| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/07/2013 02:55:20 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
An aspect of this that I find interesting, and I'm just speaking hypothetically here:
Before the Cloud, Adobe's revenue stream relied heavily on regular release, and sales, of new versions. Now that they've made this change to the business model, they won't have to do as much upgrading of the product, because their customers have to pay every month regardless. End result: slowdown in product development? |
Have you considered the fact that it's possible that PS/CS has evolved to a point where further additions are always on the line of "too much"?
The software will continue to improve somewhat, with refinements, but it's going to start to become increasingly rare that we'll see big new things, not because of the subscription model - but because of the maturity of the software.
I expect that may be a huge driver behind this decision - it's hard to tempt people to buy new software if the old stuff does everything you could ever need. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 02:55:23 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Brent_S:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
An aspect of this that I find interesting, and I'm just speaking hypothetically here:
Before the Cloud, Adobe's revenue stream relied heavily on regular release, and sales, of new versions. Now that they've made this change to the business model, they won't have to do as much upgrading of the product, because their customers have to pay every month regardless. End result: slowdown in product development? |
I was thinking the same thing Robert. I have enough sales going at this point to justify paying a monthly fee, but it seems that that fee will be for software that may not advance in capability at the rate it has in the past. Time will tell I guess. I have CS6 and can wait to make the transition- unless they make a special offer to go to CC right away rather than hold off... |
On the other hand, I felt at times that the "upgrade" was only for revenue and the new features didn't justify a full version change.
I just really wish there was a viable alternative. I haven't found anything that can match Photoshop. Or maybe it's just muscle memory on my part after using the product since the mid-90s. I can't get the same results using GIMP, or any other editor. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:04:23 PM · #128 |
I would support the idea if — once your payments surpassed a specific threshold — you were left with software that you could actually hold onto, even if you gave up updates and support.
For example, if you sign up for a two-year subscription (which during normal, non-introductory current pricing is about $720), and then cancelled, you'd still have some version of Ps.
Buying Photoshop versions now and then as a splurge because I can at that moment, or having my family contribute to it as a gift, is one thing; but I can say with certainty that I'll never be OK with knowing that I'm going to spend $1,680 for Ps over the next five years, not even accounting for price increases. See ya. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:07:20 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
An aspect of this that I find interesting, and I'm just speaking hypothetically here:
Before the Cloud, Adobe's revenue stream relied heavily on regular release, and sales, of new versions. Now that they've made this change to the business model, they won't have to do as much upgrading of the product, because their customers have to pay every month regardless. End result: slowdown in product development? |
Have you considered the fact that it's possible that PS/CS has evolved to a point where further additions are always on the line of "too much"?
The software will continue to improve somewhat, with refinements, but it's going to start to become increasingly rare that we'll see big new things, not because of the subscription model - but because of the maturity of the software.
I expect that may be a huge driver behind this decision - it's hard to tempt people to buy new software if the old stuff does everything you could ever need. |
That's why Adobe only updated camera RAW with newer versions of the software. Buy a new camera...if your workflow requires Camera Raw...you have to upgrade or come up with a work-around. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:19:04 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
An aspect of this that I find interesting, and I'm just speaking hypothetically here:
Before the Cloud, Adobe's revenue stream relied heavily on regular release, and sales, of new versions. Now that they've made this change to the business model, they won't have to do as much upgrading of the product, because their customers have to pay every month regardless. End result: slowdown in product development? |
Have you considered the fact that it's possible that PS/CS has evolved to a point where further additions are always on the line of "too much"?
The software will continue to improve somewhat, with refinements, but it's going to start to become increasingly rare that we'll see big new things, not because of the subscription model - but because of the maturity of the software.
I expect that may be a huge driver behind this decision - it's hard to tempt people to buy new software if the old stuff does everything you could ever need. |
i mentioned that earlier. I wonder if Adobe knows that it isn't going to come out with the next big killer feature, (however camera shake removal could have been that) but really what feature do you see adobe coming out with that would be a "must have" i cant think of any that would force me to want to fork over another $700 for a new release when cs5 is perfectly capable. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:19:52 PM · #131 |
Another question: What will the plug-in developers do?
