1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Adobe Cloud

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Frugaltravelguy, Sep 5, 2013.

  1. Frugaltravelguy

    Frugaltravelguy Banned

    1
    Jul 12, 2013
    Iceland
  2. CarlG

    CarlG Mu-43 Regular

    131
    Jun 6, 2013
    Tampa, FL
    Carl
    Totally agree - buyer beware!!
     
  3. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    I hate decision by Adobe to move to the Cloud, too!
     
  4. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    Some users will never stop using Adobe products regardless of what they do. Some because the dont like change, and others because they need functions not available elsewhere. This will actually 'cause' Adobe to behave like this.
    If more people move to alternative products, those will have a chance to overtake the Adobe products and give us all more choice. Causing Adobe to wake up and catch up as well. Benifiting everyone.
    I use other products because Adobe are too lazy to make them run on Ubuntu. Yet I am extremely happy with what I use. The only downside is people on forums think everyone uses Photoshop. Or they moan about Adobe.
    I am totally unaffected by all this. And hope more people drift away from them. Like they should from all the big lazy quasi monopolies.
     
  5. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    What a pile of BS. You can'take own the software. You purchase a licence to use it. The cloud storage component isn't mandatory. All the CC software and your files can be stored locally if you like.

    Adobe still make Lightroom and Elements available with a perpetual licence. There is very little that a normal consumer would need outside those programs. Adobes consumer programs are available on a perpetual licence. it's only the creative suite, designed for professionals that has moved to subscription. Furthermore Adobe provide a free DNG converter so you can use your raw files with older versions of Photoshop, without penalty. Does Corel, Phase One or any other raw converter offer this?

    Adobe are a business who have made a business decision. They will live or die by that decision. Most of the whingers and the whiners are pissed that it's a bit harder to pirate the product. As a professional, who invests in keeping my software up to date and who utilizes the Creative suite, I have no issues paying to constantly keep my software up to date. I pay that anyway, annually to keep up to date. And if I choose to cancel my subscription I can use the version of Photoshop I already have, Light room, Elementso and other software to open my files. Most professionals know that they can use the software they have indefinitely and utiliser the DNG converter for their new cameras.

    No one is forcing you to subscribe or to use Adobe products. If you can find something that works for you why not just go and use it?

    Gordon
     
  6. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    Yeah I tend to agree.

    It isnt exactly as though Adobe is raping 6 year old school children.

    Far too much attention has been given to this subject. I dont particularly like it but I dont particularly like the fact that beer isnt free.

    Either accept or use something else. The basis of a free market is along the lines that if what Adobe is inherently crap, somebody else will come into fill the void.

    The 'silver spoon that I have in my mouth is inherently tarnished' is pretty lousy as a campaign line. I am sure there are plenty more worthy causes to get excited about.

    To be honest the whole Adobe Photoshop scandal is about as exciting as the tomato ketchup scandal based on the fact that someone claimed that he had heard a tomato go 'ouch'.
     
  7. CarlG

    CarlG Mu-43 Regular

    131
    Jun 6, 2013
    Tampa, FL
    Carl
    Thanks for your insight - we all appreciate it!!
     
  8. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Oct 9, 2012
    That's a poor analogy. I don't expect Photoshop to be free, I just want to buy a licence for the version that I like and then be done with it. This is no longer possible with CC.

    It doesn't work that way. People have invested in Photoshop beyond the price of admission. Knowledge, skill, community support, documentation, plugins, interaction with other software etc. cannot be replaced at the drop of a hat. Hence, the argument that I can still use Elements to open my Photoshop files after I cancel my CC subscription is moot as far as I'm concerned.

    My chief bone of contention with CC is that I am no longer free to choose if and when I want to pay for the new features that are being offered. I'm paying for upgrades whether I need them or not. And with the level of maturity PS has attained, I don't expect to see a lot of features that I'd be willing to pay full price for.

    And when I stop paying, I'm left without anything, whereas if I buy a $600 PS CS6 licence, I can use it for as long as it will run on my future hardware and OS releases.

    It's remarkable how often the CC proponents are defending its merits from a professional perspective where it can be written off as a business expense. I don't run a business and don't use PS enough to justify a monthly fee, nor does my work generate an income stream to compensate for it. It is however my tool of choice for the tasks I use it for, and I'm quite happy to forego the "always up-to-date" advantage. CC has taken away that choice from me.
     
  9. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    I'm not crazy about the idea myself. But at $10/month it will take 5 years to match the price of one upgrade. If you've been paying for licenses it's cheaper. You can even lower the cost by skipping months.

    I understand not wanting to upgrade with every new release, but at some point a new computer or camera is going to force you to because Adobe isn't going to update older versions for new systems.

    I've actually gotten off the treadmill. My last update to Photoshop was the first CS release. I've been doing fine with Aperture (I'd use Lightroom if I used Windows) and occasionally PS Elements for compositing.

    As others have said, if you don't like it for whatever reason, move on.

    Fred
     
  10. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    Yes. Dump the 'Dobe and try something else. You might be pleasantly surprised.

    I see there is a pro v hobby divide here. I cant justify the price of CC with either scheme. So I understand those who didnt upgrade often before seeing a price hike. They are bound to complain. Lets hope they find a nice alternative and tell everyone about it.
     
  11. CarlB

    CarlB Mu-43 Veteran

    I have a strong inclination in favor of what FrugalTravelGuy writes about Adobe CC. Yet I believe it could unfortunately be misinterpreted by Adobe CC cloud users here as somewhat belittling them for their choice. I don't think this was his intent.

