# Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

Check this info out. Quite shocking what's in that new license agreement. 

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html


----------



## pete.koehn (May 10, 2013)

Man I'm glad I've got CS6! What a joke!


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 10, 2013)

I bet if you read the license agreement of most of the other software, you'll be very surprised to know it's not only Adobe who owns you.


----------



## DFM (May 10, 2013)

Most of the extracts quoted in that article are from the Adobe General Terms of Use (GTU), which have been in place for years and were last updated in 2012. The specific product EULAs for the CC versions of Adobe's products will be posted when they go on sale.

The GTU are tied to the creation of an AdobeID, which is a free email-address-linked account on Adobe's network. Although you need an AdobeID to use Creative Cloud and purchase subscriptions, it also gives access to a bunch of other things unrelated to your purchases (such as the profiles people can create on the Adobe forums, and 2GB of free cloud storage), so many people have an AdobeID without ever buying any software. The GTU therefore also cover the types of files you can post to Adobe's servers and the limits of acceptable behavior within the network. For example it's perfectly sensible to allow action to be taken against someone using the cloud storage service to distribute war3z, someone who creates an account on Behance with the username "DisneyStudios", or a user who stalks someone via the forums. You'll find the same routes to action in the EULAs for any online service, from Gmail to Office 365. The phrase 'may...' does not mean 'will...'

If there are specific things you'd like clarification on, please ask.


----------



## DianeK (May 10, 2013)

Thanks for posting this Ramon. Even before your post, I had decided I would have nothing to do with CC. I'm currently on LR4 and PS CS5. My intent is to get the PS CS6 perpetual license upgrade and call it done on PS unless they relent in the future and provide upgrades via perpetual licence. I will continue to upgrade LR via perpetual licence as long as they make it available and it meets my needs. If LR goes CC only in the future, I will move to Capture One. In fact if I hadn't invested so much time learning and becoming skilled at LR, I would move to Capture One now because I think it is a better raw converter. But I'll stick with what I am familiar with for now. As a hobbyist, I will not get roped into the Adobe CC world. I can see how it works for larger companies, but not for me. And since they have made it very clear they don't give a hoot about the consumer cohort I belong to - even more reason to shun their cloud.
Diane


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> I bet if you read the license agreement of most of the other software, you'll be very surprised to know it's not only Adobe who owns you.



Yeah, but 99% of the time, the software is on a disk and is virtually in-enforceable. Thus, gives the end user's the power but adobe CC reverses all that.


----------



## Tanja (May 10, 2013)

DFM said:


> Most of the extracts quoted in that article are from the Adobe General Terms of Use (GTU), which have been in place for years and were last updated in 2012. The specific product EULAs for the CC versions of Adobe's products will be posted when they go on sale.
> 
> The GTU are tied to the creation of an AdobeID, which is a free email-address-linked account on Adobe's network. Although you need an AdobeID to use Creative Cloud and purchase subscriptions, it also gives access to a bunch of other things unrelated to your purchases (such as the profiles people can create on the Adobe forums, and 2GB of free cloud storage), so many people have an AdobeID without ever buying any software. The GTU therefore also cover the types of files you can post to Adobe's servers and the limits of acceptable behavior within the network. For example it's perfectly sensible to allow action to be taken against someone using the cloud storage service to distribute war3z, someone who creates an account on Behance with the username "DisneyStudios", or a user who stalks someone via the forums. You'll find the same routes to action in the EULAs for any online service, from Gmail to Office 365. The phrase 'may...' does not mean 'will...'
> 
> If there are specific things you'd like clarification on, please ask.



oh is adobe now hiring people who do PR on blogs and forums?

i give you a good advice... when your not going to do it... then don´t write it in your EULA.

talk is cheap!! and i don´t believe a single word from a payed salesman.


----------



## distant.star (May 10, 2013)

.
What does "Adobe Community Professional" mean?

Are you employed by Adobe?