Is my Nik package going to become obsolete because they will focus on developing for the Creative Cloud? Will Nik and other plug-in developers ramp up efforts to work with others? There's a lot to be determined. It's a massive event. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:26:14 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Another question: What will the plug-in developers do?
Is my Nik package going to become obsolete because they will focus on developing for the Creative Cloud? Will Nik and other plug-in developers ramp up efforts to work with others? There's a lot to be determined. It's a massive event. |
im guess Adobe will work with their plug in developers and work out bugs before big update is releases. of course its not like that plan worked flawlessly before.
edit, nevermind, i understand your question. my guess is if there is a market they will support both platforms, unless adobe strong arms them.
Message edited by author 2013-05-07 15:32:01. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:29:39 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Another question: What will the plug-in developers do?
Is my Nik package going to become obsolete because they will focus on developing for the Creative Cloud? Will Nik and other plug-in developers ramp up efforts to work with others? There's a lot to be determined. It's a massive event. |
I was wondering the same thing. Since I bought the Nik suite, the only reason I really use PS is as a host for Nik. I can do the same thing in PSE or PSP, so PS Creative Cloud isn't worth the price as long as the plugin vendors continue to support the "amateur" editing apps. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:37:56 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Another question: What will the plug-in developers do?
Is my Nik package going to become obsolete because they will focus on developing for the Creative Cloud? Will Nik and other plug-in developers ramp up efforts to work with others? There's a lot to be determined. It's a massive event. |
I was wondering the same thing. Since I bought the Nik suite, the only reason I really use PS is as a host for Nik. I can do the same thing in PSE or PSP, so PS Creative Cloud isn't worth the price as long as the plugin vendors continue to support the "amateur" editing apps. |
LR works fine as a host for NIK, though you end up with a lot of intermediate files instead of layers.
I wonder if GIMP works with Nik? |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:39:22 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Neil:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by bohemka:
Another question: What will the plug-in developers do?
Is my Nik package going to become obsolete because they will focus on developing for the Creative Cloud? Will Nik and other plug-in developers ramp up efforts to work with others? There's a lot to be determined. It's a massive event. |
I was wondering the same thing. Since I bought the Nik suite, the only reason I really use PS is as a host for Nik. I can do the same thing in PSE or PSP, so PS Creative Cloud isn't worth the price as long as the plugin vendors continue to support the "amateur" editing apps. |
LR works fine as a host for NIK, though you end up with a lot of intermediate files instead of layers.
I wonder if GIMP works with Nik? |
Might I point out that CS2 is still freely available? Works just fine with all the plugins I have. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 03:59:30 PM · #136 |
| 20 years ago, Quark XPress was the 800lb gorilla of desktop publishing software... and then they tried an expensive licensing scheme to lock customers into regular upgrades. Very few people went for the upgrade, and Quark 3.2 became the de facto standard for years until a competitor arrived in the form of InDesign. Quark never recovered and has since faded into niche publishing markets. Unless Adobe reconsiders, it's likely that history will repeat itself and Photoshop CS5/6 will be the industry standard for a long time while competitors get a huge opportunity to create a viable alternative. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:01:00 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
20 years ago, Quark XPress was the 800lb gorilla of desktop publishing software... and then they tried an expensive licensing scheme to lock customers into regular upgrades. Very few people went for the upgrade, and Quark 3.2 became the de facto standard for years until a competitor arrived in the form of InDesign. Quark never recovered and has since faded into niche publishing markets. Unless Adobe reconsiders, it's likely that history will repeat itself and Photoshop CS5/6 will be the industry standard for a long time while competitors get a huge opportunity to create a viable alternative. |
Don't forget Adobe Ragemaker...
erm Pagemaker
Message edited by author 2013-05-07 16:01:14. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:03:20 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by George:
Also, I'm a Civil Engineering student. I'll have plenty of other (more expensive) software to purchase eventually, so it'll be hard to justify any sort of upgrade plan.
