn: J.C. Penney ad addresses ?mistakes,? says co. learned to listen to customers - The Washington Post



You can disagree all you want, but a company that doesn't put its own health and financial well-being as its first priiority is a company which, at best, will not be competitive and, at worst, will go the way of the dinosaur.

First and foremost, businesses are in business to make money. Anyone believing otherwise is not cut out for business...


----------



## Jad (May 7, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> As much as I want to get flaming mad about this, the simple fact is that it won't affect me much at all. And I suspect it won't affect a great many "smaller" photographers who predominantly use LR in their post work.
> 
> How many of you guys are like me? Be honest. My workflow is 90-95% LR and then I finish up the "heavy" edits in Photoshop CS6. Now, with the new Lightroom 5 (which won't be restricted to the cloud AFAIK) including a true cloning/healing brush, radial gradient tool and the improved RAW support, the develop module in LR5 will more or less duplicate ACR.
> 
> There goes two of my biggest reasons for ever visiting Photoshop. So, all that to say, I imagine I'll be perfectly content to rock Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CS6 for a LONG time to come. Definitely long enough for the market to provide a high quality alternative to Adobe Slavery. (I'm looking at you, Google/Nik).


The Adobe customer service rep told me the new Lightroom will be available only with the full edition Creative Cloud. You may want to check this out for yourself, but I think you are dead ended with Lightroom 4


----------



## Deeger (May 7, 2013)

So people will just download pirate copies of PS and LR more often?


----------



## .SimO. (May 7, 2013)

Will this help mitigate pirated copies possibly?  Or more importantly, will I need to be connected online to a subscription base the entire time I am utilizing the software? That would be my concern.  As a traveler, I don't often get to be online for personal business.


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

Adobe isn't the first, and will not be the last to move to this type of licensing.  PC sales are falling through the roof and cloud models are becoming mainstream.  The times are a changin!

For people who hate the idea stick with CS6.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> You can disagree all you want, but a company that doesn't put its own health and financial well-being as its first priiority is a company which, at best, will not be competitive and, at worst, will go the way of the dinosaur.
> 
> First and foremost, businesses are in business to make money. Anyone believing otherwise is not cut out for business...



If the only goal of a business was to make money, at all costs, that business would not survive either. You'd be cutting off your nose despite your face. 

If Adobe consumers are the income of a business, their bread and butter, wouldn't it be advised they keep them _happy?_ That's a rhetorical question, because the obvious answer is a resounding *YES*! 

Look what happened to Netflix when they decided to screw over customers in early 2012 by drastically changing their pricing structure (in their best interests, not the customers). 

5 year stock prices, Netflix 

Stocks nose-dived and customers exited en masse. Moves that keep the interests of the company in mind first (without keeping customers happy) _backfire all the time_. 

Or, how about JC Penney? 

One year stock prices, JC Penney

CEO Ron Johnson had a pricing model "vision for the company" which alienated hundreds of thousands of customers:

"Mr. Johnson abruptly scrapped JCPenney&#8217;s dubious pricing policies of marking up prices and then offering discounts, with heavy promotions, and coupons. He proposed to offer more interesting products, from lines like Martha Stewart and Joe Fresh, at reasonable prices all the time.

*But the change in pricing occurred with merchandise that was already in stores and that customers were used to, rather than on brand-new merchandise.* The approach didn&#8217;t fare well with Penney&#8217;s customer base of bargain hunters. *They rebelled, traffic declined, sales fell and Penney slowly returned to the prior era of pricing*, with lots of promotions, lots of price-focused ads, and marked-up prices that would be later marked down."

-- Source

So Steve, the moral of the story here is that one cannot just pretend customer satisfaction doesn't matter. Drastic changes in pricing have been known to alienate customers and largely backfire on the company. 

You can pretend that the bottom line is all that matters, all you want. But in the end,_* there's no bottom line if you don't have any customers. *_


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

.SimO. said:


> Will this help mitigate pirated copies possibly?  Or more importantly, will I need to be connected online to a subscription base the entire time I am utilizing the software? That would be my concern.  As a traveler, I don't often get to be online for personal business.



It might, but not really.  Pirates always find a way to steal.

No you will not need to be connected.  The Adobe apps will be installed on your machine (just like today) and at least once every 30 days you have to be connected to the internet.  Although there is a silly grace period of 180 days, so in theory as long as you go online at least once every 6 months you're good.


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2013)

dewey said:


> Adobe isn't the first, and will not be the last to move to this type of licensing.  PC sales are falling through the roof and cloud models are becoming mainstream.  The times are a changin!
> 
> For people who hate the idea stick with CS6.


Just to be clear, it's not the cloud/licensing/per month business model that I object to.  I'm fine with that.  My objection is centered squarely on paying nearly double going forward for a product that was fairly expensive already.


----------



## texkam (May 7, 2013)

> It just gets totally unreasonable after a while. If this continues down the road it's on you're going to see alternatives start to show up and people will begrudgingly move to them (despite their shortcomings) because they'll have no other reasonable choice.


The alternatives are already here. Linux and the Open Source movement have come a long way. Shortcomings? Yes, but we were once locked into Internet Explorer too. Well, Firefox and the Open Source Community changed that. And do we forget how far Google Chrome has come in it's 5 short years of existence? These two Open Source alternatives are arguably as good or better than the commercial product. Never underestimate the power of the customer, or the power of the community.

Here are two alternatives right here. A perfect replacement? No, but look for them to get a closer look and more serious consideration now.
About « Ubuntu Studio
About | Dream Studio


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

I was just commenting, not aiming anything at you directly.

Speaking of money, Photoshop is around $600 give or take.  Photoshop in the new world is $20 a month.  

Photoshop CS6 = $600
$20 a month x 30 months = $600

But to be fair it's fairly difficult to calculate the exact cost.  How often do you upgrade now?  Upgrades are covered in the CC world.  If you buy one version of Photoshop and NEVER upgrade sure - the new model is much more expensive.  If you upgrade every few years though I'm not seeing a big (if any) increase.


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 7, 2013)

Which amount is it?  I've seen $20, $30 and $50.


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

bentcountershaft said:


> Which amount is it?  I've seen $20, $30 and $50.



$20 a month is for Photoshop only - you can buy just one app from the suite - you do not have to buy them all.

