Adobe announcement

[WDWFigment]

As a hobbyist who can not afford to pay to upgrade to every version that comes out, there is simply no way I would consider renting my software.

Just imagine it - I might start paying now, then retire in 20 years, having paid faithfully every month. I decide that as a retired person, I don't have the cash to continue the subscription - and I would be left with nothing (i.e. the software would stop working).

No way, no how. I don't rent a house, and I sure as heck won't rent my software.

The more that Adobe / Microsoft / Apple et al try to move us towards a subscription model, the more likely I am to move to Linux.

Calling this a "rental" mischaracterizes what it actually is. It's a subscription to a software service with constant updates. Unlike houses and cars, software isn't static throughout the duration of its existence. It's dynamic. I'm assuming many people here pay for cell phone service, cable service, or even internet service. Where's the residual that any of those offer?

Chances are, if you bought a house today, it will still "function" 20 years from now. There is 0 chance that a piece of software from Adobe would. It would be obsolete in some way or another.

Photographers are notoriously slow to adapt to different business models, so I think this will take a fundamental change in thinking to get working pros on board with this model (even if it will likely cost them about the same or even less in the long run), but I think eventually photographers will warm to it.

I think it's a solid move for those who make a living using the Adobe CS. For those who don't make a living using the Adobe CS...there still exist plenty of Adobe "home" options with a perpetual license, and competitors offering alternatives to the more robust Adobe software.

It's certainly a solid move for Adobe, albeit a bit of an initial gamble. I'm assuming this will significantly cut down on their lost revenue to piracy.

 

[PrincessInOz]

I'm waiting for LR5. Seems like that is still one program that will be sold as standalone instead of being part of the Cloud.

But I have no issue with a subscription basis for Adobe CC software. I prefer to know that when updates are available, they are provided immediately and to the entire subscription base so that everyone has the latest technology to work with.

It's no different to subscribing to a computer virus protection software. Can you imagine purchasing a virus protection software out of the box knowing that an on-line subscription would provide you with regular updates and the out of the box was static?

 

[photo_chick]

Lightroom is in the cloud and I wouldn't be surprised if they stop selling a perpetual license. Photoshop Elements is not in the cloud though and I suspect that will be Adobe's answer to the users who do not want the cloud.

 

[mamaCta]

As a non-professional user, I would consider paying $5 or even $10 a month for the subscription, but there is no way I can agree to pay $30 a month for the amount I use it. I frequently go months without opening a photo editing program.

 

[DisneyFreak06]

As a non-professional user, I would consider paying $5 or even $10 a month for the subscription, but there is no way I can agree to pay $30 a month for the amount I use it. I frequently go months without opening a photo editing program.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Experiment_626]

I'm assuming this will significantly cut down on their lost revenue to piracy.

This was my initial thought, but I have to wonder how many of the people who pirate the software will break down and pay for it? I'm sure there will be some, but it will be partially offset by some who decide to migrate to another product. I guess it sepends on whether Adobe is concerned about people having the software at all versus those who would pay but only if that's the only way to get it.

I already have a Creative Cloud subscription though work, and (should it become an issue) I would argue at great length to continue. I'm also a graphic artist and quite a bit of the work I do (that people seem to really like) is fairly dependent on features that are pretty specific to Photoshop and not easily duplicated elsewhere, as far as I know, such as Layer Styles. Even if other programs could perform similar tricks, would they be able to import the considerable library of Layer Style presets I have bought (in some cases) and created myself? Seems unlikely.

My photography, especially the stuff I consider art, is also dependent on Photoshop for many fine details. I'm definitely not one of the "I do everything in Lightroom/ACR" types! So I'll have Photoshop unless and until circumstances force my hand, or something better comes along that can do the things Photoshop does.

Listening to the latest ISO 5571 last night, I heard a remark about how creating a Photoshop document (meaning a .psd) in the latest version of the software and then losing access to the software would mean losing access to the files. Not exactly; there's a "Maximize compatibility" checkbox when you save a .psd (unless you told Photoshop to stop showing it); turning it on makes a file that can be accessed by earlier versions of the program. It isn't a perfect solution, as you'll lose access to any effects newer than the older version you have and in some cases, a flattened composite may be all you salvage. But under the circumstances, it would be better than not being able to open the images at all.

Scott

 

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

Here's a possible new twist...

We understand that Creative Cloud is a huge change. We want you to know that we're listening, and we're currently researching how we can address your concerns while still maintaining our focus on delivering the next generation of creative software. http://adobe.ly/133vruD

 

[mom2rtk]

Here's a possible new twist...

Interesting. Now if we can just get something like that out of Disney regarding FP+........