DFM said:


> Most of the extracts quoted in that article are from the Adobe General Terms of Use (GTU), which have been in place for years and were last updated in 2012. The specific product EULAs for the CC versions of Adobe's products will be posted when they go on sale.
> 
> The GTU are tied to the creation of an AdobeID, which is a free email-address-linked account on Adobe's network. Although you need an AdobeID to use Creative Cloud and purchase subscriptions, it also gives access to a bunch of other things unrelated to your purchases (such as the profiles people can create on the Adobe forums, and 2GB of free cloud storage), so many people have an AdobeID without ever buying any software. The GTU therefore also cover the types of files you can post to Adobe's servers and the limits of acceptable behavior within the network. For example it's perfectly sensible to allow action to be taken against someone using the cloud storage service to distribute war3z, someone who creates an account on Behance with the username "DisneyStudios", or a user who stalks someone via the forums. You'll find the same routes to action in the EULAs for any online service, from Gmail to Office 365. The phrase 'may...' does not mean 'will...'
> 
> If there are specific things you'd like clarification on, please ask.


----------



## Click (May 10, 2013)

DianeK said:


> If LR goes CC only in the future, I will move to Capture One.



I'll do exactly the same. If LR goes CC, goodbye Adobe.


----------



## jm977 (May 10, 2013)

Tanja said:


> DFM said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the extracts quoted in that article are from the Adobe General Terms of Use (GTU), which have been in place for years and were last updated in 2012. The specific product EULAs for the CC versions of Adobe's products will be posted when they go on sale.
> ...



I wouldn't be surprised at all to see everyone in favour of Adobe (working for or makes money from, such as those who make tutorials) running damage control by cruising forums. If for no other reason, they are probably looking to see what our general moods are lately. I would have thought by now they'd know our moods are many words, many of which we can't use on a public forum. Some that can be posted may be, betrayed, irritated, outraged, confused. Feel free to chip in. 
Anyway, it would seem this gentle man while cruising (or google searching "Adobe-I'm ticked") couldn't resist correcting the OP. In any case, it tells me they're worried. I can't figure out why though.


----------



## Forceflow (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:



> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > I bet if you read the license agreement of most of the other software, you'll be very surprised to know it's not only Adobe who owns you.
> ...



That, so much that! If Adobe decides it does not like you they can simply pull your license and then you are dead in the water. Right now I have CS6, and due to the great technology of virtualization I can use that one indefinitely. There is no longer the fear that the newest windows might not be supported, I can always run it in a virtual machine if needed. So if Adobe decide to change their EULA or enforce their EULA I don't care. I have my PS safe and there is no way that they can take it away from me. But with CC it's completely different, they can all enforce it and if they there is nothing I can do about it and all my work is gone. (And no, saving my stuff as tiff is not the way to go, I need the layers and effects, too!)


----------



## kbmelb (May 10, 2013)

This is a great opportunity for Apple to put out that Photoshop competitor they've been sitting on for years. Perfect timing for a highly polished new version of Aperture too.


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 10, 2013)

Forceflow said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ksagomonyants said:
> ...



Adobe and many other companies have to say this in their product agreement for legal purposes but it doesn't mean it'll do that. Can you think about the reason why Adobe may not like you, a customer who pays money buying their products, and terminate your account? It just doesn't make sense. You drive your car and police may give you a ticket if you fail to follow the rules. That's the same here, do you job, have fun editing your images for personal or commercial purposes and everybody would be happy. It reminds me of my neighbors who talk over Skype but are concerned that FBI would listen to their conversations. Come on! 

P.S. I hope I'm not too naive


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

^ its not uncommon for large corporations to beat the little guy. Look at Getty canceling many big time contributors at Istock for simply speaking against Getty. Adobe would have the same power and quite frankly, I don't trust enough to give that power to anyone but the end user.


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ^ its not uncommon for large corporations to beat the little guy. Look at Getty canceling many big time contributors at Istock for simply speaking against Getty. Adobe would have the same power and quite frankly, I don't trust enough to give that power to anyone but the end user.



Yeah, it makes sense what you're saying. As I've said before on another thread, more and more companies started switching to monthly-based license instead of perpetual one. I guess we have to be ready that the way we used to own the licenses may change dramatically within the next few years,


----------



## Forceflow (May 10, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Adobe and many other companies have to say this in their product agreement for legal purposes but it doesn't mean it'll do that. Can you think about the reason why Adobe may not like you, a customer who pays money buying their products, and terminate your account? It just doesn't make sense. You drive your car and police may give you a ticket if you fail to follow the rules. That's the same here, do you job, have fun editing your images for personal or commercial purposes and everybody would be happy. It reminds me of my neighbors who talk over Skype but are concerned that FBI would listen to their conversations. Come on!
> 
> P.S. I hope I'm not too naive



It happens all the time, not in big numbers of course, but it does happen. Things go wrong and the small guy wont be able to fight it. What happens if your account get's hacked and the hacker does something bad so your account get's blocked? Imagine this happens during a big job and all of a sudden you can't deliver to your client. You might get your account back eventually, but by the time the client might be gone already.


