Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription Based

Ironheart

@TTJ, I was addressing @ton's post prior to mine where he specifically mentioned professional photographers.
@flight3, I was thinking mainly of larger shops where folks need to hand pre-production data around, and often interact with multiple agencies to produce final product. In my experience, even the independant designers and artists that need to feed their work to an agency which will want the latest, greatest version. They will sometimes accept previous versions, but somewhat begrudgingly.

[Deleted User]

You are right @Ironheart, but -out of business- when you don't upgrade is a little bit over the top. The main thing is that there is no conversion needed in the whole line. For instance the editor for the magazine wants photo's with the pen selections as clipping masks, so it is easy for him to put it in place with Indesign.

This business is more and more specialistic (is that a word?), the editor tells the photographer what he wants and how.

FlowtographyBerlin

I think they should allow people to also be able to buy box versions, and if the subscription ends, keep the software but not allowed to update it and pay a small premium to do so.

[…]

If you are going to make an argument against it, make a good argument - most so far (here and all over the web) are people who stomp their feet at everything that finally forces them to pay for something they haven't before, or drop into conspiracy theories how some super organization is trying to control them.

I agree, totally, in that sense that whenever something new comes out, there is always gonna be a group of users who is not happy about how they are treated and they're gonna complain, no matter how good the deal is for the rest of users.

Then again, it's not correct that people's main concern is the pricing. Who gives a darn if the price goes up or down by a few inches, I'd say. The main concern is what actually makes a HUGE difference: That they're switching towards a model where your software will stop working if you don't play along. And that is the component that sucks so much, not the pricing.

CS6 and also PS are not targeting hobbyist users. Just saying. For them the learning curve is really steep. Even professionals will never benefit of all the features and some of them are very unique.

+1 that is worth saying again - Adobe CS/CC primary users are professionals and businesses.

Very good point! I really don't understand how one can be so focussed on stupid PS (and being up to date on it) if one is not dependent on exchanging files and doing heavy industry-standard retouching.

David Hobby of Strobist.com recently Tweeted (not that I follow Twitter) that he still uses CS3.

From a mere photographer's standpoint, I'd still be with PS 7 or something, if it wasn't for compatiblity issues. (Or maybe one or two versions later, in which one did they introduce the healing brush?) As a hobbyist, no one needs Photoshop. If you exchange files in a professional workflow, you will need the CS stuff. (And as opposed to something like 5 years ago, you also most likely need the most recent version, too.)

Here's something that happened to a friend two weeks ago: I (and more importantly: my friends) always thought I'm paranoid when I try to have things "physically", like, I always still buy CDs and don't just download albums. A friend of mine moved from Berlin (Germany) to London (UK) two weeks ago. He had to change his address in iTunes Store account, of course, because he had a new billing address on his credit card. Suddenly, a big bunch of his songs were just: gone. The license was not valid for the UK market, just Germany. He wrote to Apple and complained. There was nothing they could do, they said.

When she told me the story, I was suddenly reminded that maybe it's not THAT paranoid anymore to just want to have a personal physical copy of something that (somewhat) guarantees you that something you have will not be taken away from you all of a sudden.

Previously, software people always compared software to physical products to make their point that software piracy is a bad as stealing. (I worked in a software company before, so I'm on the same track.) Looks like we've gotten to a point where we can reverse the whole thing to make the point that the new licensing models are as bad as they look:

Imagine your camera was a D5200 which is only available for lease. You're paying 20$/20€ a month. They release a new model D5250, which now has the new NCC™ feature (Nikon Cloud Capture), which you couldn't care less about. The new model is now $27/27€ a month, but of course you get all the wonderful new features. You have 90 days to agree to the new pricing, after that, your D5200 camera will stop working. There are no really cheaper alternatives to your camera model (the D3200 is only a symbolic 50 cents less), so you're pretty much . Cool?

TaoTeJared

Imagine your camera was a D5200 which is only available for lease. You're paying 20$/20€ a month. They release a new model D5250, which now has the new NCC™ feature (Nikon Cloud Capture), which you couldn't care less about. The new model is now $27/27€ a month, but of course you get all the wonderful new features. You have 90 days to agree to the new pricing, after that, your D5200 camera will stop working. There are no really cheaper alternatives to your camera model (the D3200 is only a symbolic 50 cents less), so you're pretty much . Cool?