It's $29.99 for the entire suite if you are upgrading from CS3 or later

It's $39.99 for the entire suite if you are upgrading from releases prior to CS3

It's $49.99 for the entire suite if you are a new customer

Membership plans: Pricing, upgrades, and subscriptions | Adobe Creative Cloud


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2013)

dewey said:


> I was just commenting, not aiming anything at you directly.
> 
> Speaking of money, Photoshop is around $600 give or take.  Photoshop in the new world is $20 a month.
> 
> ...


That price is only on the initial purchase, which was long ago for me.  Since then, it's upgrades, and like I said, my last one was $210 and lasted from a year and a half to two years before the next upgrade.  Other's waited 3 to 3 and a half years, upgrading only every other release.



dewey said:


> But to be fair it's fairly difficult to calculate the exact cost.  How often do you upgrade now?  Upgrades are covered in the CC world.  If you buy one version of Photoshop and NEVER upgrade sure - the new model is much more expensive.  If you upgrade every few years though I'm not seeing a big (if any) increase.


I've done the math on this.  You're mistaken.  It's huge. Watch:

My last upgrade was $210.  At every two years, that's $8.75 per month average.  At 3 years, for those who upgrade only every other release, that's $5.83 per month average.

$19.99 is right out the window.  Oh, and that's if you pay up front per year.  If you actually pay month to month, it's 29.99, which makes it even worse.

So, at $29.99 per month for the typical upgrade period of 18 months, it's now going to be $539.82 for what was $210 last year.
If we calculate at a reasonable 24 month period instead, it's now going to be a whopping $719.76 for what was $210 last year.
And for those who upgraded every 36 months (every other release), it's now $1,079.64 for what was $210 last year.

Little to no difference, my a$$.


----------



## bhop (May 7, 2013)

I don't know much about stocks.. but it looks like their stock is dropping

ADBE: Summary for Adobe Systems Incorporated- Yahoo! Finance


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

Wow... someone has a bit of an anger issue.

Yes I agree with you - if you upgrade only every few years as you illustrated - it is more expensive.  If you purchase the entire suite and upgrade it regularly - this is a much better deal.  It's like any change - some people like it, some people don't.

Honestly, speaking of solely Photoshop, most people will never need an upgrade.  Hang on to that old copy - it works great.  I see lots of people using CS3 with no problems.

Plus that's $0 a month.


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2013)

dewey said:


> Wow... someone has a bit of an anger issue.


No, I have a math issue.



dewey said:


> Yes I agree with you - *if you upgrade only every few years as you illustrated - it is more expensive.*


Even though you just said, "*If you upgrade every few years though I'm not seeing a big (if any) increase.*" 

:er:



dewey said:


> If you purchase the entire suite and upgrade it regularly - this is a much better deal.


Hey, it's great if that's a price deal that's truly advantageous for those who need the entire suite.  And if they made a price deal that's advantageous to the rest of us, I'd jump all over it, but they didn't, and that's the issue.

See, I don't want or need the entire suite, and I suspect that's true for most photographers.



dewey said:


> It's like any change - some people like it, some people don't.


No, it's more like any price-gouging - anyone with a brain and a modicum of common sense won't like it.



dewey said:


> Honestly, speaking of solely Photoshop, most people will never need an upgrade.  Hang on to that old copy - it works great.  I see lots of people using CS3 with no problems.
> 
> Plus that's $0 a month.


Right up until it won't work with a new OS somewhere down the line.  Then it's dead and over. 

I also happen to like major upgrades to the software toolkit that enhance my abilities, and have been perfectly willing to pay a reasonable upgrade price every year and a half to two years to get them.  That's gone now too with the "never need an upgrade - hang on to that old copy - works great" plan.

Surely, Adobe can do better than that for it's customers.


----------



## Tee (May 7, 2013)

Anyone catch the Adobe Evangelist/ Fanboy on Facebook replying to every negative post with some sort of positive spin?  I bet it sucks having his job today.  LOL.  After reading the Facebook page, it looks like Kelby and all the Adobe shills are onboard with this which is in stark contrast from last years stand by the pro's urging Adobe to reconsider their pricing structure that would've emptied the pocket books of many.


----------



## jake337 (May 7, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> ill just make do with CS5 and LR4 for a while I guess.




Or go back to the darkroom...


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

Oops... I actually misspoke if you have CS3 or above the single app is 9.99... not 19.99.

My mistake.

But yeah I know - that's still awful.  

It'll be an interesting change for sure.  I'm a little worried about all of the various cloud accounts.  If you take Google Docs, and Amazon Cloud Drive, and maybe the CC.  I mean at some point they'll need an app just to manage all of the cloud drives.  Hopefully at some point as leaders in the cloud providers emerge some kind of easy transfer will emerge. 

I have a hard enough time with laptops, desktops and a drawer full of external hard drives.

https://creative.adobe.com/plans?plan=single_app_offer&scid=social7782214&sdid=KFPGE


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 7, 2013)

People don't seem to understand some teeny, tiny, wee little facts:

*1. You will never physically OWN the software. 
2. On many billing plans, you will have to make an Annual Commitment
3. For new customers, they will pay $50/mo for getting into the Creative Suite ($600/yr)
4. For existing customers, they will pay a penalty for wanting to keep current software/ as new cameras come out that aren't supported in their previous versions
5. $19.99 for a single app. If you use 2 apps, expect to pay more $40/mo (I don't see literature on LR in the pricing yet)


*The facts suck, don't they??

A lot of you have talked yourselves into thinking this is a good thing. *It's not a good thing for a lot of people, even if it's good for you. Don't generalize.* 
There's one party that this is surely great for! Adobe. 

Unless their customers decide they've had enough. Which has happened before to other companies and could easily happen to them.


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

Tee said:


> Anyone catch the Adobe Evangelist/ Fanboy on Facebook replying to every negative post with some sort of positive spin?  I bet it sucks having his job today.  LOL.  After reading the Facebook page, it looks like Kelby and all the Adobe shills are onboard with this which is in stark contrast from last years stand by the pro's urging Adobe to reconsider their pricing structure that would've emptied the pocket books of many.



LOL!  I've often seen those corporate facebook accounts where some poor person has to try and respond like Flo from Progressive.  Yeesh.


----------



## dewey (May 7, 2013)

I do like the JC Penny Comparison.  Indeed the consumers will ultimately make the decision.

