# Adobe doubles profits, share price reflects investor satisfaction at CC model.



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2015)

http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/

So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> 
> So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.



Not holding out, just opting-out. It would be better if there were real competition.


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 16, 2015)

*Wrong conclusion:Adobe doubles profits,*

False conclusion. 
You could only make an argument for CC model, if Adobe would offer CC and stand-alone side-by-side, and if the sales of CC exceeded that of stand-alone licenses.
What Adobe profits demonstrate is that they have a near monopoly. Wonder when Adobe will be forced to split like Bell phone company.

I had been using Adobe products since about '94, but now I jumped ship. QuarkXPress is serving me very well. Affinity is already a good alternative, though my CS 5.5 still works. PDF generation options are plentiful. Haven't looked at vector graphics, but not needing anything sophisticated at any rate. 

So I wave Adobyebye.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 16, 2015)

*Re: Wrong conclusion:Adobe doubles profits,*



Zeidora said:


> False conclusion.
> You could only make an argument for CC model, if Adobe would offer CC and stand-alone side-by-side, and if the sales of CC exceeded that of stand-alone licenses.
> What Adobe profits demonstrate is that they have a near monopoly. Wonder when Adobe will be forced to split like Bell phone company.
> 
> ...



Doubling profits is a fact. Its doubled since they offered CC and eliminated Standalone

You can certainly express a opinion as to why, but obviously many prefer paying a small monthly payment over a big lump sum every two years. Adobe is hardly a monopoly, there are many alternatives for photographers. Capture One, DXO, ACDSEE, Free Software There is even free software. 

Its hard to beat the price of CC. I just extended mine for a year for $89.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 16, 2015)

I was not prepared to spend thousands of $$$ to buy Photoshop, so I used to use Elements, which worked just OK for me, but for $10 a month, I now use the full fat version.
I reckon its a great deal and well worth the money especially that it includes all the updates + free cloud storage.

I expected its price to go up substantially,, but it's stayed the same for the last few years.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 16, 2015)

*Re: Wrong conclusion:Adobe doubles profits,*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > False conclusion.
> ...


Reduced costs could be a factor; I didn't see any comparative sales numbers, e.g. CS6 units sold per year vs. active licenses. Every company likes increased profits, but there's not enough info to determine exactly the cause. They certainly have no business reason to run back the other direction.



> Adobe is hardly a monopoly, there are many alternatives for photographers.


For photographers, yes. For graphic artists...not so much. This is pure anecdote to be sure, but it's my understanding that Adobe has established itself as the standard workflow for graphic artists. If you're a GA, whether employed, seeking work or contracting, you have to keep your Adobe skills up to make the first cut for a job. In some fields it's a de facto monopoly.



> Its hard to beat the price of CC. I just extended mine for a year for $89.


And you will continue to do so indefinitely, whether or not the periodic improvements benefit you.

I've said before, and will continue to do so: if you're a photo or graphic art pro, and Adobe is your tool, this is a good deal for you. If you're an amateur, the subscription model is a kick in the gut.


----------



## martti (Dec 16, 2015)

I still hate them. I have no way of getting Photoshop where I live as CC is not covered here.

Meanwhile, Affinity Photo is getting new features. "You have no dog, so you hunt with cats".


----------



## Pookie (Dec 16, 2015)

A company shill happy that it's company made double the profits and it's investors are pleased... go figure. Says nothing about it's customers satisfaction with the forced model.


----------



## cheggs (Dec 16, 2015)

I can justify it by comparing the cost to two pints of beer a month - I can deal with that


----------



## greger (Dec 16, 2015)

I prefered upgrading PS when I was ready to. Thankfully CS 5.5 still works in 10.11 on my iMac. I bought Elements 12 and Lightroom 5. I didn't buy Elements 13 nor Lightroom 6. I did buy Elements 14. I haven't used it yet so can't give an opinion yet! As long as I have PS 5.5 and a version of Elements and Lightroom to work on my pictures then I will do fine. Even though Elements Raw Program isn't like the full version that Lightroom has, I can do enough to make me happy. Adobe's profits double and so do my savings by not upgrading. Hopefully I will be able to carry on this way intill Elements is cloud based too. Someone will build a competing photo program that is sold in stores or online. There is always someone who will see a customer base that they can sell their product to. Unfortunately cloud based selling is too profitable and all software may someday be only available online.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 16, 2015)

Well done Adobe. 
They've judged the market correctly for now.
They've persuaded me to cough up a monthly sum to use their software.
Their job is squeeze as much profit as possible and they are succeeding in this.
They pitched at a level that for many appeared to be reasonable compared to buying Lightroom and Photoshop (or even just Lightroom annnual new versions).
Compared to what I pay for new L lens I think Adobe CC is well priced.

The problem for Adobe is that the CC model promised good updates regularly rather than a big bang new version. 
The updates however are rare and not very exciting.
Some nice blur filters and a Dehaze slider .
Off hand I can't think of anything else amazing they've added in the last 24 months (but maybe I haven't noticed other good work).

I'm surprised at Adobe for not making bigger improvements in that timeframe.
There is a big market for Plugins but Photoshop should make it's own plugins to do the same jobs.
There should be a black and white module like Silver Efex that somehow incorporates the Zone system allowing you to easily modify particular shades of grey. (A sort of simplified luminosity masking process).
Maybe they get licencing fees for 3rd party plugins so are not too bothered.

They would also improve the quick select tool and make it easier to do things like replacing skies or cut out of hair. There a number of good photoshop techniques to do these things but Adobe could make the whole thing easier.

If Adobe rest on their laurels that people might stop subscribing and start illegally downloading versions that have been fixed to keep working as the current version (without having to signal adobe). 
If they increase their subscription prices they could face a wave of unhappiness. I hope the continue to aim to increase their subscriber base rather than screw the existing ones (which some day they might).

We need to see new tools coming. Especially ones that make it more usable.

Content Aware correction was for me the last great wow improvement.
Hopefully other companies will push Adobe to greater things and provide potential alternatives.
Affinity looks a good prospect for Mac users


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 16, 2015)

I'm really baffled by people complaining about the Photoshop and Lightroom leasing structure. It costs me £7.15 per month as I'm VAT registered, so that's about $4.40.

I bought a monthly subscription app to Eurosport for the iPad and it's £4.00 per month - for nothing really, it's useless to me and I will probably cancel it.

When you look at the performance of PS and LR the price has to be a good deal surely ?