In the "big" business world that is actually how software and most everything else works - with a caveat, when you cancel the service/contract, you have to pay the software provider/service company extra to do so. Many times it is in the $100,000s of dollars and gets into the millions quick. That is how equipment leases, building leases, everything works. Lease a building and make upgrades, leave a year later - you are out of 100% of the money you put into it. Few understand that there is a whole different world and that is how businesses operate. The other side of it, for a business, having software assets is actually not a productive use of capital. Art houses, graphic houses, would rather write off the "service" than keep a large up-front cost software asset on their books that will be worth zero by year three (accounting). I have not seen any complaints coming from corporate world on the pricing at all. If they were bucking it, then there is more hope for a change - but I fear without this group, hope droops quickly.

Adobe's model caters to corporate businesses (who are probably large enough to have a staff accountant+) and has just left out the many single to maybe five person shops where their model doesn't add up well.

ads

"That is how equipment leases, building leases, everything works."

IF the business chooses to lease TTJ, many businesses don't lease everything to avoid the kinds of losses you are referring to - like most things in business its a tradeoff, as market value of companies with assets are higher than those with only liabilities due to lower risk and higher potential breakup value.

Not denying that some operate on a lease everything basis, but its far from all.

I don't think this necessarily cuts out smaller businesses, its those that use few products - you've aleady said that the deal is more atractive to someone who uses the whole suite. The new pricing would still be a bad deal for a company with thousands of employees that just used PS and nothing else (if there was such a beast).

FlowtographyBerlin

I have not seen any complaints coming from corporate world on the pricing at all.
[…]
Adobe's model caters to corporate businesses (who are probably large enough to have a staff accountant+) and has just left out the many single to maybe five person shops where their model doesn't add up well.

That's exactly the point. For a large business, software licensing is a pain anyway, so this is the perfect model for mass deployment. But for anyone else, it's a matter of taste. (Only 50% of the people I know with small businesses go for leasing. In many cases, it's as expensive as financing, just that at the end of the period, the leasing object has to be returned. I never do any leasing at all.)

Adobe CS is like MS Office for the creative industry, everyone has it, which includes many one-man-show designers and small offices. It's just bad that Adobe forces a larger-company licensing model on everyone else as a one-size-fits-all solution.

[Deleted User]

This is all about the whole suite, but most photographers only use Lightroom and Photoshop, or even worse for them at the moment, Bridge and Photoshop. I looked at the Adobe statements and these are raising lots of questions.

1. Lightroom will be part of the cloud at no extra charge and is also sold separate, as download or box. No word for future releases of course, big chance it will vanish completely in the cloud soon. Should I still put time in it?
2. Adobe will support PS6, for as long as it is sold, the say. So I think, support will stop as soon as possible for them.
3. For Bridge users which is a part of PS, nothing on this, you can go to the cloud and free becomes expensive.
4. Regular updates for new camera's in the programs. We better transfer to DNG, or cloud.
5. For photographers (me), what will happen in the near future, that has a simple answer, forced into the cloud, if you stick to Adobe (which is the best software at the moment).

There are a lot more questions of course, but at the end, it is obvious you don't get a choice.

The only option I have now (and I only speak for myself) is, change my good workflow I have, which includes a good backup system, to the very expensive Adobe cloud. I also have to put a lot of time in this changing situation, which was no part of my long strategy.

The good thing is I get $ 10.- a month reduction on the PS cloud price for a year, then this price increases with 100%, so Adobe gives me $ 120.- back, how generous

Well I bought Lightroom and PS, that is it for me now, see what happens and hoping on a lot of competition for Adobe in the next couple of years.

FlowtographyBerlin

The only option I have now (and I only speak for myself) is, change my good workflow I have, which includes a good backup system, to the very expensive Adobe cloud. I also have to put a lot of time in this changing situation, which was no part of my long strategy.

How does your workflow change if you stick to Photoshop? Nothing changes, really, except for their licensing model going from buy to lease. You're not forced to use any of that storage space in the cloud, nor does anything change about the way you work with Photoshop.

[Deleted User]

It is not changing, because I do nothing at the moment and my work PC is not connected to the internet and never will be.

Edit:
A research from a Dutch photo magazine on the cloud version for Photoshop today.