Does it really make any shred of sense that people would rather buy a $100 shirt that's 75% off rather than just buying the same shirt for $25 not on sale?

Apparently the answer is yes.


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2013)

dewey said:


> Oops... I actually misspoke if you have CS3 or above the single app is 9.99... not 19.99.
> 
> My mistake.


*For the first year only.  Don't forget that little part of it.



dewey said:


> But yeah I know - that's still awful.


Well, gee... I dunno... Let's review...

I *HAVE* CS6.  It will be fine for the next *YEAR *at no additional charge.

_OOOOORRRRRR...._

I can "UPGRADE" to CS6 for a mere $9.99 per month for the next *YEAR *if I pay the whole $119.88 up front, because I'm an existing customer (such a DEAL!!!), and _THEN_ start paying the FULL PRICE of $239.88 per year after that first year is up, in order to KEEP USING CS6. 

Golly...  What a tough decision to make...  If I'm a moron with more money than brains, that is.

Maybe, someday, they'll even upgrade it to CS7 (or whatever they'll call it) and, who knows, it might actually even be a substantial upgrade with new features I'd want to pay for (though what's their incentive for that when everybody's got to pay no matter what?).  Gosh, who DOESN'T love rolling the dice like that?

By the way, can we look forward to an additional $19.99 per month, $239.88 per year up front thank-you-very-much, for Lightroom as well?  Man, I can just _*feel*_ the love...  I just wish I could feel some lubricant along with it...


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

This is one of the great things about the switch from buying to leasing, or vice versa.

It's not just $X is bigger than $Y, you have to actually work through the scenarios like Buckster is doing, to see if it makes financial sense for you or not. How often do you buy upgrades? How much do you pay for service? What are the additional bundled services and products worth to you?

There are likely people for whom this will actually save money. I don't know for sure, but it seems likely. Since leasing also changes the cash flows around, it will make it more convenient for some small businesses, and less convenient for others. Who KNOWS what it does to the tax situation. It's *quite* possible that this is a big savings and big value for some high value class of customer that Adobe actually cares about.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 7, 2013)

Jad said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I want to get flaming mad about this, the simple fact is that it won't affect me much at all. And I suspect it won't affect a great many "smaller" photographers who predominantly use LR in their post work.
> ...



Nothing I've seen in the press releases or info on LR5 has stated or implied that it would only be available via the CC. The LR5 beta is already available to the public.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (May 7, 2013)

dewey said:


> I do like the JC Penny Comparison.  Indeed the consumers will ultimately make the decision.
> 
> Does it really make any shred of sense that people would rather buy a $100 shirt that's 75% off rather than just buying the same shirt for $25 not on sale?
> 
> Apparently the answer is yes.



Ok bro, just caught up on the thread and I gotta say, you reek of Adobe spin troll.

Your signature doesn't say you've been assigned to run damage control on this forum and thread, but your words sure indicate as much.

T-minus 3...2...1...til I get an entirely too positive and sickly sweet response. :er:


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

dewey said:


> Does it really make any shred of sense that people would rather buy a $100 shirt that's 75% off rather than just buying the same shirt for $25 not on sale?



There is a HUGE, HUGE psychological difference between those two scenarios. Virtually everyone, you included almost certainly, is much more willing to buy a $100 shirt discounted to $25 than to buy an identical shirt at a full listed price of $25. They don't do this stuff because they're dumb, and they don't do this stuff because it doesn't work.


----------



## Overread (May 7, 2013)

Ok lets cool the attitudes a bit people!

Debate the matter all you wish but lets leave out insulting each other out of it. Respect each others viewpoints, counter argue against the point if you wish (you do not have to agree), but don't lower yourself to making personal attacks or insults or jibes to try and "win". No one wins when that happens, all that happens is you get into a fight and then a mod has to come along and lock the thread and issue out punishments to any who really took things too far.


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> So Steve, the moral of the story here is that one cannot just pretend customer satisfaction doesn't matter.



And if you can find where I've said that, I'll buy you a house. Putting words in my mouth to try to make a point is pretty pathetic.

In the hierarchy of who needs to be considered first in business decisions, a business will put their interests first. _*I never said other interests didn't matter.*_ I never said anything _remotely _like that.

Again, it's silly to suggest that a company is best served by putting the interests of anything but the company first...


----------



## Jad (May 7, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Jad said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



I just had a chat with Adobe sales rep and he confirmed the new Lightroom 5 will only be available with the Creative Cloud. It will not be a stand alone product


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> dewey said:
> 
> 
> > Does it really make any shred of sense that people would rather buy a $100 shirt that's 75% off rather than just buying the same shirt for $25 not on sale?
> ...



They do it because of marketing and "perceived value"...


----------



## Benco (May 7, 2013)

Hope Adobe's paying attention to all the shouting going on about this on the web, previously happy customers are no longer happy at all, are you _really sure_ you want to ride this train Adobe?


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

I do find it fascinating that the thrust of this thread appears to be:

- I spend <paltry amount> on Adobe products, and so this change is bad for me
- Adobe should therefore not do this

Maybe Adobe doesn't care very much about <paltry amount>? Just thinkin' outside the box. It's all very well to be furious and to wave your arms about angrily, but if you're not pullin' the train, you don't really get a vote.


----------



## Benco (May 7, 2013)

Paltry amount? which Adobe product goes for a paltry amount? I'm all ears.


----------



## Josh66 (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I do find it fascinating that the thrust of this thread appears to be:
> 
> - I spend <paltry amount> on Adobe products, and so this change is bad for me
> - Adobe should therefore not do this
> ...



Yes, I have this sneaking suspicion that the people who rarely upgrade (or pirates) are not exactly the target audience of Adobe.

For what I suspect is their target audience, this new plan probably sounds pretty good.  Everyone else is screwed.  I'll give them the benefit of doubt that they know which customers are 'more important'.  We all like to pretend that 'equality' is a thing, but it just isn't...


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2013)

Benco said:


> Paltry amount? which Adobe product goes for a paltry amount? I'm all ears.


Me too.