    For some the positives of CC will outweigh the negatives. It may be that more professional image producers will fall into this camp. I think their eyes are wide-open on the pros versus cons of Adobe CC tools.

    Adobe's monthly revenue generation scheme seems to have been taken up by Microsoft as well. They've also started offering comparatively low initial monthly charges to use their new versions of tools. In effect perhaps a rental of or a retainer to use their tools.

    My guess is that the low initial rates are to quell resistance to this approach. Once enough user base is brought in, those monthly rates will very likely begin to rise: once invested in the tool's learning curve and embedded in its framework a user finds the costs to switching to another product still higher than the increasing monthly charges.

    I'll start a new thread to discuss alternatives to Adobe, because I think that for many of us there are some decent ones out there.

    Edit - I've started the thread on sister forum "Serious Compacts," as this impacts more than the m43 community.
     
  12. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Adobe already has a large captive set of users. I don't doubt prices will eventually go up. I doubt the low entry price is a ploy to entrap users.

    Fred
     
  13. Just Jim

    Just Jim Mu-43 Top Veteran

    941
    Oct 20, 2011
    PS is a licensed software. Licensed by account, rather than licensed to the individual piece of software. You buy CS6 for windows now, and 10 years down the road when you switch to Apple or legacy windows OS's aren't supported on future architectures. You don't have anything, and the CS6 ACR isn't likely to support what camera you have by then anyway. You get more flexibility in how the software is used with the current model. Is it perfect no, is it better, yes. Are they taking a step in the right direction by offering reasonable discounts to those not looking for their full suite of services, I say yes.

    The, "I'm an enthusiast" argument does not hold water either. Never has photography been cheap. If you wanted the latitude to do what you can do with photoshop with analog tools back in the day you would be paying thousands in hardware costs just to start, and in the range of 1k+ per year in consumable supplies, E.G. film, paper, and chemicals. Now, you can get free tools, or cheap tools, but once again you're getting an inferior product. It's like comparing a Federal enlarger with a no name lens to a De Vere with a Schnieder.
     
  14. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    But that's the point. With standard software licensing, you'd be able to buy an upgrade if and when you needed to, and up to that point you would not be paying continuously for the privilege of using the software.

    In the situation you describe, you could buy a close-out version or a secondhand version if the regular upgrade was too expensive. There's no longer the option. Moreover, the new scheme will still cost considerably more than if you used to upgrade every 2-3 versions as many users did.

    Also, I saw a claim upthread about this decreasing piracy. CC is already available from the usual illegitimate sources, and I don't doubt that this will continue.
     
  15. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    As an enthusiast I have enormous fun from photography. And in the analog days I also had enormous fun in my black and white darkroom that didnt cost much. But included hardcopies right away. The results were the same. Enormous fun. Without spending thousands. That is what counts for amateurs.

    And if someone chooses software with fewer features because they don't need everything, it's not necessarily inferior. It's the right product.
     
  16. AceAceBaby

    AceAceBaby Mu-43 Veteran

    249
    Jan 21, 2013
    What happens when all your files are only compatible with the current version, and they up the price to $20 a month, or $50? What does it cost you then to retain the ability to edit your files?
     
  17. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Oct 9, 2012
    I would have the choice to continue using the existing architecture or buy a second-hand replacement if it is no longer current tech. With CC, there is no choice which is the point I was trying to get across.

    If I expected photography to be cheap, then I would oppose to PS's perpetual license as well, and not CC specifically.

    I am well prepared to pay for software, but only as long as I have the liberty to decide what I pay for. With CC, Adobe decides what my money is spent on and when. If at some point I no longer like where they are taking their development efforts, I'm left empty handed. With CS I could simply skip one or more versions until the cumulative improvements justified the upgrade price for me.
     
  18. Replytoken

    Replytoken Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 7, 2012
    Puget Sound
    Ken
    Fred,

    If I understand correctly, you cannot skip months and retain the rate they are currently offering. It is only in effect as long as you make monthly payments.

    --Ken
     
  19. c0ldc0ne

    c0ldc0ne Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Oct 9, 2012
    I'm note sure what plan you're referring to, but the cheapest option I see is $20/month. If you bought CS5 when it came out, it would have cost you less than that. And the savings keep adding up.

    As I have said, not so simple. :smile:
     
  20. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    I think the real answer is that Adobe's cloud model works, and is cost effective, for some users, not for others. Those for whom it works best are professional users. (And remember that Photoshop is not just a photo editing package. It's heavily used in the graphic design field, maybe even more so than in the photographic arena.)

    Those users are the ones that are going to be upgrading to each new version anyway, and those are the users Adobe want to cultivate. Amateurs who try to use PS probably cost Adobe more in support costs, because they can't figure out how to use the software, than they're worth. Adobe makes PS Elements and Lightroom for those users, and is probably happy to see them leave the CS family.

    If the model doesn't work for you, you have other options. But I doubt seriously Adobe is hurting because people like you and I are no longer buying upgrades.

    For serious amateurs, the new cloud pricing might actually make sense. I could justify the price of full photoshop for my needs, but $10 a month is pretty easy to swallow.

    I haven't look closely at the cloud offerings. Can you sign up for must a month at a time? If so, one option for me would be to keep Lightroom on my computer, because I use it frequently, and only pay for a month of PS when I really need to do some heavy pixel level editing.



    Adobe has always, to my knowledge, provided backwards compatibility in their products. But if one is really worried about this, then save your files in a non-proprietary format, like TIFF.