|
Not really unless you plan on starting your own engineering firm straight out of school. (Maybe you could do that, but I'd advise against it til you have a bit of experience.)I've worked as an engineer for 15+ years and have never had to supply my own engineering software. I'd run from any employer who does. Most companies won't let you install unauthorized software on their machines for work because they don't want to invalidate or compromise their licensing agreements with their software suppliers over potentially being accused of software piracy, not to mention the ethical issues. |
What about working from home? I plan on splitting the price of SolidWorks with my employer soon (for a home license); we'll see how that goes.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:05:33 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by scalvert:
20 years ago, Quark XPress was the 800lb gorilla of desktop publishing software... and then they tried an expensive licensing scheme to lock customers into regular upgrades. Very few people went for the upgrade, and Quark 3.2 became the de facto standard for years until a competitor arrived in the form of InDesign. Quark never recovered and has since faded into niche publishing markets. Unless Adobe reconsiders, it's likely that history will repeat itself and Photoshop CS5/6 will be the industry standard for a long time while competitors get a huge opportunity to create a viable alternative. |
Don't forget Adobe Ragemaker...
erm Pagemaker |
That's now InDesign. It was Aldus Pagemaker. Adobe bought them, then changed the hell out of the program and renamed it. It was my go-to page design program, but I never did get the hang of the new InDesign vernacular. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:08:24 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Is that a recent change? I upgraded my student version to a full retail version. That's how everyone I know originally bought PS. They took a class, bought the student version, then eventually upgraded to the full retail. Which makes things a whole lot cheaper than your calculations. |
I never saw anything about upgrading to the full version for a discounted price.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW I think the Educational Version license prohibits you from using it "commercially" (i.e. continuing to use it after you're out of school and doing design/photography for pay), though I've never heard of them trying to enforce that provision. |
Nope, commercial allowed. That's the best part about it. The lack of upgrades is the worst part.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:09:58 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Don't forget Adobe Ragemaker... |
PageMaker was a different story. It was upstaged by Quark's features and plug-in architecture, and parent company Aldus was bought out by Adobe to get FreeHand, leaving PageMaker to wither for lack of development attention. Quark is the direct comparison here: a juggernaut trying to fleece its customer base and facing an enormous backlash. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:16:31 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Don't forget Adobe Ragemaker... |
PageMaker was a different story. It was upstaged by Quark's features and plug-in architecture, and parent company Aldus was bought out by Adobe to get FreeHand, leaving PageMaker to wither for lack of development attention. Quark is the direct comparison here: a juggernaut trying to fleece its customer base and facing an enormous backlash. |
Is THAT how it went? I had npo need for PageMaker for a few years after moving out here, and by then it didn't exist anymore, just InDesign. I assumed Adobe had changed PageMaker, but the Freehand story makes more sense :-)
|
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:24:27 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Don't forget Adobe Ragemaker... |
PageMaker was a different story. It was upstaged by Quark's features and plug-in architecture, and parent company Aldus was bought out by Adobe to get FreeHand, leaving PageMaker to wither for lack of development attention. Quark is the direct comparison here: a juggernaut trying to fleece its customer base and facing an enormous backlash. |
Anyone remember "Ready, Set, Go"? One of the first desktop publishing packages.
I used to be a big Quark fan. But they did have a Draconian licensing policy. I new a colleague that lost his install media in a fire. he had a valid license, but Quark would not replace the media without a full purchase.
The Aldus photo editor was called PhotoStyler. Killed by Adobe when they took over Aldus.