 

[WDWFigment]

Listening to the latest ISO 5571 last night, I heard a remark about how creating a Photoshop document (meaning a .psd) in the latest version of the software and then losing access to the software would mean losing access to the files. Not exactly; there's a "Maximize compatibility" checkbox when you save a .psd (unless you told Photoshop to stop showing it); turning it on makes a file that can be accessed by earlier versions of the program. It isn't a perfect solution, as you'll lose access to any effects newer than the older version you have and in some cases, a flattened composite may be all you salvage. But under the circumstances, it would be better than not being able to open the images at all.

Scott

Well there's your mistake. The idiots on that show have no idea what they're talking about!

Seriously, though, thanks for the info!

 

[mikegood2]

Well there's your mistake. The idiots on that show have no idea what they're talking about!

Seriously, though, thanks for the info!

Well that's not fair, it's just that Tom guy. I've found that if you fast forward his parts you end up with a much shorter and more informative show.

As far as Creative Cloud is concerned it's never as bad as the most negative comments and never as good as the most positive. From a business standpoint it makes a lot of sense for Adobe to go the subscription model (as long as they don't loose to many customers). I know that there decision was made to try to get everyone to switch to the subscription model, but ideally they would still offer boxed versions of apps.

If you need a few of the apps than the CC is actually a good deal, especially at $29 a month the first year. The problem is if you only need Photoshop sparingly. At $20 a month, I believe most people wouldn't find it that good of an idea! Could they offer daily, weekly or monthly rentals? If I only use the app once or twice a month a $5 a day rental might be a better deal, and if you use it more than 4 days they charge you $20 for the month.

 

[DisneyFreak06]

I know I was so against it at first, but my sister is a self publishing author and I do all her covers/editing/formatting/typing/everything else she gets me to do. We have been looking at different options for months and she'd been looking at Creative Suite for a while but wasn't finding it within her price range. She's a stay at home mom to four, so money is an issue at this point.

Now we're considering getting the cloud for one year on my computer since I'm a teacher and I can get it for the $20 a month student/teacher rate. I think that's doable for year to see if it works for what we need and for me for my photography too!

My question is that I already have Lightroom 4. Will that cease to work if we cancel the subscription in a year? I am trying to read the information, but seriously, I'm finding it a little hard to get anything much out of it. Or maybe that's just me because it's June and I'm a teacher. We're done in a little over a week and we are all (students and teachers) exhausted!

 

[mikegood2]

My question is that I already have Lightroom 4. Will that cease to work if we cancel the subscription in a year? I am trying to read the information, but seriously, I'm finding it a little hard to get anything much out of it. Or maybe that's just me because it's June and I'm a teacher. We're done in a little over a week and we are all (students and teachers) exhausted!

If you have already purchased it than no it will not. If you do use LR 5 (just released) it most likely will not be backwards comparable. The good thing is upgrading to 5 in a year will run you under $100.

 

[cosmos]

Here's a possible new twist...

I wonder if Adobe is rethinking this. On a recent Adobe survey about Creative Suite, the questions were centered around purchasing a perpetual license vs. the Cloud.

From my math, the subscription total cost of ownership was more than the perpetual license. Am I missing something? I get the impression that most users feel the Cloud is less expensive.

 

[DisneyFreak06]

If you have already purchased it than no it will not. If you do use LR 5 (just released) it most likely will not be backwards comparable. The good thing is upgrading to 5 in a year will run you under $100.

True. Or with a teacher discount even less.

I wonder if Adobe is rethinking this. On a recent Adobe survey about Creative Suite, the questions were centered around purchasing a perpetual license vs. the Cloud.

From my math, the subscription total cost of ownership was more than the perpetual license. Am I missing something? I get the impression that most users feel the Cloud is less expensive.

I know with a teacher/student discount right now it is quite a bit cheaper because you get more than one program for the rate. But eventually I guess it adds up since I don't upgrade every year. But for less than $300 a year it's not that bad when you think I get all of the programs. Hopefully I will figure out how to use them!

 

[photo_chick]

I wonder if Adobe is rethinking this. On a recent Adobe survey about Creative Suite, the questions were centered around purchasing a perpetual license vs. the Cloud.

From my math, the subscription total cost of ownership was more than the perpetual license. Am I missing something? I get the impression that most users feel the Cloud is less expensive.

I think whether or not it's more or less expensive depends on what you're using. We use PS, LR, Premiere, AE, Flash, Audition, Illustrator, and a couple more. On both Windows and Mac. The subscription is way cheaper than buying all of those for both platforms.

It's a lot like the DDP. It may not work out cheaper for everyone but for some of us it is a great deal.