Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription Based

NSXTypeR

For anyone who was holding off on Adobe CS6, it's time to pull the trigger on it. Adobe Creative Suite will only be available via monthly or yearly subscriptions from here on out.

For people like me who wanted to learn Photoshop and kind of held off on it, there's no incentive for me to "buy" Photoshop anymore if I only use it 2-3 times a year.

For pros though, I guess it's just a drop in the bucket.

Msmoto

All discussions on this topic here, please

mikep

well, lets wait and see what its like first

either way i dont mind, the old photoshops are pretty awesome and its not like an update is required. im sure the old versions will be useful and relevant for many years

i am sure there will be another option out before cs6 becomes obsolete, so it will never be creative cloud or nothing

Ironheart

Just to level-set here, there is no difference between the cloud and non-cloud products. It's just a different licensing scheme. For Pros that have to keep up with the latest version the cost difference is nil, or perhaps a bit in favor of the subscription based plan. For non-pros that are fond of skipping versions, it will be almost double. Adobe has done the demographic and market studies, and the number of professionals that buy the CS packages, far far outweigh those that version skip and occasionally use the products. Even if all of the latter category dried up, they will still make money and own the market.

LR is not slated to go subscription-based any time soon AFAICT.

FlowtographyBerlin

Just saw that Adobe doesn't sell CS 6 anymore, you can just buy the CC versions now. But I guess dealers will still have it available. Still not really sure if I should get the last "real" version or not; the subscription is in fact not much more expensive or even cheaper than buying the full versions, even granted the fact that I always skipped a version.

Hm. What really makes the thing difficult, though, is that the new licensing model implies that once you decide you want to stop giving Adobe monthly money transfers, you can't continue using the software. Given that no one knows what pricing decisions they will come up with in the future, that's a pretty strange thing in my opinion...

ads

"there is no difference between the cloud and non-cloud products. It's just a different licensing scheme. For Pros that have to keep up with the latest version the cost difference is nil"

Err no actually - upgrade price is $199 for standard CS and upgrades happen every 18-24 months.

Regular price for subscription is $20 a month ($9.99 is only an introductory offer), making it $360-480 per upgrade cycle - pretty much double the cost of staying up to date, plus you've lost perpetual rights, and the ability to choose when to cough up for the upgrade.

Adobe has certainly done the demographics - the fact they've doubled the price of staying up to date says to me they realise they will lose a significant number of customers over this, and need more revenue from the rest to compensate.

Ade

If you use more than one CS product (not including LR) then the subscription model is a great deal.

I use Photoshop and Illustrator, plus I'd like to learn InDesign and maybe switch to Premier from FCP7 -- so it's a no brainer for me, the subscription model saves me hundreds of dollars a year compared to the old model of upgrading my CS suite every 2 years.

Gareth

can we mix this thread into here?

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/1044/adobe-quitting-development-of-their-non-cloud-versions-what-do-you-think

jpeezay

Not sure which thread to post in, so I will go for this one...

The one thing that's not being mentioned, is that the subscription price in certain countries is double, and even almost tripple (in my case...) of what the subscription is in the US. The CD version is definitely not priced like that. For such countries, it is not such a good deal after all... The only option the "non-pros" have to save some costs as they have done in the past by skipping versions, is to "skip months" in the monthly subscriptions. I guess we will just do all our photo editing in one month each year. Just take a month off work, brew yourself a big pot of coffee, get a comfortable seat, and become process like it's going out of style!

I am really not a big fan of the Cloud software packages, as it gives complete control to the companies producing the software and I also worry about being "held hostage" in the future. If you read the fine print on some of these thigns, it's quite scarry at times. I think most people don't realize even what they're accepting. A lot of my friends in the IT world, however, are saying that a lot of the big software companies are planning on going this route. I've been hearing from various independent sources that if corporations have their way, eventually, all computers will essentially be nothing more than Internet Terminals connected to corporate servers providing software solutions. This is perforec for them because it significantly reduces bootlegging, etc. I sincerely hope that there will be a backlassh agains this, and that competitors will rise up (open code, etc.). Viva la revolucion!!!

Gareth

Trust me, adobe has always cost twice as much in New Zealand as the US. even the download version.

TaoTeJared

All cloud models are set up so you pay a small amount each month, but over 2-3 years you will pay more than you did just buying the "box."