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 16, 2015)

I'm not surprised. CC model allowed many enthusiasts like me entering Adobe world without huge initial investments. People who really need Adobe products for their work will still justify the shift in distribution model. Many other companies are shifting to this model because it seems to be working quite well. To me this is kind of proof that all those people opting-out from the renting model are so far just very vocal minority.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 16, 2015)

It should be noted that there is a difference between investor satisfaction and customer satisfaction. The latter influences the former more than the other way around. 

I would be interested if there are any metrics that indicate that customer satisfaction has increased proportionally.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 16, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> I'm not surprised. CC model allowed many enthusiasts like me entering Adobe world without huge initial investments. People who really need Adobe products for their work will still justify the shift in distribution model. Many other companies are shifting to this model because it seems to be working quite well. To me this is kind of proof that all those people opting-out from the renting model are so far just very vocal minority.



It's not entirely about the cost, it's more about the ongoing obligation to have a relationship with Adobe. When I buy a refrigerator at a big box store, I have a relationship with the store/manufacturer for the life of the warranty, but they don't bother me, and they don't care if I move the refrigerator to a new house or to my garage. Consumer software products, such as Photoshop and Lightroom, are appliances just like a refrigerator. Once I buy them Adobe should have no interest in what I do with them, so long as I don't share extra copies. 

I'm also still of the opinion that without meaningful competition on the Windows side Adobe has less obligation to put out new features and rebuild legacy features. I think existing users of Adobe products will go for the CC model, but (pure guess here) younger users will be itching for alternatives, and will be less likely to join the Adobe ecosystem/walled-garden.


----------



## LDS (Dec 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> The model worked



That a subscription model works better to extract money from customers no one denies. In fact profit grew more than total revenues - that means higher margins. Anyway the model also means you cash earlier part of what would have been future upgrades - in a few years you'll know if the model really works fully, and if customers stay committed.

Then there are model that work best for customer to keep part of their money, but of course shareholders are little interested in them...


----------



## zim (Dec 16, 2015)

Perhaps Canon will start a subscription model for the next round of new cameras 8)


----------



## sanj (Dec 16, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not surprised. CC model allowed many enthusiasts like me entering Adobe world without huge initial investments. People who really need Adobe products for their work will still justify the shift in distribution model. Many other companies are shifting to this model because it seems to be working quite well. To me this is kind of proof that all those people opting-out from the renting model are so far just very vocal minority.
> ...



The are.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 16, 2015)

zim said:


> Perhaps Canon will start a subscription model for the next round of new cameras 8)



I bet all the camera manufacturers are thinking of a way to implement this. 

With WiFi becoming more popular on cameras, I wonder how long will take for the camera manufacturers to make it mandatory that your camera be connected to their network in order to use the camera.... for a small fee.... at first.


----------



## Zv (Dec 16, 2015)

There are people who buy. There are people who rent. And there are people who pirate. This will always be the case in life. 

Adobe just catered to all three instead of buy and pirate. Smart business move as long as they keep buy option alive. 

Nothing more to say on this matter really. We have done this to death.


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 16, 2015)

*Re: Adobe doubles profits on backs of customers.*

Re cost, Affinity is the WAY better deal than PS CC. I never use the "creative filters" and wonder how many people do. Looking at the pictures posted on this forum, I cannot recall a single image that was obviously done with some creative filter or some other PS-only tool. Mostly it is levels, curves, maybe saturation, some USM, some spotting. I think the last new feature I liked was highlights-shadows; I think that was CS4. Nothing since then. But even that can be done with curves.

Re monopoly, as others have pointed out, as a GA professional, without demonstrated Adobe knowledge you are dead in the water. 

It is a well-known fact, that leasing/renting is more expensive than buying in the long run. Look at any finance text-book. Adobe just cons people into shelling out more although they can't really afford it (see above re better deal). Renting also entails lack of innovation. Adobe does not have to convince customers with new features to purchase the new version. Just do nothing and keep cashing the monthly fees. Great *business* model.


----------



## Zv (Dec 16, 2015)

zim said:


> Perhaps Canon will start a subscription model for the next round of new cameras 8)



Already exists. It's called Lensrentals.com


----------



## LDS (Dec 16, 2015)

Zv said:


> There are people who buy. There are people who rent. And there are people who pirate. This will always be the case in life.
> 
> Adobe just catered to all three instead of buy and pirate.



Do you believe CC cannot be pirated? How naïve...


----------



## cayenne (Dec 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> 
> So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.


Actually, lets hope that the sheeple out there stop signing up, and their numbers actually start to drop off.

I've got CS6 Production Premium suite...and so far, nothing Adobe has upgraded in CC has been so earth shattering that I feel I'm missing out on it.

I think Adobe should offer the rental model for those that want it....and stand alone purchase for those that don't want to rent their software.

Adobe does this for Lightroom...why not all the products?

Right now, Im' using my CS6 tools. But along side them, I'm using Affinity Photo....which so far appears to be giving PS a run for its money.

I'm hoping over the holidays, to have time to play with Affinity Designer and see if it meets or beats Adobe Illustrator...

I'm playing with Davinci Resolve...and using it as a NLE to see how it competes with Premier pro...and FCPX.

Right now, I love what it does, but it appears my machine is not quite powerful enough for it. I plan to upgrade my computer next year.

And Blackmagic Resolve also how Fusion. I hope to have time soon to mess with that, to see how it compares to After Effects.

So...one thing I'm glad the Adobe rental model has done..is to finally give traction to those out there that might compete with their products, and are not based on a rental model.

Competition is always a good thing, and right now, it appears there are some serious contenders to Adobe...that you can still *BUY* and for a fraction of the price.


----------



## grainier (Dec 16, 2015)

So it _was_ a money grab.


----------



## emko (Dec 16, 2015)

okay now that you have so much money rewrite Lightroom from the ground up. Adobe no matter how much you try Lightroom is not getting any better and i am 100% sure the code base is crap, ACR engine is fine just the Lightroom part needs redoing.


----------



## zim (Dec 16, 2015)

Zv said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps Canon will start a subscription model for the next round of new cameras 8)
> ...



Hmmm... not really that's more like a short term payday loan  ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 16, 2015)

*Re: Wrong conclusion:Adobe doubles profits,*

AMEN Mt. Spokane! They are a publicly traded company on three exchanges, not the least of which is NASDAQ here is America. Their stock price has increased nearly 400% since 2012 when they were at a recent low of $24 per share. Good for them!! And monopoly? Are you kidding? They have loads of competition! Just because more people CHOOSE to use Adobe over the competition does not indicate market manipulation. I want Adobe to keep making lots of money so they can keep making the best products for the photography, graphic design, and film industries. God bless 'em! And I happily subscribed to CC. the $79 LR upgrade bill each year wasn't an issue, but I was sitting on a copy of PS that was over 10 years old! I couldn't justify dropping $600 on a new version all at once. But now I get PS and LR for $9.99 per month and get ALL the upgrades! I may go pick up Adobe stock for clients now LOL!