----------



## camlars (May 10, 2013)

Forceflow said:


> It happens all the time, not in big numbers of course, but it does happen. Things go wrong and the small guy wont be able to fight it. What happens if your account get's hacked and the hacker does something bad so your account get's blocked? Imagine this happens during a big job and all of a sudden you can't deliver to your client. You might get your account back eventually, but by the time the client might be gone already.



When you are using CC you are still working with locally installed software, working on local files. In a worst case scenario you would have to create a new CC account and spend $20 for a 1-month Photoshop subscription to be up and running in 5 minutes, or just take your files to a buddy who also uses Photoshop.


----------



## RMC33 (May 10, 2013)

Tanja said:


> DFM said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the extracts quoted in that article are from the Adobe General Terms of Use (GTU), which have been in place for years and were last updated in 2012. The specific product EULAs for the CC versions of Adobe's products will be posted when they go on sale.
> ...



EULA and user agreements go both ways. With the advent of social media and how pervasive it is most companies are hiring people to explain things that can get blown out of proportion by extracting a few key phrases or clips. The law firm i write patents for has a social media specialist and she is amazing!

Not even worried one bit about Adobe. The social media train goes both ways and I can almost guarantee if they screw someone like this article says they could it would go viral over night, potential hurting their business which is the last thing they want. 

In response to the hacker comment made by Forceflow which is an issue, easy solution, Give every CC member a token or app like google authenticator that has a number (6-8 digit) you have to enter at an interval you feel comfortable. Every time you turn you computer on, once a week, once a month etc. The amount of time it would take to hack or get around something like that would not be worth it to any hacker.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (May 10, 2013)

Hm. So my copy of CS6 will stay a looong time with me.

And sure this will make me look around for alternatives.


----------



## STEMI_RN (May 10, 2013)

Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

STEMI_RN said:


> Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?



Sure, If your willing to pay that for the rest of your life or never open your PSD's again.


----------



## Forceflow (May 10, 2013)

STEMI_RN said:


> Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?



Is it really $10? I thought it was only $10 if you already have PS and even then it'll only be for the first 12 months and then it'll be more along the lines of $20.


----------



## Ladislav (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> STEMI_RN said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?
> ...



Seriously, how often do you open "old PSD"? I considet PSD only as intermediate format. Input (RAW) and output (Tiff) matter.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

Ladislav said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > STEMI_RN said:
> ...



Quite often...


----------



## Ladislav (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



So you want to have Photoshop or other tool which is able to open PSD in your workflow anyway, don't you? You generally chose to be fully dependent on this format. Looks like Adobe owns you for a long time ...


----------



## RMC33 (May 10, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> STEMI_RN said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?
> ...



CC, $600/yr
LR/CS new $750-850 with upgrades running I think $80 for LR and $300ish for PS every cycle.

Either way your paying a "monthly fee". CC is the less painless method for me as it gives me access to more software that I have found use for in my workflow. I can't sing enough praise for how easy a wedding book is made in InDesign. Or having access to Illustrator or Acrobat pro (I LOVE acrobat pro for making custom forms).


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

Ladislav said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ladislav said:
> ...



Not really, I still have my CS3. PSD's have advantages no other format provides.

I'll feel no remorse when those CC prices become inflated for you and the many others doing so. Adobe will own your wallet for a long time....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 11, 2013)

STEMI_RN said:


> Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?


I think $10 is too much, but that is only a sucker price. It automatically doubles after the end of the year. I paid $199 about every 4 years for the hard copy, and only used Photoshop occasionally. Its people like me who will go away, because $240 a year (+tax) is too much.


----------



## Ladislav (May 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Ladislav said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Actually I don't own Photoshop and I haven't subscribed yet. I thought about it last year because the subscription was only affordable option for me but I then found out that I don't need full Photoshop. Lightroom + Photoshop Elements + Nik collection work just fine for me so far. If I need big Photoshop I will just rent it for necessary time, do what I need and probably never open those intermediate PSD files again. 