That said, I think it makes more sense. There are times when I need one of the suite software titles for a project, but don't need it after that. I never saw the point in spending $500+ for titles to use 1-2 times a year.

spraynpray

Well I guess it is the most effective way to stop pirating. Er, maybe it is just changing who is the pirate... )

FlowtographyBerlin

Well I guess it is the most effective way to stop pirating. Er, maybe it is just changing who is the pirate... )

Hahaha, brilliant! :-)

On the other hand, piracy IS a big issue for any software company (I've worked in one before), even if it's Adobe.

The only problem I have with this whole thing is that once they get me converted to the CC version, I am pretty much completely dependent on their gusto. If they come up with weird plans or products that I don't want anymore, and I don't want to go on paying money every month, I won't be able to use the software I have anymore. That's really, really weird, I think.

P.S.: The fact that you're only a "user" and not "owner" of the software is perfectly normal. A software company only licenses the product to the user, it's been like that for ages. Nevertheless, previously, you were granted rights that closely resembled a normal (physical) "ownership".

NSXTypeR

well, lets wait and see what its like first

either way i dont mind, the old photoshops are pretty awesome and its not like an update is required. im sure the old versions will be useful and relevant for many years

i am sure there will be another option out before cs6 becomes obsolete, so it will never be creative cloud or nothing

Just to level-set here, there is no difference between the cloud and non-cloud products. It's just a different licensing scheme. For Pros that have to keep up with the latest version the cost difference is nil, or perhaps a bit in favor of the subscription based plan. For non-pros that are fond of skipping versions, it will be almost double. Adobe has done the demographic and market studies, and the number of professionals that buy the CS packages, far far outweigh those that version skip and occasionally use the products. Even if all of the latter category dried up, they will still make money and own the market.

LR is not slated to go subscription-based any time soon AFAICT.

The biggest problem is that Adobe probably won't update CS6 after some time. And if that happens, will Adobe Camera Raw still support your raw files?

And if Adobe went subscription based with the next photoshop, there's no telling that they won't do that with the next Light Room.

My question is, if you don't have internet does that mean you won't get to use it at all?

FlowtographyBerlin

My question is, if you don't have internet does that mean you won't get to use it at all?

That's what I was wondering, too. According to their FAQ, the software checks online every 30 days, but you can go 180 days without any internet connection.

FlowtographyBerlin

BTW: Check out this interview: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc

Seems like my info was incorrect:

"Monthly subscribers can go for as long as 30 days without connecting to the Internet for license validation. Users with an annual commitment can go for as long as 99 days."

Benji2505

I guess the major drawback is that you have to continuously subscribe if you wish to edit photos that you have edited with PS CC in the past. That makes you dependent on adobe. All off a sudden you are not in control of your own budget/expenditure (price increases) and credit card (automatic deductions) anymore. That makes many users uncomfortable, understandable.
adobe is focusing all efforts on the professional/high volume customers with this swing and leaves the occasional users to other SW companies. (Maybe we were not supposed to have PS in the first place ).
I would guess that most occasional users buy CS6 now and look what the situation might be in 5 years from now. There are plenty of programs out there that can open PS files.

John

The biggest problem is that they are holding all your work hostage.

If I have software that doesn't need an online connection and has a perpetual licence then I can use it whenever I want and as long as I want.
If I want to use CS3 for the next 20 years I can (theoretically) do that.
I can decide when and if I upgrade.
My work isn't held hostage by some corporation that only looks at it's financial results.
Yes, photoshop is a big investment but I found it was worth it.

With the monthly subscription model all that changes.
You now have to pay a monthly fee or or everything stops working.
Making some small adjustments to print the photoshop project you worked on years ago on your new printer (which requires some slight color adjustments)...
Exporting your edited DNG raw files of your vacation....
Forget it! Unless you plan on paying them for all eternity you will at some point lose that capability.
So, your work will be held hostage.

Some of you might think about just buying the latest version and using that forever.
Well, I have some bad news for you.
How well does your windows 98 software work today? Chances are that most programs don't work anymore.
The same holds true for Photoshop. At some point your OS will chance to much and it will stop working (and at some point your current pc with it's OS will fail and you will be forced to buy a new one with a new OS).
At some point you'll buy a new camera and won't have RAW support anymore.

It's time to dump adobe and hurt them where they feel it... In their quarterly results.

