Photoshop moving to cloud/subscription service only.

[Lost Canadian]

Looks like Adobe just gave all the pirates of their photoshop software a big ole F-U...unfortunately I fear they're doing it to their loyal paying customers as well.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/0...-as-creative-suite-moves-to-creative-cloud-cc

 

[briansocal]

Terrible idea on Adobe's part. I suspect that people who own and use multiple Adobe pro applications in a business setting won't mind this setup, as they're probably able to recoup the $50/month they'll spend on the Creative Cloud fairly easily. These same people probably purchase every new version that comes out.

However, there are many of us that only own Photoshop, and don't upgrade every cycle. There's no way I can commit to an extra $50/month, as I don't need all of the other applications in the suite and I'm not making much money on my photography.

This certainly opens up the space for a clever company to come along and create a viable alternative.

 

[nwoods]

Well, you can buy individual apps for $19.95. That works out to $720 over three years (average user upgrade cycle), and that's what a full blown licensed version of Photoshop costs. This way, you have a perpetually updated program with all the newest features, and a pretty set price. Factor that and your cloud based storage and hosting site into one monthly cost, and its not too bad.

 

[Lost Canadian]

It's not too great either. It locks you into paying...all the time,and gives you zero reassurance that monthly fees won't fluctuate....that is unless you sign some kind of a contract, like the phone companies, in which you will have no choice but to pay. Adobe ain't stupid, they're locking down a consistant revenew stream.

Adobe VP of CC even admits there's a trade off to this new way of doing business. For users who like to have the most up to date program with all the features it's great. But if you're a user who only uses a couple of the features in photoshop and is someone who doesn't need all the latest and greatest whizz bang updates, you're getting screwed. My words not his of course.

Also, I know they aren't moving Lightroom to the cloud yet but the fact they envision "added functionality" for CC users kind of pisses me off. So if I want the full LR experiance I'm going to have to pay a monthly tax of $19...yeah,..no, sorry Adobe aint going to happen.

Capture One is a better raw converter with respects to output and is almost as good as a complete DAM program. I'm sure Phase One will like my money. And if I need really heavy edits, for $15 bucks, pixelmator does nearly as much as PS, has a few tricks of its own, and a better UI. Bye bye Adobe.

 

[kingg5]

seems that this wont bother those of us who dont allow our photoshop to access the servers. f u adobe ill keep my free copy.

 

[nwoods]

Adobe VP of CC even admits there's a trade off to this new way of doing business. For users who like to have the most up to date program with all the features it's great. But if you're a user who only uses a couple of the features in photoshop and is someone who doesn't need all the latest and greatest whizz bang updates, you're getting screwed. My words not his of course.

While everything you said is true, you are overlooking two important facts:
1. That same VP says they aren't done thinking about this, that they recognize the gap factor it has on the casual user, and that they are looking to have a dialogue that that level of user and try to find a solution
2. They still have all the traditional license and purchasing models in place until the above is solved.

So yes, this proposed cloud licensing model is not great for non pro's, but they are looking for a solution. What I am hearing out of all this is that they are learning from Netflix and SmugMug's recent, painful, business lessons, and trying to find ways that do not abandon their customers.

 

[jeffryscott]

Goodbye Adobe ... I've come to prefer Aperture anyway and it does everything I need.

 

[Lost Canadian]

From my understanding and from what some "Adobe insiders" have been reporting, this decision wasn't made in the last day. This is the direction the company has mapped out for itself and has been committing its development teams to for some time. It's done, all that's left to do is to iron out the details and try to appease the general user base as best as they can.

As I read on another forum, and a voiced opinion with which I agree with, "I don't want to rent my software. "It's that simple.

As for having the traditional model in place for now...that's great, but who in their right mind is going to invest in a product line that's being abandoned. I was getting excited for LR 5, now I'm not.

 

[dwh]

As I read on another forum, and a voiced opinion with which I agree with, "I don't want to rent my software. "It's that simple.

It's the latest evolution of a very old idea.

When Java first came out, there was a lot of talk about how it would enable software companies to charge by the module. I.e., you pay for the functions that you actually use. Another touted benefit was that you could have a software framework, and buy whichever plugins you wanted. For instance you could buy your word processor from say, Microsoft, but buy your spell-check module from Oxford.

Corel even developed an office suite in Java.

This dovetailed with the idea of micro payment (originally developed back in the '90s by Visa in conjunction with someone else who I can't remember at the moment).

All of that sort of thinking eventually flowed into the idea of Application Service Providers (also back in the '90s).

Smartphone apps are a variation of the same sort of thinking.

"Software as a Service" is how the corporate control freakery culture wants the world to operate.

And really, if you read the terms of service, if you have commercial software, you are probably already renting it.


I think there will always be alternatives though. At least, until the control freaks convince the legislators to outlaw free and open source software. I dumped Photoshop years ago and have been using Paint.NET. It's Windows only though, but if you use Windows, it's an excellent Photoshop replacement.

http://www.getpaint.net/


And of course, there is (and probably always will be) The GIMP, which can be made to run on just about anything if you grok the hacks involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIMP

 

[Ryanmb21]

This is an interesting move on Adobe's part.

I'm not opposed to renting, I pay $10/month for spotify and I think it's fantastic. There model is the same, continue to pay the $10 and you get it all, stop payments and it all vanishes. I rent other things as well, ski boats, cabins, etc. The things I rent have one thing in common, when I'm done paying I don't care if they are taken away.

But, I feel a different about Photoshop. Using Photoshop is a skill and investing the time effort to better your abilities takes time and effort. If you stop paying some of those skills and efforts could go wasted.

I'm not sure why Adobe doesn't just offer two options, (1) rental and (2) purchase. If Adobe 'wants' customers to rent, then make the purchase option comparatively more expensive. The whole piracy avoidance seems to be a crock. Either version of the software could be made to 'phone home', or they could do what many of my other expensive software does, make the user plug in a usb dongle for the program to fire up.

 

[Lost Canadian]

As it stands now, the transition for me away from LR is going to be hard enough but I'd rather do it on my own terms than be subjected to have to pay to see my years of creative work held hostage. As I'm sure is the case with literally thousands of people, I have spent hours upon hours editing my raw work, creating my images in LR and all my adjustments/creations are saved as thousands of photo XMP files, all of which, unless an edited image has been flattened and saved to a format like a TIFF, will be rendered useless if I decide not to pay the monthly Adobe tax. Again, sorry, unacceptable. I refuse to have my workflow and edited images become a slave to a software companies greed.

Edit: Oh, and I have no doubt this is coming for LR too. Tom Hogarty already alluded to in a recent interview.

 

[Michael Slade]

Two things:

1. Use an older version of the software.

2. Shoot film.

 

[Sirocco]

I'm currently using Elements 6

works for me but I don't get all fancy with my photos like some of you guys

G

 

[Scott Brady]

We are pretty heavy Adobe users, so the subscription model will probably work well for us, at least for the design team. We have always skipped versions to save money, but this removes that option.

I have used Aperture since day one to manage my images, but it could really use an update.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Two things:

1. Use an older version of the software.

2. Shoot film.

1) Easy so long as I never buy a new camera again,....which I inevitably will.

2) While I dabble with film from time to time, realistically it's not something I enjoy as much. And personally I feel that I have more creative control/range over digital, film simply isn't part of my natural style or workflow.

You should watch this Michael, I think you'd like it.