Also, I think it's worth noting that there are a LOT of successful businesses built around the notion of selling a LOT of product at lower prices to a LOT of "little" people, rather than selling a few products at exorbitant prices to a handful of "well-heeled" people.  Those "little" people certainly DO pull the trains of such companies.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Maybe Adobe doesn't care very much about <paltry amount>? Just thinkin' outside the box. It's all very well to be furious and to wave your arms about angrily, but if *you're not pullin' the train, you don't really get a vote.*



Last time I checked, Adobe isn't writing checks to themselves. The customers do .


----------



## Josh66 (May 7, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Adobe doesn't care very much about <paltry amount>? Just thinkin' outside the box. It's all very well to be furious and to wave your arms about angrily, but if *you're not pullin' the train, you don't really get a vote.*
> ...



I have to wonder how many of the people complaining (not just here) are actually "customers"...


----------



## Benco (May 7, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Yes, I have this sneaking suspicion that the people who rarely upgrade *(or pirates)* are not exactly the target audience of Adobe.



I do hope you meant '*and* pirates'.


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > Paltry amount? which Adobe product goes for a paltry amount? I'm all ears.
> ...



Absolutely. The Mars corporation is very interested in paltry amounts, and I certainly allow that Adobe might also be. I haven't the foggiest notion what percentage of revenue comes from the $400 avery 3 years guys, and it certainly could be "most of it". It is, in short, perfectly possible that the $400 every three years people are in fact pulling the train.

All I'm saying is that it's ALSO possible that it's "5% of it" and the other 95% comes from people who are dropping a thousand bucks a year on this that and the other thing.


----------



## Josh66 (May 7, 2013)

Benco said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I have this sneaking suspicion that the people who rarely upgrade *(or pirates)* are not exactly the target audience of Adobe.
> ...



I think it works either way.  But, yeah, if I could do it over I probably should have said 'and'.

Note that I am in no way saying that 'people who rarely upgrade' are pirates...  Two separate market segments, lol.


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2013)

Buckster said:


> dewey said:
> 
> 
> > I was just commenting, not aiming anything at you directly.
> ...



Oh, cripes, somebody actually brought in some real-world examples and did some math..and guess what... Adobe $y$tems wants to ream him. Imagine that! How come all the Adobe shills keep telling us this is good for us? It's suuuuuuch a good deal. On their Facebook page, on dPreview, Adobe's shameless money grab is garnering nothing but outrage. I do not like the way they want to hold users' files and photos hostage. Stop paying the monthy extortion fee...and lose your access to your images, or the ability to manipulate them. Nice racket Adobe!


----------



## SquarePeg (May 7, 2013)

If the cloud/lease option was so great for its customers, Adobe would not need to force it on people.  They own the market and they are foolishly opening the door for their competition.


----------



## Josh66 (May 7, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Nice racket Adobe!



Indeed.  I doubt it is really as shocking as you make it out to be though.  Surely you saw this coming?  (edit - even if you didn't see it coming, you can't tell me that it surprises you...)

There are really only two options from this point.  Pay up or move on.  Or hit up the piratebay, lol.


----------



## sleist (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I do find it fascinating that the thrust of this thread appears to be:
> 
> - I spend <paltry amount> on Adobe products, and so this change is bad for me
> - Adobe should therefore not do this
> ...



I interpret things more along the line of:

I spent money expecting to be able to upgrade when I chose to.
I can't do what I planned to do.  My purchase decision was based on incorrect assumptions.
Now I'm unhappy about it and choose to express my displeasure.

I'm happy with CS 5.1 and do not feel I need to upgrade.
I bought CS 5 for $299 in March 2011. It was on sale ($400 off) for people who recently bought PS Elements.
Total came to $325.00 including tax and shipping.
Over 25 months, that comes to $13 per month - and dropping.
As a hobbyist, I don't ever plan on spending full price on CS-WTF - ever.

There are too many of me I think and Adobe is trying to change the business model.  They may regret it eventually, but people should express their displeasure.  It seems to have worked wrt Windows 8.

BTW, I think it's wrong of you to belittle a person's opinion because you think some amount of money is insignificant - paltry in your words.
Shame on you.  Some people give up a lot to be able to afford a passion like photography.  Shame on you for not respecting that.


----------



## Ballistics (May 7, 2013)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I laughed..the so-called core group of users that is quoted in the article "supports" being charged on a monthly basis...
> ...



The student version is $200. Do they have a student discount?


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Last time I checked, Adobe isn't writing checks to themselves. The customers do .



This line of thinking keeps getting brought up and, to a degree, it's nonsensical.

I bought Elements 10 at the end of 2011. I am, technically, a "customer". They haven't gotten a dime from me since and, considering how happy I am with the product I purchased a year and a half ago, I don't see them getting any more of my money any time soon.

But I am, by every measure, a customer.

And yet I'm not writing any of these "checks" you speak of. The fact that I'm happy has not benefited them an iota in over a year.

I'm just gonna' sit back and chuckle at the comments which state that the most important thing to "big business" is "the customer". It's _not_. The most important thing to big business is making more money for the business, so they can stay in business. How they're able to go about that is secondary and, if they piss people off in the process that, too, will be secondary. Anyone who states otherwise is, I would submit, someone who has never  worked for big business, and has never sat through marketing and  strategy meetings meant to help a company increase the bottom line. 

Will the idea increase revenue? If they believe it will, then they'll do it. That's how "big business" works. If they piss off customers, and those customers leave, well, they'll just get _new _customers.

I understand the desire for a customer to say "I'm most important", I really, really do. Nobody wants to believe that their interests are not front and center. But the reality is that they, and you, are not. You, as a customer, are simply a conduit for Adobe to receive money. If you go away, there _will _be another customer to fill that void.

Anyone who thinks that Adobe didn't expect this backlash is fooling themselves. They made this move because the indications they have are that, after all the whining has died down and whining customers have gone elsewhere, this will prove to be a profitable move for them. Now, market research has been proven wrong before, but it's also been proven right. Only time will tell which applies here.

Is it a gamble? Sure it is. _Everything _with business is a gamble. But I get the very strong sense that the prevailing belief here is that someone at Adobe woke up one morning and said to himself "We should do THIS!". That's just not how it works. For a corporation like Adobe, these things are done by committee. They are not done rashly, and they are not done without due consideration for both the positives and the negatives. These things are done after _extensive _market research. These things are _not _done if that market research says it's going to be a money loser.

I, too, wonder how many people complaining about this are really going to be affected by it, or if they're just bandwagon jumpers with little else to do but boost their post count...