I'm making sure that all my images are exported to jpg and I will no longer buy new adobe product.
A few weeks ago I please to see a new version of Lightroom with a few useful features.
Now I'm thinging about jumping ship and looking for alternatives to Lightroom.
I know that Lightroom isn't creative cloud only for the moment. But what's keeping them from making this transition in the future?
What happens if 10 years from now the most recent version of LR stops working with the current OS?
I'll be forced to pay a monthly subscription for the rest of my live or I'll lose access to all my images.
Sure, I'll still have the dng files on my disks. I'll just be unable to access them.
And suppose I decide to move to the creative cloud.
What's stopping Adobe from increasing their prices?

One last thing. Will it stop piracy?
Absolutely not!
The software is still on your pc. You just need to remove the code responcible for the validation check.
I would bet that it will be cracked in under a month.
The only difference that I see is that people will never upgrade to a legal version.
(Yes, I actually know for a fact that people who used pirated versions of software eventually both the real deal because the really likes a program)

FlowtographyBerlin

Well, as they are already discussing everywhere: What's a *realistic* alternative to PS?

One thing to keep in mind is: How long have your no-upgrade-yet phases lasted in the past? I feel the same as everyone, talking about 3 or 5 years, and wondering what will happen etc., but realistically, I've *always* upgraded for one or another reason anyway, there is always SOME reason that makes you upgrade once in a while, be it the new architecture, a new OS version compatibility issue, some new hardware support issue, or whatever.

I don't even need any of all those features that the newer versions boast, but there's always been something that makes me belong to the group of people who upgrade every other version. Last time, it was the vastly improved ACR algorithms.

turnthedarncranks

@FlowtographyBerlin. I don't pretend to know all the PS replacements, but can say that I've happily used Pixelmator, a $15 Mac App store download that does a lot, but of course not all, of what PS does. And there's always GIMP for the low, low price of $0. My understanding is that the GIMP interface can be a challenge, however.

Ironheart

@John, have you ever heard of VMware? You could create a vm with CS6 and win7 or win8 and run the environment for roughly the next 100 years without a worry about the underlying hardware.

John

Well, as they are already discussing everywhere: What's a *realistic* alternative to PS?

One thing to keep in mind is: How long have your no-upgrade-yet phases lasted in the past? I feel the same as everyone, talking about 3 or 5 years, and wondering what will happen etc., but realistically, I've *always* upgraded for one or another reason anyway, there is always SOME reason that makes you upgrade once in a while, be it the new architecture, a new OS version compatibility issue, some new hardware support issue, or whatever.

I don't even need any of all those features that the newer versions boast, but there's always been something that makes me belong to the group of people who upgrade every other version. Last time, it was the vastly improved ACR algorithms.

Corel has it's own version of photoshop and lightroom.
I believe that they have a trial version. Might be worth looking into.

I tended to change photoshop version every 3 releases or so.
That cost me a lot less than what the creative cloud would cost me over that period.

I'm an amateur photographer and I don't do commercial work.
I make prints, posters and canvases for friends and familie because I enjoy it not to make money.
The CC might work for professionals with a lot of work and good, consistent income.
But right now adobe just put photoshop beyond my financial reach.
(or at least my willingness)

jpeezay

Going back to film is always an alternative... ;-)

jpeezay

I've been using the cloud version since CS6 was released (against my will), and I can corroborate that I have gone a whole month without connecting via Internet while travelling. ...which I guess makes sense, since you pay monthly. Haven't gone longer than that. Functionality is the same.

Still sucks to see the monthly bills though. Makes me ponder the question "is it worth it ?!?" each month. I guess the answer has so far been a "yes". But I definitely started storing everything in JPG and other formats as back-up "just in case".

FlowtographyBerlin

Going back to film is always an alternative... ;-)

Well, an alternative to a digital camera maybe, but PS is pretty much in the workflow for almost everyone – unless you want to publish only on paper. And even then, most data is processed with PS these days.

John

@John, have you ever heard of VMware? You could create a vm with CS6 and win7 or win8 and run the environment for roughly the next 100 years without a worry about the underlying hardware.

Yes, I know VMware and I have used it before.
It is indeed a possible workaround which I'll use if required.
The problem is that VMware and other virtualisation software (such as Microsoft Virtual Machine) is not that good at hardware accelleration and direct use of the GPU.
So, I'm not sure if that will work as easily as I would hope.