The only thing I dislike a lot about subscription model is different price outside of US.


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 11, 2013)

If anyone is interested, here's what Scott Kelby says about CC

http://scottkelby.com/2013/my-take-on-adobes-announcements-yesterday-at-the-max-conference/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Of course, it's to some extent a biased opinion but anyway...


----------



## Hill Benson (May 11, 2013)

Smell like a Monopoly effect to me. They are just as bad as Quark imo.
It's 2013 FFS, they should offer both options.


----------



## Meh (May 11, 2013)

Since it showed up in so many blog posts, news feeds, etc. I finally took a read at the article posted by diglloyd.  Regarding his first item "Stealing your name or trademark" his interpretation of the language in the Terms of Use is way off base. In no way does it say Adobe has the right to give a registered trademark of yours to someone else or use it for their own purposes. That would be illegal and Adobe's contract can not supercede the law.

It only says that you may be required to create a unique url which you can imagine would be for your personal web page at Adobe.com to display something. Let's say I come along and create my unique url and choose "TheRollingStones.adobe.com" or as someone else posted "DisneyStudios.adobe.com". Adobe needs a clause in their EULA to give them the right to disallow you to use that and subsequently allow the rightful owner of the trademarked name to use it.

Or maybe someone creates their url with profanity in it, or references to illegal images, or hate language, or "AdobeSucks.adobe.com". They wouldn't want any of those for obvious reasons and need the right to terminate your use of it.

If diglloyd comes along and properly used diglloyd.adobe.com they would not disallow him that as they would have no reason. But if I come along and register diglloyd.adobe.com he might be thankful they have that clause in there so he can stop my use of it.

It may seem one-sided in Adobe's favor but in reality it just gives them the authority to do the right thing in the case of abuses or improper use by users.

As for the other complaints in the article they too are stretches but not quite so off base. The issue with the service being down is a legitimate concern except that you are not working in the cloud. You would only have a problem if their system was down and you needed to download an application that wasn't already installed on your machine. But that is unlikely and ultimately they have to protect themselves because it's not inconceivable they will have an outage and without that clause (which is a form of an indemnity clause and those are in just about every licence agreement) they'd have thousands of frivolous lawsuits on their hands which would cost millions just defending them.

The entire article is an over reaction just has been most of the ranting and raving about CC. The complaint that it's more expensive is valid but it's not that much more expensive. The overall cost difference is on the order of $100-200 dollars per year for people who use just PS and upgrade every other release or less. Some of the reactions make it sound like this is going to cost thousands of dollars per year and make PS inaccessible to photographers.

The overreactions come down to the simple fact that some people just don't like change and get all baked at the mere thought that they are losing control and bad things might happen no matter how unlikely they may be. OMG, Adobe might steal my trademark and I just can't risk the possibility of that... seriously man, how do you leave the house... do you know what the likliehood of dying in a car crash is every time you drive? Much much higher than Adobe stealing your trademark!


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 11, 2013)

I hate cloud. This is not directed against Adobe specifically, it's against all cloud. I hate it for single user environments, I hate it for storage purposes. It brings no value at all for a hobby or semi pro photographer, only hassle and lower productivity.


----------



## Meh (May 11, 2013)

It just occurred to me... just like so many have complained about "renting" vs. "owning" software, the diglloyd article also complains about making an investment into software that is only rented and what if Adobe decides down the road to shut down CC... sucks to just rent software, pay month after month, year after year, and then poof no more access. Well... does anyone here subscribe to diglloyd... he charges fees but his website does not allow any downloads as pdf etc. and you have to be connected to the web to read his articles. Well what happens after months and years of subscribing he shuts it down and I can't access the information I paid for... well, guess I was just renting it and too bad for me right. What if his site goes down for a week, does he reimburse all his subscribers for the lost time they paid for... I should hope so if he's going to complain about Adobe for having the same effin rental model he himself uses!

Here's a link to his page with details of his information rental business...

http://diglloyd.com/catalog.html

And a quote... "*Yes, this publishing model is unusual. However, it has worked well for thousands of subscribers for eight years and is well-suited to the ongoing additions*"

So... his unusual model works well for some users and works well for ongoing additions. Hmmmm.... just like Creative Cloud.