4% = Already using the cloud
6% = Will go into the cloud
58% = Remain using the latest PS version
28% = Are going to use an alternative for PS
2% = Don't use PS

[Deleted User]

Adobe is the only one with a creative suite in the market, the main core of there revenu, which they already have and there is no competition at the moment. For the amateur they aim on IOS and Android (PS touch $ 7,99) a huge market. Amateurs in the cloud is nice for them, but nothing more.

FlowtographyBerlin

Ton, this whole "cloud" feature thing is not what anyone I know is interested in.

Again: You need to differenciate between the cloud and the cloud version. The first is online storage (and some sync functionality), the latter is the whole version called Creative Cloud, which is a brand name just like Creative Suite, but the application (i.e. Photoshop) stays on your computer, so do your files and everything else, and you're using it offline. The app checks for the license every once in a while, but that's all you need to be online for. It's not like anything is actually happening in "the cloud" if you're using Photoshop CC, it's all on your machine, as before.

Nothing changes with your workflow if you switch to the Creative Cloud version. Only the licensing model (rent vs. buy), which is what's most discussed here and pretty much everywhere I looked.

[Deleted User]

I know, that's correct what you write, but I am not on the internet with my work computer, they made it to expensive, 25.49 euro for PS only, I tried it and I cannot install it on my server.

NSXTypeR

David Hobby of Strobist.com recently Tweeted (not that I follow Twitter) that he still uses CS3. Then again, most of his work is pure and clean straight out of camera type stuff.

Slightly on the same topic, how does he get his RAW files to work (if he uses RAW)?

Does Adobe still support the RAW profiles for versions of photoshop that old?

flight3

David Hobby of Strobist.com recently Tweeted (not that I follow Twitter) that he still uses CS3. Then again, most of his work is pure and clean straight out of camera type stuff.

Slightly on the same topic, how does he get his RAW files to work (if he uses RAW)?

Does Adobe still support the RAW profiles for versions of photoshop that old?

He might just use Adobes Raw converter that'll convert raw files into DNG files.

flight3

I don't know how many of you have seen this article yet. But Adobe has posted a small and not very helpful response to the creative cloud suite. The only thing I really got from the article is that don't seem to be backing down on the whole cloud suite. (

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/30/adobe-reaches-out-to-address-creative-cloud-concerns/

Ade

Slightly on the same topic, how does he get his RAW files to work (if he uses RAW)?

I believe he's a recent convert to Capture One, but the ACR that came with CS3 still works fine for his old D3.

Ade

@flight3:

Adobe is saying nothing new unfortunately.

I don't often quote myself, but here's what wrote in this very thread three weeks ago:

"- Adobe is working on alternatives to ensure that you still have access to your files even after your subscription lapses. E.g., when the subscription lapses, Photoshop CC might still work in "limited" mode allowing you to open & view your PSD files, export them to a different format like TIFF, etc.

- It's possible that Adobe will introduce a Creative Cloud package specifically for photographers. E.g., give you only access to LR + PS at a lower price point. It's an option they're openly considering."

Which is basically all Adobe is now saying with this "update".

flight3

@Ade

Oh really? I must have not read that when you posted it earlier. My mistake.

Msmoto

@sevencrossing

Clicked on your link and it says 'currently unavailable'...

sevencrossing

it seems to have vanished can you delete it completely

Msmoto

Oh, the mystery of having mods...LOL....

Ade

LR + PS at a lower price point is finally here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/creativelayer/introducing-the-photoshop-photography-program/

$9.99/month gets you:

- Photoshop CC
- Lightroom 5
- 20 GB of online storage
- Behance ProSite
- Access to Creative Cloud Learn’s training resources
- Ongoing upgrades and updates

PB_PM

And it is still a ripoff...

Ade

No turning back now...

Adobe exceeds 1M Creative Cloud subscriptions; stock rises

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57603348-92/adobe-exceeds-1m-creative-cloud-subscriptions-stock-rises/

"We exceeded one million subscriptions during Q3, demonstrating that the transition to Creative Cloud is happening sooner than expected," Chief Executive Shantanu Narayen said in a statement.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@Ade - I'm one of the suckers, but I'm exploring other options, and there are terrific options out there.

But damn Adobe, once you really learn it - I am, alas, an ACTP - it is really fine...

My best,

Mike