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > False conclusion.
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Dec 16, 2015)

LR6 is barely moving on my 6-core 5th gen i7 with 64GB DDR4, 2xGTX980 video cards, SSD app drive and 4x8TB storage HDDs in RAID5 (Windows 2012R2). I doubt if I upgrade to the high end 8-core i7 it will help. The video acceleration they've added to the v6 is a joke, LR works much faster without it. The speed is decent on my one year old MacBook, but still noticeable slower than the 5.7. I guess for the v7 I'll have to upgrade to a dual or quad CPU Xeon? No thanks. Capture One works great plus lower noise, better shadows, colors and details out of the box, and no monthly fees.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2015)

Pookie said:


> A company shill happy that it's company made double the profits and it's investors are pleased... go figure. Says nothing about it's customers satisfaction with the forced model.



Ooh, a company shill? I am honored ;D

The thread was to point out to the very vocal detractors of Adobe that just because they don't want to move with the times doesn't mean that time will stop for them. The constant cry's of they will have to change or die are so similar to the regular gangs comments about Canon, when will they realize that is just not he case, come to terms on why these companies do business in he first place and the decisions they impliment, either holding back sensor tech or rental payment models, which might seem frustrating on a personal level actually make perfect business sense.

Had any thoughts about our chat on composition yet? Like I said just PM me for he help you need.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Dec 16, 2015)

I really like the subscription model, but I am hating the fact that Adobe runs 10+ processes on my machine even when no Adobe program is even in use. The first thing I do when booting up is to kill every one of their processes. 

One big benefit to the new system is that they can try new designs and formats of their software and if the community bitches loud enough (like LR CC) they can revert the changes quickly.


----------



## LDS (Dec 16, 2015)

Jopa said:


> LR6 is barely moving on my 6-core 5th gen i7 with 64GB DDR4, 2xGTX980 video cards, SSD app drive and 4x8TB storage HDDs in RAID5 (Windows 2012R2).



Using a server operating system for desktop task is not usually a smart move. They are optimized for a different workload, with far less emphasis on the foreground application. RAID5 will slow down write intensive applications (LR does write a lot), especially if the drives are not very fast (10k rpm or better) and not a true hardware RAID.

That said, LR has to change a lot to truly exploit recent hardware. Hope Adobe will reinvest some of that money in R&D, and not only executive bonuses...


----------



## emko (Dec 16, 2015)

LDS said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > LR6 is barely moving on my 6-core 5th gen i7 with 64GB DDR4, 2xGTX980 video cards, SSD app drive and 4x8TB storage HDDs in RAID5 (Windows 2012R2).
> ...



i think he is running RAID5 on a different computer if i am reading that right, also what does RAID have to do with anything? RAW files are usually less then 100MB reading/writing that with a mechanical drive is perfectly fine especially when LR makes previews and when working with the actual RAW you are not accessing it from the storage drive you are using a cached raw version stored on the local drive in his case a SSD and all the changes are stored in a DB on his SDD as well.

Lightroom is just old code that they keep trying to work with but they really need to rewrite it the UI is just to slow, ACR engine is fine i understand that requires heavy CPU but the library management and UI is to slow for a modern application.


----------



## drs (Dec 16, 2015)

If you need it, you had to sign up. Not a success in my book.

I use Cs6 and so far I can see Photoshop CC is as old in its core as it was before.
Having the Master Suite Cs6, I would have paid only for gimmicks. I'm a professional visual artist, and I get paid since nearly four decades for that. I'm not interested in CC at all. (But I tried it shortly, not worth the money for me)

They work for the share holders now, not for me anymore: a client since 1993. 

Adobe: making money as a monopolist is not proof to have better products now.

Add/edit:
If Adobe makes so much more profit now, where is that money coming from, when everyone thinks it is the better deal? ;o) There are many answer to that.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 17, 2015)

Sorry Adobe, I do not rent software, especially the bloated resource-hogging junk they write. Fortunately, there are some pretty good, even superior, options out there at reasonable prices (not rents). First it was Quicken with their extortion model and disable-ware, then Adobe, Micro$oft, and most recently AutoDesk. I'm sure more SW companies will switch to the subscription model. That will just create a market for developers to write alternatives. For now my CS6 still works on my Mac for what little use I make of it. I can't remember the last time I used it.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> 
> So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.




Proves they were right just like this guy who bought out the patent on an old AIDS drug and raised the price 5000%. The fact they profited proves it was a cool move. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=martin+shkreli&safe=off&prmd=nvi&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEnfHU5-HJAhWGWRQKHV7sCgwQ_AUICSgD#imgrc=elXLHhCBxGVkrM%3A


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 17, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> ...



Except for the fact that another company is now selling the exact same drug compounded with another to reduce side effects and is selling it for $1 per pill (instead of $750 each). The market will always find a solution although it may take a little time. One quarter does not prove the wisdom of a business decision.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 17, 2015)

If you are a Mac user, go to the App Store and look into Affinity Photo. Voted best App of the year-$ 39.99.

I', trying it out. Seems like it is a combination of Lightroom and Photoshop. There is a learning curve to it, but it seems to pack enough power and quality to get things done without having to fork out a yearly, which I refuse to do .

sek



Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 17, 2015)

*Re: Wrong conclusion:Adobe doubles profits,*

I agree but I don't hold your breath for a divestiture of the monopoly. Count on their stock going up.

sek



Zeidora said:


> False conclusion.
> You could only make an argument for CC model, if Adobe would offer CC and stand-alone side-by-side, and if the sales of CC exceeded that of stand-alone licenses.
> What Adobe profits demonstrate is that they have a near monopoly. Wonder when Adobe will be forced to split like Bell phone company.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jopa (Dec 17, 2015)

emko said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



"He" is running the RAID on the same workstation and keeps all "his" RAW files on it  
It's not a software or "poor man's" southbridge-based RAID, it's a 12GB/s / 1GB cache LSI (now Avago) 9361-4i. The drives are HGST 8TB, and while 4-drive-in-one-span RAID 5 write speed is pretty much the same as the write speed of one drive, the read speed is quadrupled.
If LR really needs to write to disk after each operation - that's plain stupid. 64GB of RAM should be enough to handle rasters of any modern camera without touching the file system. The controller has the CacheVault module installed and the write cache is always enabled.