----------



## amolitor (May 7, 2013)

sleist said:


> BTW, I think it's wrong of you to belittle a person's opinion because you think some amount of money is insignificant - paltry in your words.
> Shame on you.  Some people give up a lot to be able to afford a passion like photography.  Shame on you for not respecting that.



Huh?


----------



## Josh66 (May 7, 2013)

sleist said:


> As a hobbyist, I don't ever plan on spending full price on CS-WTF - ever.
> 
> There are too many of me I think and Adobe is trying to change the business model.



Here's the thing...  Please note that I am not saying that I like it, this is just how it is...

"As a hobbyist", they don't care.  You'll spend maybe $1000 per decade...  They'll write that off as a 'cost of doing business'.  They could give it to you for free and wouldn't even notice.  They even admit that piracy is not really a big concern for them (I don't entirely believe that though...)

You are not the type of customer they cater to.  They honestly do not care what you think - you are insignificant to them.  The people they care about are the people that pay them, often.

I don't like it any more than you do, but that's just the way it is...


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

sleist said:


> I interpret things more along the line of:
> 
> I spent money expecting to be able to upgrade when I chose to.
> I can't do what I planned to do.  My purchase decision was based on incorrect assumptions.
> Now I'm unhappy about it and choose to express my displeasure.



Did Adobe ever tell you that you would be able to upgrade forever? 

I don't think they did. Therefore, the incorrect assumption is on you. You assumed you would be able to do that. Adobe never told you that, however...



> BTW, I think it's wrong of you to belittle a person's opinion because you think some amount of money is insignificant - paltry in your words.
> *Shame on you*.  Some people give up a lot to be able to afford a passion like photography.  *Shame on you for not respecting that*.



I love the drama that is TPF...


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > As a hobbyist, I don't ever plan on spending full price on CS-WTF - ever.
> ...



*^^^^
*THAT...


----------



## bentcountershaft (May 7, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



If you sign up by sometime in June you can get the full suite for 20 a month.  After that it's 30.


----------



## Josh66 (May 7, 2013)

Here's Lifehackers' take on it:
http://lifehacker.com/what-photosho...rce=lifehacker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow


----------



## Buckster (May 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I think it's wrong of you to belittle a person's opinion because you think some amount of money is insignificant - paltry in your words.
> ...


The word "paltry" connotes, "not very good, important, or valuable", and that reflects on the people you are referring to who don't pay the large prices.  I too thought it a poor choice of words.


----------



## sleist (May 7, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > As a hobbyist, I don't ever plan on spending full price on CS-WTF - ever.
> ...



I think you misunderstand me.  I am part of the (their) problem and I get that.  They can do whatever they want or need.  I just think that people have the right to ***** about it and not be told they are insignificant due to their perceived value as defined by $$$ sent to Adobe.


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> I love the drama that is TPF...



You've been selected to be a member of The Academy!!!! Every month you'll be sent DVD screener discs, with tons of rude jokes and snappy put-downs that you can use in real life! You'll receive special discounts, and be assured of by-the-kitchen-entrance seats at all your favorite restaurants! You'll also receive a 50-pack of cards you can leave for lazy waitresses,shiftless cab drivers, minority group members, and others whom you look down upon! Your special Academy membership package will be sent to your upcoming address. We know you love drama, so...welcome to The Academy ;-)


----------



## Jad (May 7, 2013)

It will interesting to see what the camera manufactures will do going forward. If the small user drops out of upgrading software they will also drop out from making new purchases of camera gear. It won't happen overnight but I think in the long run if other software brands start down this road the small user will stop buying simple because of cost. We all want to control our monthly expenses and most would prefer to buy things when they feel the need. Remember that in Kodak's hay day they relied on the snapshot shooter to make their money in film industry. The only way we enjoyed the good darkroom papers and chemicals was because there were a lot a Grandma's taking pictures of their grandkids. The small user is a major support in many industries.


----------



## Overread (May 7, 2013)

Jad said:


> It will interesting to see what the camera manufactures will do going forward. If the small user drops out of upgrading software they will also drop out from making new purchases of camera gear.



I don't see why. Canon already ships all their DSLRs with a free editing software package and Nikon has their own up for sale at a lower price than Adobe. There are also multiple other packages out there in the market. As customers Adobe shutting themselves out of a market segment could actually be a good thing since it might encourage more competition within the market itself (lets face it at present Adobe rule the market for casual and commercial and all inbetween - if they move away from the casual with this choice they might well leave that market open for new companies to get a foot in the door - and if they do then they can always push up to take part of the upper markets as well).


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

sleist said:


> I just think that people have the right to ***** about it and not be told they are insignificant due to their perceived value as defined by $$$ sent to Adobe.



But here's the thing: In the grand scheme of things, from the perspectrive of Adobe, they are.

Liking it or not liking it does not alter the reality of it...


----------



## Overread (May 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > I just think that people have the right to ***** about it and not be told they are insignificant due to their perceived value as defined by $$$ sent to Adobe.
> ...



As an individual they are disposable to the company - however as a market segment itself only Adobe know how important they are in the great scheme of things. Indeed Adobe might well be fine with losing a segment of its market if they can gain a strong regular income off a core of its other market groups. It all depends on the background figures that only Adobe will know about and also upon their own internal plans for the future and stability.


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

Overread said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...



That's pretty much the point I've been making all along...


----------



## Benco (May 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > I just think that people have the right to ***** about it and not be told they are insignificant due to their perceived value as defined by $$$ sent to Adobe.
> ...



So because one's like or dislike of something does not change the reality of that thing then....what? we should not have any opinion? like/dislike has no meaning? I dislike mushrooms, this doesn't make any difference to mushrooms but that doesn't change the fact that I don't like them.


----------



## Overread (May 7, 2013)

Of course the gamble here is how much of the market will adobe actually lose and what is their game plan. With market dominance like they have this could be a ploy (as I suggested earlier) to spark fear purchases of the current products by those on the fence; it could also be an attempt to push toward something that they knew would be resisted, so they overplay their hand with something "worse" and then tone it back to what they really want. This latter method is common in business, many contracts and agreements put forth are often for the "idealistic" concept that a company wants but knows they won't get - they ask because there is no harm in it - then negociation whittles things down to a fairer agreement between parties (or the other party sign and agree fully and the company gets more than they expected because they asked for it). 