Adobe jumped the shark for me when they wouldn't let my upgrade just Photoshop from the CS Suite and then took a page from Microsoft licensing with all the different CS "packages". Now there are 3 or 4 versions of Photoshop alone. It's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:27:46 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by Ann:
Is that a recent change? I upgraded my student version to a full retail version. That's how everyone I know originally bought PS. They took a class, bought the student version, then eventually upgraded to the full retail. Which makes things a whole lot cheaper than your calculations. |
I never saw anything about upgrading to the full version for a discounted price.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW I think the Educational Version license prohibits you from using it "commercially" (i.e. continuing to use it after you're out of school and doing design/photography for pay), though I've never heard of them trying to enforce that provision. |
Nope, commercial allowed. That's the best part about it. The lack of upgrades is the worst part. |
I upgraded mine from student to full at the upgrade price. I read a whole page under the student version section laying out what a great deal that was and how it was an example of Adobe supporting students... |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:49:21 PM · #145 |
| In unrelated news...Adobe stock is down nearly 2% on a day the market is up... |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 04:52:51 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by George:
Also, I'm a Civil Engineering student. I'll have plenty of other (more expensive) software to purchase eventually, so it'll be hard to justify any sort of upgrade plan.
|
Not really unless you plan on starting your own engineering firm straight out of school. (Maybe you could do that, but I'd advise against it til you have a bit of experience.)I've worked as an engineer for 15+ years and have never had to supply my own engineering software. I'd run from any employer who does. Most companies won't let you install unauthorized software on their machines for work because they don't want to invalidate or compromise their licensing agreements with their software suppliers over potentially being accused of software piracy, not to mention the ethical issues. |
What about working from home? I plan on splitting the price of SolidWorks with my employer soon (for a home license); we'll see how that goes. |
Any respectable company that wants you to work from home will either a) give you a laptop with the software you need, b) give you the software licenses you need for your home machine, or c) have some way you can remote into a machine that has the software installed. In the modern world, it's usually option c). |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 05:32:08 PM · #147 |
Adobe released versions 6, 6.5, and 7 of PageMaker after purchasing from Aldus and before converting it into InDesign.
Quark went up to version 5.0 before InDesign began to erode its market; it's now at 8.0.
I have legacy versions of almost all of these programs if anyone needs file conversion/recovery services ... |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 05:58:40 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
I suppose this stupid monthly rental thing is a tax advantage for businesses. You can probably write-off the rental, whereas outright buying the software would have to be depreciated???
I dunno, I'm no accountant. |
In the US, anyway, you write software off as an expense, whether it's purchased or rented. Don't know how Canada works. |
In Canada they just grab you by the ankles and shake you upside down until your pockets are empty. |
not exactly... they take all your money, assets and leave you naked by the curb :O)
Ray |
I'm moving to Canada. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 07:23:48 PM · #149 |
Just got an e-mail from Adobe with an offer of just $9.99 for the single app/product thing. This is only available to those who purchased their software directly form Adobe. This was all the small print:
â€Â¡ VOID WHERE PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED BY LAW. Eligible customers may purchase an Adobe Creative Cloud Single-App membership with annual commitment for a reduced price. Offer valid for purchase of an annual plan, which requires a 12-month contract. Available only to customers who own a Creative Suite edition or individual product, version CS3 or later (CS3.x, CS4, CS5.x, or CS6), and who purchase directly from the Adobe Store or by calling a regional Adobe Call Center. This offer is not available to Education, OEM, or volume licensing customers. Residents of embargoed countries are not eligible. This offer is limited to one (1) purchase of one (1) Creative Cloud Single-App annual membership per customer. Offer is subject to U.S. export control laws and laws where the recipient resides. Offer may not be assigned, exchanged, sold, transferred, or combined with any other discount or offer, or redeemed for cash or other goods and services. Offer is valid until July 31, 2013, and can be changed without notice. Void where prohibited or restricted by law.
It appears that Lightroom and Elements will still be sold as hard copies, so to speak, though Lightroom is available via the "cloud" also. The subscription service is aimed at the more "professional" programs/users it seems. I still think the whole kinda sucks. I hate paying monthly for stuff. |
|
|
|
05/07/2013 08:23:38 PM · #150 |
What the heck is their cloud version anyway...does it not run as a local app? Does it really run on their servers? And yet it's as full featured as the standalone versions? So if you're away from an internet connection, you are SOL?
Message edited by author 2013-05-07 20:33:28. |
|