Windows 2012R2 has the same kernel as Windows 8, some folks may think about it as a _server_ OS, but it's also a common _workstation_ OS. Windows 8 is a _desktop_ OS. The server comes out of the box with "background services" priority scheduling, but can be switched to the foreground apps priority in one click.

In theory I can move the files to the application SSD for processing and then back to the storage, but that's just too much pain in the b%tt. I may try to connect a dedicated SSD to cache the RAID or buy a RAID card with an integrated SSD (those are quite expensive), but why? ...if I can simply change the application to something more efficient.


----------



## davidmurray (Dec 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> 
> So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.



The thing is adobe's software has been more than good enough for several years already. Adobe is playing on your fear of missing out on something by not always having the latest and greatest. On truth if your software does all you need it to do today it is highly likely do continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

And if you paid a one-off fee for the right to use that software in perpetuity (so long as it will run on the OS of your computer) then you never have to pay any more and there will be a break-even point from which the use of the software becomes free.

Monthly fees for the right to forever keep up with the Joneses is just money down the drain. Why else is it that Adobe has massively increased it's profit.


----------



## Otara (Dec 17, 2015)

davidmurray said:


> And if you paid a one-off fee for the right to use that software in perpetuity (so long as it will run on the OS of your computer) then you never have to pay any more and there will be a break-even point from which the use of the software becomes free.
> 
> Monthly fees for the right to forever keep up with the Joneses is just money down the drain. Why else is it that Adobe has massively increased it's profit.



Maybe because they have a ton more customers? 

Photoshop alone in Australia used to be about 1k. It would be almost a decade to get that back, and the chances of that original copy still being useful in that timeframe is about zero. Add in upgrades and LR and keeping current with camera models and in our context at least, its a pretty good deal and that break even point is a loooong way off. Theres a fair chance for me I will be doing something entirely different in that timeframe anyhow, and Ill have had updates and the like along the way as well as whatever alternatives the market creates if there really are tons of unsatisfied users with a subscription model.

Compared to them getting zero off me previously, thats a pretty good profit for them, and a good deal for me.

I understand people wanting a particular payment model but the idea that people are just being dumb for choosing the other is one thing that really damages these kinds of cases.


----------



## pwp (Dec 17, 2015)

For photographers using just the $10 LR & PS deal, it's really a fantastic deal. As I also use Premiere Pro and Illustrator, I need the full suite so pay full-freight, set up as an invisible monthly auto payment, but it's a grudge spend. I have "free" :-\ access to dozens of programs in the CC suite I'll rarely use. 

In our industry the Adobe monopoly is so close to 100% it doesn't matter. No monopolies last for ever, and light, lean and innovative competition will blast out of left field at some stage and give Adobe a huge fright. But in the meantime, their grasp of the market is so complete, it's hardly worth wasting time and energy fussing about it. Get on with the main game of making fantastic images, videos and designs. 

And keep your prices high...clients will unconsciously appreciate you being reassuringly expensive. 

-pw


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 17, 2015)

Atleast when it comes to photoshop the subscription based model has been a lot cheaper for individuals and small business owners here in India. I am sure for adobe thanks to CC model there has been a drop in piracy of softwares.


----------



## LDS (Dec 17, 2015)

Jopa said:


> If LR really needs to write to disk after each operation - that's plain stupid. 64GB of RAM should be enough to handle rasters of any modern camera without touching the file system.



It does because otherwise your changes may be lost if something bad happens before the cache is written to disk. Most people would not like to lose lots of changes just because a power failure or the like. Surely LR could be optimized and maybe let you choose some parameters to more aggresively cache if for example you have an UPS and a battery-backed controller or disks, and a lot of RAM. But one of the aims of LR design was to be "simple", and thereby avoid such kind of settings - maybe it's time to review some of those design choices.



Jopa said:


> Windows 2012R2 has the same kernel as Windows 8, some folks may think about it as a _server_ OS, but it's also a common _workstation_ OS. Windows 8 is a _desktop_ OS. The server comes out of the box with "background services" priority scheduling, but can be switched to the foreground apps priority in one click.



Same codebase, but not exactly the same kernel code, believe me. There's a reason why they are not released at the same time. That switch will give a boost to foreground applications, but doesn't change a server version into a desktop one, nor viceversa. There are many registry parameters that could be changed to optimize for a different workload, but they need to be changed properly, and eventually, you mostly turn a $1500 OS into a $200 one... unless you need to use more CPUs and RAM than the desktop OS can handle.



Jopa said:


> In theory I can move the files to the application SSD for processing and then back to the storage



I was just pointing out that LR doesn't benefit from a RAID5 setup due to its architecture - RAID 0 (dangerous) or 10 would fit better - but if performanace are OK for you there's no reason to change. You can also improve write speed aggresively caching writes at the OS level, but then again you need to ensure a power failure won't cause data loss.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 17, 2015)

Yada, yada, yada. Not interested in Adobe's profit. Will not rent Adobe software. Ever.
Don't need nor want Photoshop. Will keep using LR 5.7 until i eventually happen to move to a new, not supported camera (RAW). Then I'll switch to Capture One or other alternative, if available and better for me.


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 17, 2015)

Jopa said:


> LR6 is barely moving on my 6-core 5th gen i7 with 64GB DDR4, 2xGTX980 video cards, SSD app drive and 4x8TB storage HDDs in RAID5 (Windows 2012R2). I doubt if I upgrade to the high end 8-core i7 it will help. The video acceleration they've added to the v6 is a joke, LR works much faster without it. The speed is decent on my one year old MacBook, but still noticeable slower than the 5.7. I guess for the v7 I'll have to upgrade to a dual or quad CPU Xeon? No thanks. Capture One works great plus lower noise, better shadows, colors and details out of the box, and no monthly fees.



If it is slow on your machine I cannot be surprised that my old 4-core i7 with 12GB DDR3 and old AMD6970 is having problems. LR6 is slow. The new panorama feature is mostly useless because if I create 100MP panorama it just cannot cope with it.


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 17, 2015)

Everyone is talking about Affinity photo but since it is Mac only, it is not a real competition to Photoshop for significant portion of users. I own Mac, I kind of like Mac but I still prefer Windows PC.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 17, 2015)

Jopa said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > LR6 is barely moving on my 6-core 5th gen i7 with 64GB DDR4, 2xGTX980 video cards, SSD app drive and 4x8TB storage HDDs in RAID5 (Windows 2012R2).
> ...



Jopa, I'm running LR6 on MUCH slower hardware than you have, and it's useable. It's not fast, but useable. However, when I upgraded to the horrible 6.2 release, my machine turned to molasses, and I seriously wondered if something had gone wrong with my hardware. When I reverted to 6.1 it returned to useable speed, and I have not upgraded to the latest.