For adobe the big question is not really the casual user, but rather the ambassadors to the pros and the market. How they take this news is going to be key - last time adobe tried changing things some of these ambassadors organised resistance against it and forced through changes - I think it was Scot Kelby and some others but I honestly can't recall. Now how these people react this time around is key. 

There is also a pressure factor; people get bored or whittled down easily en-mass sometimes so if a company keeps applying pressure they can often push things through since people are just too "lazy" or demoralized to bother resisting en-mass again (or those who organised it all first time around just haven't got the time or energy to mass organise things again).


----------



## Steve5D (May 7, 2013)

Benco said:


> So because one's like or dislike of something does not change the reality of that thing then....what? we should not have any opinion?



Um, I suppose that's up to you. I certainly never suggested that you shouldn't have an opinion...



> like/dislike has no meaning?



In the grand scheme of the topic being discussed? No, it doesn't. Whether you like or dislike what a company has determined to be the best way to increase revenue does not matter to said company. I'm sure it'll help you sleep better to believe that it does, but it really, really doesn't...



> I dislike mushrooms, this doesn't make any difference to mushrooms but that doesn't change the fact that I don't like them.



And if the mushrooms cared, your dislike of them would matter...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> In the grand scheme of the topic being discussed? No, it doesn't. Whether you like or dislike what a company has determined to be the best way to increase revenue does not matter to said company. I'm sure it'll help you sleep better to believe that it does, but it really, really doesn't...



I think you're missing the big picture here. 

The customer matters. 

Benco is just one *customer*. One of *many *customers that are similarly disgruntled. If you're Adobe, and you alienate just Benco, and no one else, you're going to recover from that just fine. 

But, if you alienate Benco _*and....*_



100,000 other customers along with him
potential new customers (charging them much more to get into the CS)
anybody who wants to buy a new camera and wishes to use non-cloud Adobe software (but will be forced to anyway because Adobe won't support)
existing customers who were fine with the way it was
&#8203;
Then suddenly that one customer, that one opinion you're painting insignificant, becomes much louder.  

So allow me to modify your quote to more accurately reflect the big picture: The customer matters. 




Steve5D said:


> Whether *[the customer]* like*s* or dislike*s* what a company has determined to be the best way to increase revenue*,* *does *matter to said company.


----------



## KmH (May 8, 2013)

Bad Karma? - CS 6 is *Photoshop 13*. :lmao:
Adobe is basically saying there won't be a CS 7, nor a CS 8, nor a CS 9, just CC (Creative Cloud). That also means upgrades will happen continually instead of on a regular cycle.


> Adobe Creative Cloud
> Given this, the CC applications will be available only as part of Creative Cloud. We will continue to sell and support Adobe Creative Suite® 6 applications, and will provide bug fixes and security updates as necessary. _We do not, however, have any current plans to release new versions of our CS applications._



If this turns out to be a bad move by Adobe, they won't be the first to shoot their own corporate foot.



> Rest assured that every single company has made bad growth decisions, at least once. I had 78 Fortune 500 companies as clients and I can tell you that every single one of them suffered from drastic growth &#8220;bad decisions&#8221;, at one time or another. As a matter of fact, every person has done the same thing, especially during times where everything is going great, we just call it: The grand illusion from a developed sense of immortality. Apple had made this mistake, Microsoft, IBM, AOL and so on and so on&#8230; It is how they rebound after realizing that the tail truly does not wag the dog and how this equates to market sampling; as a vehicle that truly promotes the profitability in balancing the margins for a consumer driven sector.  - Ben Cochran



Time will tell if this turns out to be good or bad for Adobe, but I would bet Adobe did not expect any 'attaboys', and did expect a fair amount of negative comment.
Corporations don't like to publicly own up to significant financial loses caused by outside the corporation factors, like software piracy.
Software piracy is a HUGE problem for software producers, even though Adobe is downplaying that aspect.

The change to SaaS will cause changes in other related industries.


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> I think you're missing the big picture here.
> 
> The customer matters.
> 
> ...



Look, I get it. You're upset. 

But you also don't have an understanding of big business.

I worked for one of the largest musical instrument manufacturers in America. The following for our products was downright rabid.

Came a time, though, when the boss-man decided that changes needed to be made. He decreed that certain things _would _happen. Many of the changes were unpopular not only with the rabid fans of our products, but with dealers, as well. The chorus of "You will doom your business" was deafening. The "fans" of our instruments vowed never to purchase our products again. Dealers swore they would drop the line in lieu of something else and, in fact, some did exactly that.

We made the changes anyway.

Dealers were pissed.

Customers were pissed.

And revenue in my territory increased by 537% in six years. 

That company's products remain at the top of the heap. Yes, many former fans left the fold and switched to other brands. Yes, we were lambasted on the internet. And I made more money in a single year than I had made in any four years previous to that _combined_. The customers we lost, in all honesty, didn't matter much. They were our customers, sure, but many would only ever buy one or two of our products in a lifetime. What we cared about was the fact that, in some territories, we gained three customers for every single customer lost. Every single territory around the globe saw an increase in revenue. We were damn near printing money. If someone hopped on the internet to decry the changes we were making, we really, truly, didn't care.

That company, and the people who own it and run it, are among some of the most respected people ever to grace that industry.

Does the customer matter? Sure. But the reality that "the customer" needs to wrap his pointed little head around is that he doesn't matter as much to big business as he believes he does, or should. Big business; in this case Adobe, will do that which they believe will increase their revenue. Adobe isn't in business to provide us with affordable digital editing software, they're in business to make money. The software is simply the manner in which they do it. If market research showed them that they would make more money selling coloring books, you'd see Adobe in bed with Crayola. 

This is business, and business is often an ugly thing. Ugly or pretty, though, it revolves around money, and after the dust clears, that's one fact that simply cannot be contested...


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

KmH said:


> Software piracy is a HUGE problem for software producers, even though Adobe is downplaying that aspect.



I have no doubt that piracy was a _huge _factor in this decision. To that end, anyone here using a pirated version of any of their software shoulders the blame for this...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Look, I get it. You're upset.
> 
> But you also don't have an understanding of big business.
> 
> ...



I agree with pretty much all of this


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Look, I get it. You're upset.
> ...



Good.