Question to you: which specific version of LR are you using? I'm currently running 6.1.1.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 17, 2015)

cheggs said:


> I can justify it by comparing the cost to two pints of beer a month - I can deal with that



Haha, I love that thinking. What I'll spend in one afternoon lunch with the wife (including a bloody mary, a beer or two) is more then half a year's worth of the subscription.

And heaven forbid you put this cost into photography terms. It's practically free. When one is dropping 30 bucks a pop just for protect filters, 20 bucks here for an SD card. Let alone buying anything substantial like a lens.

And I don't even use photoshop, so I'm paying the $10 just for lightroom which I'm fine with. It's workflow and photo organization is just very solid.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 17, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Consumer software products, such as Photoshop and Lightroom, are appliances just like a refrigerator.



Poor analogy. A refrigerator is just another commodity these days. State of the Art Software? Not so much. Are you sure you don't want them "bothering" you? Like when you buy that brand new fancy camera and LR can't read your RAW files?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



I run LR 2015.3 on a dedicated Mid 2011 Mac Mini (it was a stop gap I ended up really liking), it has a 2.3 GHz i5 processor and 16GB of memory. It has a 120GB SSD that I have partitioned to 100GB for the boot disk and a 20GB Scratch disc for PS. It also has a second internal (that I put in from an OWC kit), it is a 7200rpm 1TB disc, on that I have my LR catalog, all my 1:1 previews and a deliberate LR cache size of 40GB. I make 1:1 previews deliberately, ie when I specify, and I have delete set to 'never', if I want to purge the previews I do it manually, I also Optimize my catalog regularly. My actual images are on a 3TB 7200rpm external HD attached via USB2 to the Mac Mini. 

My current working catalog has 70,000 images and even with this very modest computer it is fast, minimal delay between actions in the Develop module even working 2GB PSD files (when will LR take +2GB PSB files?), yes 2GB files that wasn't a typo, I have hundreds of 200-400 MB TIFF's too. in the Library module I can choose a folder at random and double click on an image and it never takes more than 1 second to view, once I am there selecting next/previous the view is instant.

Just like slide and film storage took some effort in the old days so does optimizing LR. Follow this guide, or any of the numerous other guides out there and you can get LR working much faster, I found the key was a decent sized cache file and location and taking control of Previews, when they are made, their size and how long they are stored etc.

https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/optimize-performance-lightroom.html


----------



## Zv (Dec 17, 2015)

My laptop is 5 years old and not even that great a spec but seems to handle Lightroom CC and PS just fine. 

Reading some of these spec lists I am really surprised you guys are having problems. 

I'm no expert in optimizing LR but if I can get smooth results by fiddling with the settings surely smarter people than me can get the most out of it. 

Also, not sure if it affects performance but LR does try and sync photos to mobile and do that face recognition thingy in the background but you can pause those actions. You can see the tasks it's performing up in the nameplate area (hidden).


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 17, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Consumer software products, such as Photoshop and Lightroom, are appliances just like a refrigerator.
> ...


That was my point: so is Adobe software. If they want to keep my business they will need to give me value, as I see it. (everyone is free to make their own choices about this)



> State of the Art Software? Not so much.


But I only need the "state of the art" as of 3 years ago, if that.



> Are you sure you don't want them "bothering" you? Like when you buy that brand new fancy camera and LR can't read your RAW files?


Then I can choose to buy (perpetual license) the new version of the software, or elect to buy the "adapter" (plug-in) that works for my new camera...or I can obtain the free tool from my camera manufacturer that converts my new raw files to a universal standard format.

Proprietary data formats and planned obsolescence do not transform a monopolistic business model into "state of the art" software.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 17, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > Jopa said:
> ...



I'm not sure, it's the one with the horrible Import dialog, so probably 6.1(.1)?  I know they get rid of the new dialog already for good, I just need to upgrade, but I didn't bother because again it's very slow. I don't have performance problems on my MacBook (13" / 5th gen i7 / 16GB RAM / 1TB SSD), and that's why I'm wondering why LR is so inefficient on Windows. Some people say that the server OS is much slower than a desktop OS, but that's just plain nonsense, any benchmark tool can prove it. I don't have a desktop OS anywhere, the only way I can try is to install it in a VM, but that won't be a "clean experience".

I'm still thinking to give it another try though: will move the LR catalog to the SSD drive, so if LR is such inefficient and "write-hungry" this may give it some boost, because the catalog is the only place it writes (in theory  ). As I've mentioned the RAID card has 1GB cache and it's always enabled for writes (backed up with CacheVault in case if power goes down), so I'm not sure if the move will give any boost, but still worth trying just for fun! 

One more thing is bothering me - the claimed video acceleration "benefits". On the macbook I have just Intel video card (6100?) that offers some basic acceleration, but LR works slower with the acceleration (I would say ~20% slower). On the Windows machine I have 2 relatively powerful nVidia GTX980 video cards in SLI, and if I enable the video acceleration it's like 2-3 times slower!!!!! And the video acceleration was the main point to upgrade from 5.7 to 6. What a joke Adobe!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 17, 2015)

Jopa said:


> I'm not sure, it's the one with the horrible Import dialog, so probably 6.1(.1)?  I know they get rid of the new dialog already for good, I just need to upgrade, but I didn't bother because again it's very slow. I don't have performance problems on my MacBook (13" / 5th gen i7 / 16GB RAM / 1TB SSD), and that's why I'm wondering why LR is so inefficient on Windows. Some people say that the server OS is much slower than a desktop OS, but that's just plain nonsense, any benchmark tool can prove it. I don't have a desktop OS anywhere, the only way I can try is to install it in a VM, but that won't be a "clean experience".


That's 6.2 -- it was horribly slow on my machine. Either revert to 6.1 or upgrade to the latest.

Good luck.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> 
> So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.



We are screwed (for now, we'll still see in a while though), because you caved.
I don't see a heck of a lot that is great in CC compared to my CS6 and I haven't already shelled out hundreds on a subscription.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 17, 2015)

Pookie said:


> A company shill happy that it's company made double the profits and it's investors are pleased... go figure. Says nothing about it's customers satisfaction with the forced model.



+1

I mean what regular users would cheer this on the forced subscription model. And note, if it is soooooo desired this way, then why do they have to force it on people? You normally don't have to force people into option A over B if everyone want A no? Not saying that some don't want A, but there are a lot who don't even among those who agreed to be forced to go with A rather than go with nothing.

Even if you like model A, what do you gain by forcing everyone else to also go with your model A unless you are some shill? What would it hurt you if people who wanted option B could go with B? I don't care a whit that option A exists, only that option B no longer does. Why do you care so much that everyone get denied option B just because you apparently like A?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 17, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I'm really baffled by people complaining about the Photoshop and Lightroom leasing structure. It costs me £7.15 per month as I'm VAT registered, so that's about $4.40.
> 
> I bought a monthly subscription app to Eurosport for the iPad and it's £4.00 per month - for nothing really, it's useless to me and I will probably cancel it.
> 
> When you look at the performance of PS and LR the price has to be a good deal surely ?



No. And don't forget some used other stuff like Premiere Pro and such and the new model has not great rental pricing if you need more. Also don't forget, you may shell out hundreds and hundreds and thousands even with your PS only subscription but some years from now if you stop for one month, boom, nothing to show for thousands spent. But if you like that fine, but not everyone does.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 17, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Jopa said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure, it's the one with the horrible Import dialog, so probably 6.1(.1)?  I know they get rid of the new dialog already for good, I just need to upgrade, but I didn't bother because again it's very slow. I don't have performance problems on my MacBook (13" / 5th gen i7 / 16GB RAM / 1TB SSD), and that's why I'm wondering why LR is so inefficient on Windows. Some people say that the server OS is much slower than a desktop OS, but that's just plain nonsense, any benchmark tool can prove it. I don't have a desktop OS anywhere, the only way I can try is to install it in a VM, but that won't be a "clean experience".
> ...



Will do tonight. Thank you!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> ...



I didn't _"cave"_, I made a rational business decision. I can deduct 100% of a $7.99 a month subscription fee whereas a perpetual license has to be amortized over three years, even if the bottom line figure is higher on a subscription model it actually costs me less over the three years, by which time another 'perpetual' version had come out.

Now that is me and my personal situation, I well understand many hobbyists and amateurs not seeing it like that, but again that strikes to the core of why these companies are in business and what they actually do. Adobe has always been primarily a business software company and that is their core market. But even if you are an amateur and object on principle, the idea of $7.99 or so per month to use the software can't be considered expensive, many people pay more than ten times that for their phone plan that has nothing to do with business, and cable TV is easily ten to twenty times the Adobe price! Do you own your mobile phone? The majority of people don't according to their contracts they just think they do.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 17, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I didn't _"cave"_, I made a rational business decision. I can deduct 100% of a $7.99 a month subscription fee whereas a perpetual license has to be amortized over three years, even if the bottom line figure is higher on a subscription model it actually costs me less over the three years, by which time another 'perpetual' version had come out.


Completely rational for you, a professional.



> Now that is me and my personal situation, I well understand many hobbyists and amateurs not seeing it like that,


That would be me.



> the idea of $7.99 or so per month to use the software can't be considered expensive


I can't speak for others, but there are two things at issue here: first, it's primarily not an expense thing, it's a control thing. I want to make a decision to buy a product, then have it work for as long as I choose. For example, let's say Canon leased cameras, and you had to pay a set amount every month whether or not you wanted/needed the new capabilities of the new camera. There are amateurs out there still shooting 20Ds. If the current version of a piece of software is what I need, why should I be bothered with feature upgrades I don't need? Second, I was able to make use of a discount to purchase CS6 suite at about $300. Assuming I only use Photoshop, at $10/month leasing, it's paid in 2.5 years. I've now owned that software for more than 3 years, and can continue to use it at no charge. No, not a lot of money, but it's money. Also, if had owned a previous version I could give that to a friend or relative, who would need to pay nothing, just as I can give my old camera bodies to friends or relatives. Also, amateurs can't deduct the cost. Cost is a factor, but it's really about control of my own gear.

For you pros I'm sure this is a good deal, and it would continue to be a good deal if we amateurs could continue to buy a perpetual license. I don't fault Adobe for offering a lease option, I fault them for discontinuing the perpetual license option.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 17, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't _"cave"_, I made a rational business decision. I can deduct 100% of a $7.99 a month subscription fee whereas a perpetual license has to be amortized over three years, even if the bottom line figure is higher on a subscription model it actually costs me less over the three years, by which time another 'perpetual' version had come out.
> ...



Not an option if it's the only thing offered and that is the point missed by the shills here...

I'm a working photographer, run two studios and write off these types expenses easily... It's the forced model that really gets me. Any company or individual crowing about how great this "option" is is delusional. Look at all the options you now have to choose from after years of use with their product... one. Follow happily as the sheep and the next turn is the slaughter house. When they raise the price because this works so well and the investors are so happy... these individuals will turn to their bank accounts and gladly hand over more cash. Why? ...because they have to. Then what will the validation be? Well it's just the price of monthly gym membership, just the cost of a camera body, just a couple thousand dollars a year? You won't have any say because you gave up sheepishly and said ok... CC is great sign me up because I love paying for the rest of my life. 

I own quite a bit of Adobe in my portfolio, so great... I win : but I also know that when my stand alone fails to operate. I'll be moving everything work related away from Adobe, it will be just that easy. I'm not concerned with the move. I suspect many people, pro and hobbyist alike are in the same boat... that shoe has yet to drop though.

BTW, how did the followers like the latest hiccups with CC? Must have been fun


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 17, 2015)

If you don't like the subscription model, just buy the Elements suite.
Cheap as chips and about 90% of the full version.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 18, 2015)

JMZawodny said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Think you missed the sarcasm there...

Very true though, one quarter or eight does not prove wisdom in business... Shkreli just went to jail today !!! Back in 99' I started a little company with 2 other people called Kalobios. A month ago I sold all my company shares when Shkreli bought up more than 51% of the company and drove the price from under a dollar to 45$/share. I cleaned up, all due to this dirtbag... his profits or mine don't validate Shkreli's business acumen or that his business model was seriously flawed, actually slimy. Just like Adobe, it just shows that they can capitalize in an open market.


----------



## jrista (Dec 18, 2015)

*Re: Wrong conclusion:Adobe doubles profits,*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > False conclusion.
> ...



Aye, it's much easier to pay monthly than to save up $800, $1200 or more for a full version upgrade every couple years. Plus, with the photographers package, it's only $10 a month. You could save that much by cutting out a cup and a half of Starbuck's Coffee each month! Or a single meal out! People complain too much about Adobe's business model. It actually panned out to be a huge bonus for photographers who only need two programs.


----------



## tytlyf (Dec 18, 2015)

When you cut costs and increase the price you should expect profits. A download link is essentially a minuscule cost compared to disc/packaging/shipping

And you get to charge people an infinite fee


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 18, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> If you don't like the subscription model, just buy the Elements suite.
> Cheap as chips and about 90% of the full version.