Then I won't have to worry about you "modifying" it in another failed attempt to make a point...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Good.
> 
> Then I won't have to worry about you "modifying" it in another failed attempt to make a point...



Everything I said still stands. Failed attempt to make a point, huh? Is this what you say to those who disagree with you? I'm pretty sure I provided coherent counter-points to some of your lofty statements in this thread. Maybe you didn't like that. Whatever. 

You've qualified what you've said in your previous statement much more adequately, while also finding a bit of middle ground and not making highly extreme statements, as compared to your posts prior to it. 

I agree with it mostly. But even agreeing with you seems to irritate you, so I don't really have much more to say here if you don't intend to keep it civil.


----------



## manaheim (May 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Good.
> 
> Then I won't have to worry about you "modifying" it in another failed attempt to make a point...



Steve... This is totally uncalled for.  The guy AGREED with you, and yet you attack.

You've repeatedly been spoken to about your behavior around here, and yet you continue.

Not acceptable.


----------



## ronlane (May 8, 2013)

Okay back to the topic. Here is an interview by dpreview about all the uproar and Adobe's response. The interesting thing to me is that they address the Lightroom topic on here by saying that they are still going to sell it as normal for now.


----------



## SCraig (May 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> ...
> Came a time, though, when the boss-man decided that changes needed to be made. He decreed that certain things _would _happen. Many of the changes were unpopular not only with the rabid fans of our products, but with dealers, as well. The chorus of "You will doom your business" was deafening. The "fans" of our instruments vowed never to purchase our products again. Dealers swore they would drop the line in lieu of something else and, in fact, some did exactly that.
> 
> We made the changes anyway.
> ...



Wow!  That's GREAT news for many people!  It will take a load off of many minds to know that since screwing the customer worked in this instance that it's going to work every time.

Not!

For every instance that can be quoted in which things worked out in favor of the company another can be quoted in which the company suffered.  In fact I could state one from personal experience that is virtually identical to yours in many respects, but the ending is quite different.  This particular company didn't fare as well as yours did.


----------



## amolitor (May 8, 2013)

A point to ponder:

In what ways does Adobe's new cloud/subscription model more and less closely resemble the traditional model of photograph sales?


----------



## sleist (May 8, 2013)

I'd like to see Google/Nik create a program that rolls all the plugins into a stand alone editor.
Something like Capture NX2 on steroids that isn't doing battle with GIMP for worst interface ever.


----------



## leighthal (May 8, 2013)

Rental Hell:
Cable=$80/month
Cell= $200/month
Internet=$45/month
Netflixs=$10/month
Sirius=$4/month
Xbox=$8/month
itunes=$10/month
PS Cloud=OVERDRAWN

My entertainment budget is getting out of hand. I switched to PS5 from Corel in the misguided allure that it would work better with my Lightroom. Yes it works better, but I'm lost most of the time. Unlearning Corel shortcuts and work flow is a struggle. I use PS5 daily. I didn't mind paying the big ticket price to own it. I would never pay that amount to rent it. If and when my CS5 conks out I'll just move on to something else. I think I still have my Atari in the garage..... some Pong and Pitfall will fill in the time usually spent on PS.


----------



## Jad (May 8, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Okay back to the topic. Here is an interview by dpreview about all the uproar and Adobe's response. The interesting thing to me is that they address the Lightroom topic on here by saying that they are still going to sell it as normal for now.



Only Lightroom 4 will be sold as a stand alone. Two different Adobe sales reps have told me the new version 5 will be available only in CC. You can contact them yourself on their live chat and get the answer for your self. Most all Adobe current products are dead ended at this point. You have to sign up with their CC to stay current. It is nothing I would suggest rushing into until the fog clears. I will use my CS5 for as long as I can. Maybe some other software producer will step in.


----------



## ronlane (May 8, 2013)

Jad, the article is with  Adobe VP of Creative Solutions and Senior Product Manager for Photoshop for Adobe's. They don't say specific versions won't be, they say Lightroom won't be. I think I'd take their word over a sales rep. Just saying.


----------



## texkam (May 8, 2013)

1382 | What The Duck


----------



## TCampbell (May 8, 2013)

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I laughed..the so-called core group of users that is quoted in the article "supports" being charged on a monthly basis...
> ...



Wait... that's not quite accurate.  In the old pricing model, you don't pay the "full" version price when you upgrade, you pay the "upgrade" price, which is $200.  

I noticed that while they'll let you buy just a month's worth of the full CC, if you just want a single app (e.g. Photoshop) then I don't see an option other than to buy a full year.  So it's really $240 (but they let you pay that $240 in 12 installments of $20 each.)

So old model:  $200 to upgrade
New model:  $240

But this assumes two things... (1) that Adobe will come out with a new version every year, on time, and never be late (because in the old model you don't "pay" until they have something new to sell you... nothing new, no payment.  It's simple.  If they don't ship a new version for 18 months... then that effectively means you divide your $200 upgrade over the 18 months it lasts until the next upgrade.  And (2) that you would have upgraded for Photoshop software at every single release.  I know a LOT of people who don't use enough or see enough to jump to the next version.

By my math, if all you use out of the CS/CC package is Photoshop (Lightroom isn't part of the suite) then this new model will cost you anywhere from a little more.... to a lot more.

If you use everything (e.g. Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Premier, etc.) and you use them all the time and you always want to upgrade, then I can imagine there might be those who will benefit from this.  But most of the people I know in Photography aren't using the rest of the suite... they're mostly using LR & PS.

I don't care for their perversion of the "cloud" concept.  It's not really cloud software... at all.  

Sure sure... you get some storage space "in the cloud" with it.  Amazon and Dropbox will give me that for free.  I don't view that as making anything "cloud" based.

Speaking of Amazon... they have a cloud.  Compare Amazon's idea of selling cloud services to Adobe's.

Amazon EC2 actually has a "free" tier for very light users -- mostly this is to let them test and get things working without having to pay.  They're eventually expected to pay, but they get a full year before it comes to that.   THEN... when they do finally have to pay, it's a $61 one-time charge plus (here's the kicker)  $0.034 per HOUR of use.

With Adobe, even if you can find a way to go for just a month, the question is, how many photographers (even very casual photographers) on this forum use Photoshop at least ONCE per month.  My guess is that if you own it, you probably do use it once per month.  About 98% of everything I do can be done in Aperture.  But just occasionally I have to launch Photoshop.  It's not all the time, but it probably does happen at least once per month.  That means if you use PS, on average, just once per month... then you pay at the same rate as those who use it daily as part of their regular workflow.  So there's really no savings for occasional users.

If Adobe would tell us that we have to pay a $61 one-time charge and then $0.034 per hour I think we'd be doing cartwheels down the hall and singing their praises.

As it is... I think they're pretty much sticking it to everyone.


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> Failed attempt to make a point, huh? Is this what you say to those who disagree with you? I'm pretty sure I provided coherent counter-points to some of your lofty statements in this thread. Maybe you didn't like that. Whatever.



Yes.

You had to "modify" what I said into something you _wished _I'd said. That tells me you had no legitimate counter-points to what I _actually _said.

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of some people knowing what they're talking about and some people not. It's a matter of some people having been exposed to these things at a different level than others. I'll go out on a limb and guess that you've never been part of a decision-making marketing team in a multi-million dollar company. I have. Dismiss the experience with that if you must, but don't pretend the experience is invalid...


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

SCraig said:


> Wow! That's GREAT news for many people! It will take a load off of many minds to know that since screwing the customer worked in this instance that it's going to work every time.



How was "the customer" screwed?

We increased our market share, out customer base, our dealer network and our revenue several times over. That's what businesses want to do. The customer is only "screwed" if he has some lofty (and often unrealistic) ideal that "big business" exists to make his life easier for as little money as possible. That's a pipe dream. It's completely divorced from reality. Big business exists to make money. 

You say we "screwed the customer". Care to explain how? As a result of the changes we made, we garnered a bigger market share (meaning we had more customers) and increased our dealer base (which means we made our products available to more consumers). A large chuck of the increased revenue went into dealer events, which brought consumers into their stores (which is good for the dealers). Even more chunks of revenue went into product development, which offered a greater selection to the buying public (which is good for them).

So who got screwed? 

Was it the people who'd _already _purchased our very expensive product, and who would likely never buy another? If so, I would love to know how. They still receive outstanding customer service for the item they already own. Seeing as they likely wouldn't be purchasing a second one of our products, changes made to how those products are sold do not affect them...



> For every instance that can be quoted in which things worked out in favor of the company another can be quoted in which the company suffered. In fact I could state one from personal experience that is virtually identical to yours in many respects, but the ending is quite different. This particular company didn't fare as well as yours did.



Seeing as you're in Nashville, I suspect I know what example you're going to give.

But don't leave us guessing...


----------



## tirediron (May 8, 2013)

If they'd come out with a photographer's package - Photoshop & Lightroom for $20/month, that, I could probably go for, maybe not happily, but I could swallow it.


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

I own PSE 10. I'm happy with it. It does everything I need it to do. I upgraded from PSE 9, which I also owned. There were some cool things about PSE 10 that I liked, but did not "need". PSE 9 was gettin' the job done for me nicely.

If I "needed" what a subscription would offer, I might sign on for something like this. The fact is I don't. So, in a nutshell, I don't really care what they do. It's really not going to affect me...


----------



## SCraig (May 8, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> How was "the customer" screwed?
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...





Steve5D said:


> ...
> 
> Dealers were pissed.
> 
> Customers were pissed.



No, actually you said that.  Pissed / screwed / same difference.  I suspect if one were to ask them they would say the same thing.



> Seeing as you're in Nashville, I suspect I know what example you're going to give.
> 
> But don't leave us guessing...


You would be wrong since it wasn't a company in Nashville.

I said that I "Could" state an example, but it's just another boring tale that isn't worth repeating unless you insist.


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

SCraig said:


> No, actually you said that. Pissed / screwed / same difference. I suspect if one were to ask them they would say the same thing.



Well, we could argue semantics all day.

The reality is that, in my case, 'the "big business" I worked for did exactly what "big business" needs to do: Increase market share and revenue. Period. In doing so, we got more customers who previously did not use our products. We made them available to a larger audience.

I'd love for you to explain to me how that's a bad thing...



> I said that I "Could" state an example, but it's just another boring tale that isn't worth repeating unless you insist.



Oh, okay, right. ..


----------



## amolitor (May 8, 2013)

Being angry is not the same thing as being actually disadvantaged.

In the case of a musical instrument company, I can certainly imagine being _angry_ that such-and-such a guitar is no longer within my budget. Am I screwed? No, I can still buy an $800 guitar, I just can't buy THAT guitar for $800.

Nobody is actually being screwed here, Adobe isn't a monopoly, not even remotely.


----------



## Steve5D (May 8, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Being angry is not the same thing as being actually disadvantaged.



As far as I can tell, you'd have to be the latter in order to be the former. Otherwise, "being angry" is nothing but wasted, meaningless energy...



> In the case of a musical instrument company, I can certainly imagine being _angry_ that such-and-such a guitar is no longer within my budget. Am I screwed? No, I can still buy an $800 guitar, I just can't buy THAT guitar for $800.



Actually, it had very little to do with pricing. Some models saw a price increase, others actually saw a price _de_crease.

It had to do with how they were built, serialized, and stocked at the dealer level. You would be amazed at what people wet themselves over.

And we didn't make too many $800.00 guitars...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 8, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Being angry is not the same thing as being actually disadvantaged.
> 
> In the case of a musical instrument company, I can certainly imagine being angry that such-and-such a guitar is no longer within my budget. Am I screwed? No, I can still buy an $800 guitar, I just can't buy THAT guitar for $800.
> 
> Nobody is actually being screwed here, Adobe isn't a monopoly, not even remotely.



Adobe has the premiere photography software in many ways. They may not be a "monopoly" per definition, but what they do impacts most hobbyists/pros quite directly because their software IS the standard right now.


----------



## Ysarex (May 8, 2013)

amolitor said:


> ......Nobody is actually being screwed here, Adobe isn't a monopoly, not even remotely.



:thumbup:

Absolutely. The following photo is 100% Adobe free and produced with software that I believe outperforms Adobe products. I won't be subscribing and I won't be screwed.

Joe




Raw conversion with Capture One 7 and 16 bit RGB photo finished (cloning and some local burning) using PhotoLine.


----------



## Overread (May 8, 2013)

And I think we've reached a point where we are arguing in circles and getting all nit picky at things. Time to take a breath of fresh air.


----------