I may be wrong, but the last time I looked the Elements set was strictly 8-bit processing. Sort of a non-starter for me. Do they keep the Raw conversion up to date in the Elements SW? (I can't recall if PSE even did/does Raw).

Edit: PSE does do Raw and has limited 16-bit functionality. There also seems to be some add-ons like ElementsXXL which restore a lot of capability. It might be SW to consider.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 19, 2015)

Pookie said:


> I'm a working photographer, run two studios and write off these types expenses easily... It's the forced model that really gets me. Any company or individual crowing about how great this "option" is is delusional. Look at all the options you now have to choose from after years of use with their product... one. Follow happily as the sheep and the next turn is the slaughter house. When they raise the price because this works so well and the investors are so happy... these individuals will turn to their bank accounts and gladly hand over more cash. Why? ...because they have to.
> 
> 
> 
> I own quite a bit of Adobe in my portfolio, so great... I win : but I also know that when my stand alone fails to operate. I'll be moving everything work related away from Adobe, it will be just that easy.



Hmmm....there's a contradiction hiding between those two paragraphs somewhere that's nagging at me......


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 21, 2015)

What one can see from the discussion here is that customer needs and company desires do not always co-inside. And the subscription model clearly divides the lines of interest. 

I find it difficult to see why some people here are pushing back the customers who prefer choice and full control versus diving into the uncertainties of a subscription model. 

I am a subscriber myself. So far I've had more than my fair share of problems with the subscription including upgrade issues. Adobe has amongst others cut me off from using my subscription several times - once it lasted for days - even if it was every time quickly confirmed by Adobe that they indeed already had drawn the subscription from my credit card (I prepaid for 12 months). So they had my money - but I had no working software!

Not impressed. 

Fortunately I do not take pictures for a living. If I did I would not trust my business to a subscription model that still has a number of teething problems.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 21, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> What one can see from the discussion here is that customer needs and company desires do not always co-inside. And the subscription model clearly divides the lines of interest.
> 
> I find it difficult to see why some people here are pushing back the customers who prefer choice and full control versus diving into the uncertainties of a subscription model.
> 
> ...



I don't agree, Adobe's core market is business users, for business users the subscription model suits both the supplying company's and customers needs.

What it also does is rile up some vocal and often ill informed internet heroes who were never that important to Adobe they were never part of their core market and for whom the subscription model was not designed. Adobe is a business software supplier, almost universally (in my limited experience) business users prefer the subscription model.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 21, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > What one can see from the discussion here is that customer needs and company desires do not always co-inside. And the subscription model clearly divides the lines of interest.
> ...


exactly!

The "good" software is through the subscription model and companies are happy because they get more software and pay less.

The consumer stuff (Elements) is purchase once..... and the consumers are happy because it is less than subscription rates.

Lightroom, which kind of sits in the middle, can be bought as a purchase or can be part of a subscription. Upgrades are cheaper than subscription pricing, but the subscription pricing is lower than buying a new stand-alone lightroom... you can go either way and people should be happy.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 22, 2015)

Adobe software may well be relegated to "business only" status, if amateurs like me don't subscribe and switch to other suppliers. If Adobe wants to again restrict themselves to being a small niche supplier catering imaging and graphics design businesses, thats fine with me.

Given all the issues, troubles and havoc Adobe software causes on my PCs, i can well do without them. Bye bye Acrobat, bye bye stinking flash player, bye bye Lightroom updates gone wrong, bye bye Photoshop bloatware with 1970s user interface. I'll happily leave that to business heroes who are happy to pay monthly rent for it.

Adobe is not in as strong a position as they want (us) to believe. Capture One has become a very viable LR alternative. 

PS.: Adobe Elements is an utter piece of jpg junk, totally unsuited to anybody with a raw workflow.


----------



## zim (Dec 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> PS.: Adobe Elements is an utter piece of jpg junk, totally unsuited to anybody with a raw workflow.



Elements raw workflow is junk (but for a lot of armatures it may be good enough), there are plenty better (and as good if not better than adobe's A game) than can be used instead. The real issue with AE is that it's not 16bit. If they added that support this whole sub's thing would be a non issue, both A and B options would be available.


----------



## Otara (Dec 22, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Adobe software may well be relegated to "business only" status, if amateurs like me don't subscribe and switch to other suppliers. If Adobe wants to again restrict themselves to being a small niche supplier catering imaging and graphics design businesses, thats fine with me.



The large majority of 'amateur' users of photoshop were probably pirates before now, which is why this prediction of doom isnt likely to mean much to them. What the subscription model has done is bring them into the fold by making entry a low cost option.

As to why they arent offering stand alone, I dont know, the easiest is that they dont want to have to manage two versions on a long term basis and they chose one. Im not against them offering it, for me its just that it wasnt much use personally and that people keep trying to turn the preference for a standalone into some kind of moral case.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Dec 22, 2015)

I would have to agree that CC, as is 'software as a service (SAS)' in general makes perfect sense in a business environment where it provides flexibility on the number of licenses required/available and the support.

Also, from Adobe's point of view, it sure is a win-win situation as they can get rid of huge expenditures in production/printing/boxing//shipping/wharehousing/overstocking and all the accompanying logistics.

However, I would be quite inclined to believe that Adobe has also changed its business model in order to bank on the 'anonymized customer information' and 'user generated content'. I haven't been through their licenses for CC but based on their new license for the PDF suites, the move is evident.

No blame to them really, most 'digital world' business are extensively tapping on these resources and both physical and legal persons seem quite happy to sell themselves in exchange of lower prices or 'free' services or products. Looking at the license for Windows 10 clearly shows a similar move from Microsoft. Android (Google) goes a long way. Apple licenses appear somewhat less invasive, but barely. Not to mention social media...

To me, the dramatic price reduction on PS on CC just screams 'You are not the customer, but the product'. Being a private individual or a business does not protect you from switching from one category to the other.

I do not see the problem of CC and other digital services as a pricing one. Even the resemblance between SAS and planned obsolescence for the average consumer is not really the issue for me. The issue is that many people through laziness, ignorance, carelessness or habit just do not realize how exposed they actually become through such subscriptions. I don't have a problem with those that abide in full knowledge (although such knowledge is almost beyond reach given the opacity of user terms), but I am unsettled by the amount of people who just blindly consent.



privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > What one can see from the discussion here is that customer needs and company desires do not always co-inside. And the subscription model clearly divides the lines of interest.
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2015)

Otara said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Adobe software may well be relegated to "business only" status, if amateurs like me don't subscribe and switch to other suppliers. If Adobe wants to again restrict themselves to being a small niche supplier catering imaging and graphics design businesses, thats fine with me.
> ...



There are users that for security reasons must use "stand alone" versions of the software. I am sure that Adobe will still sell them the software, but it will cost $$$$$

As it is now, the subscription model is so much cheaper than stand-alone, one would need a very compelling reason to go that way...


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2015)

For those who want options:

https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/

Looks really freakin good. Couple friends have this now, they say it's awesome, and does some things either better than PS, or things PS can't do. Super cheap, no subscription, free updates. (Only Mac at the moment, but sounds like they are working on a Windows version.)


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2015)

jrista said:


> For those who want options:
> 
> https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/
> 
> Looks really freakin good. Couple friends have this now, they say it's awesome, and does some things either better than PS, or things PS can't do. Super cheap, no subscription, free updates. (Only Mac at the moment, but sounds like they are working on a Windows version.)



Aside from Mac only, it is "just an App", not a real deal "software solution" for raw shooters. Not sure it does 16-bit. As far as i see it, Affinity is competition for apple photos or adobe Elements at best. Not for LR, Capture One, Aüerture or Canon DPP. 

I would love to see a startup like Pixmantec doing a 2016 version of Raw Shooter. Loved it back then, until adobe bought the guys, took their superior product from the market and launched their inferior Lightroom 1.0. 
basicalky, what i am after is a top-notch Raw Converter + fully featured image editor with a really good and intuitive interface and without a nasty database underneath (hate it in iTunes, hate it in Lightroom). All non-destructive changes should be written into the header space of the raw file itself. No .xmpf files floating around.

In essence, i'd like a something similar to Canon DPP, a bit more powerful (eg for HDRs), and not from Canon but independent software company - so it will process raw files from any camera maker, including Sony. That way I'd be well prepared for my likely upcoming switch to Sony A7R III. 

Doesn't have to be free of charge - € 100 for purchase, € 70 for major upgrades would be fine with me. Just what i used to pay for Lightroom until Adobe f*cked up.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Dec 23, 2015)

The website does say full raw conversion and 16 bit per channel. Professional is however written often enough to raise doubts...

I am a Windows and linux user however so the Mac only support is a problem. IfbI owned a Mac, I'd be happy to try the software though.



AvTvM said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For those who want options:
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 23, 2015)

Has anyone tried Corel Paintshop Pro?


----------



## martti (Dec 23, 2015)

*Re: Adobe doubles profits, and I hate them more and more!*

Affinity Photo is getting better as we talk. For somebody living outside of the coverage of Adobe's CC, it is the only choice there is for a Mac. They have been in the business only for five years and they are really doing an impressive job. At forty bucks it is a bargain.

I really do not appreciate Adobe's marketing policies. My 'user experience' of their level of customer care is very negative as well. I am warmly welcoming any newcomer who makes an effort to break their hegemony.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 23, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Has anyone tried Corel Paintshop Pro?



That's a good question. I remember using that many many years ago. It would be interesting to learn how they have improved the software since then.


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For those who want options:
> ...




Affinity is DEFINITELY an order of magnitude above Photoshop Elements. That's almost an insult, given the quality of this "app"...which, BTW, is what Apple and companies that write Apple software call every program for any Apple OS, including Mac OS X, these days. 

Affinity does RAW processing. Affinity does 16-bit processing. It DOES process Sony RAW files, and those of just about every other RAW format:

https://affinity.serif.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4630-supported-develop-raw-cameras/

It has some extensive RAW editing capabilities, and overall the app in general has an extensive list of features:

https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/full-feature-list/

The program is updated pretty frequently, so A7r II support should be just around the corner (it supports all the other Sony cameras already). It does everything all in fluid real-time, which is something Adobe products just don't do (either no or poor GPU integration in the Adobe products). I'm sorry, but calling this an app no better than Adobe Elements speaks to total ignorance of what Affinity really is and what it is really capable of.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 23, 2015)

@jrista: thanks for the clarification and information. I'll try it if & when it becomes available for Windows.


----------



## martti (Dec 24, 2015)

Right on, jrista!

At my age, fanboying looks silly.
It just so seems that the guys who are doing the Affinity, they really know what they are doing.
One thing that really won me over was the normal adult well informed guy who is doing their tutorials.
Not a teenager with caffeine intoxication, not somebody with verbal diarrhea.

He was the guy who got my money.
He has intelligible names for things and he talks as if he actually knew what he is talking about.

For the time being, I have LR as the center and from there I go to alien Skin, Perfectly Clear and DXO...and also to Affinity as needed. I am not missing Photoshop any longer. Adobe has done a great job in alienating its customers who have stayed with them for two decades, a bit longer.

Let's make pictures, not arguments.


----------



## zim (Dec 24, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone tried Corel Paintshop Pro?
> ...



Yes and I had a discussion with them, their way of handling printing is quite frankly junk if you want to send a file to an external printers, strips the icc profile out of it. wouldn't go near it.

Regards


----------



## zim (Dec 24, 2015)

martti said:


> For the time being, I have LR as the center and from there I go to alien Skin, Perfectly Clear and DXO...and also to Affinity as needed. I am not missing Photoshop any longer. Adobe has done a great job in alienating its customers who have stayed with them for two decades, a bit longer.



+1 I use DXO for raw conversion and PE to finish off, really want to move to a full 16bit WF, Imagine what an upgrade swapping PE to Affinity would be! 

Please please Serif do a win version


----------



## cenkog (Dec 25, 2015)

My profits important, not yours Adobe !... I use "Affinity Photo" & "Affinity Designer" in my Macbook Pro computer & I'm really very satisfied & extremely happy...





privatebydesign said:


> http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
> 
> So all you people _'holding out'_ to _'force Adobe'_ to go back to a failed pricing model are screwed. The model worked, they have improved many features in the time I have had CC and the company looks stronger than ever, which is a good thing if you take your software seriously.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 25, 2015)

Affinity, which has been talked about here many times, isn't there yet for me, but it does have a few very nice features, I really like the ability to save 'History' with the image for a start.

One slight concern, it started out free, I got the 'Beta' which was a fully working program, it then went from $49.99 to $64.99 and is now back down to $39.99, which sounds like people are not taking it up in the numbers they need, programs like this, that need to work with new OS's and cameras and RAW file formats need constant updating and attention which costs a lot of time and money, heck the cash flow issue is what drove Adobe to the subscription model after all.


----------



## zim (Dec 25, 2015)

Anyone know if it works with colour passport?


----------