----------



## dgatwood (May 11, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Adobe and many other companies have to say this in their product agreement for legal purposes but it doesn't mean it'll do that. Can you think about the reason why Adobe may not like you, a customer who pays money buying their products, and terminate your account?



Happens all the time. Company A buys company B and kills their products. If you bought that app, you're annoyed because there won't be any future updates, and you'll eventually have to move off of it. If you're renting it by the month, you're hiring contractors to help you move off of the app before it stops working (at most) 180 days later.




Meh said:


> It just occurred to me... just like so many have complained about "renting" vs. "owning" software, the diglloyd article also complains about making an investment into software that is only rented and what if Adobe decides down the road to shut down CC... sucks to just rent software, pay month after month, year after year, and then poof no more access. Well... does anyone here subscribe to diglloyd... he charges fees but his website does not allow any downloads as pdf etc. and you have to be connected to the web to read his articles. Well what happens after months and years of subscribing he shuts it down and I can't access the information I paid for... well, guess I was just renting it and too bad for me right. What if his site goes down for a week, does he reimburse all his subscribers for the lost time they paid for... I should hope so if he's going to complain about Adobe for having the same effin rental model he himself uses!



Not really the same thing. If a website goes down, you've lost access to articles. Yes, I'd expect them to extend your subscription if it is down for very long, but frankly, even if the site went away, the only thing you've actually lost is the last month's subscription fee, or the last year's fee if you were subscribing on an annual basis. It's peanuts.

With creative software, if you lose access to that software, unless someone else manages to create a bug-for-bug compatible Photoshop clone that can read your existing files perfectly, you stand to lose all the time and effort that you have invested in creating content with that software.

That's a much, much bigger deal. Comparing renting software to a magazine subscription is just not a valid comparison. Renting software is more like renting the land under your house. Yes, under certain circumstances, it might be the only option, but there's always that risk that tomorrow, you'll get a notice that you have to tear down your house.

Even if I were willing to rent software (and I'm not), I would consider the use of any new features in future versions of Photoshop to be playing with fire. If Adobe ever goes under, any files that use those features are going to become unreadable 180 days later. By everyone. Worldwide.

And honestly, that isn't as unlikely as it sounds. Given how badly Adobe has botched pretty much every aspect of Flash, PDF, Digital Editions, etc., I'm amazed Adobe is still in business today. Every year, I have less faith in their products than the year before. This is a company whose stock is basically priced the same as it was twelve years ago—you'd do about as well sticking your money in a sock under your mattress. That isn't a sign of a strong, growing company. It's a sign of a company with no real leadership, with no real drive to improve their products, and no real insight into how they can expand their market share.

And now, instead of actually improving their products, lowering cost, or any of the other things they could do to drive adoption, they're resorting to milking their existing customers for more money. Their logic is, "Those greedy people won't buy every update, so we'll do a subscription so that they have to pay for it all the time," ignoring the fact that people don't buy every update because they haven't actually improved the product significantly in any way that actually matters. (Ooh. It's grey now.) The problem is that most people's natural reaction to such tactics is, "Bye."

Now not everybody can move off of Photoshop right away, but lots of people are looking for alternatives now who were content to periodically upgrade before. And in the long term, that's going to really hurt Adobe. Because the main reason people buy Adobe products is the same reason that people buy Microsoft products—compatibility. They know that their files will "just work". When you start to see half the small studios running Pixelmator and Acorn and Gimp and Corel PaintShop Pro, the main rationale for spending that kind of money goes away, and more and more people begin to more carefully examine their continued use of Photoshop. It's like a tiny snowflake that snowballs into an avalanche.

Of course, Microsoft is encouraging people to rent their software, too. Historically, such rapid increases in pricing like we're seeing here are generally the last gasp of a monopoly player as they succumb to competition, gouging fewer and fewer customers for more and more money in order to stay afloat. In Microsoft's case, they're suddenly facing stiff competition from Google Docs and OpenOffice, and they're scared that they may soon lose the ability to milk that cash cow, so they're looking for any means that they can to prolong the decline of that revenue stream. I have little doubt that Adobe is doing the same thing with CC.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps all those small studios will be so enthralled with the new software that they'll be willing to spend $240 per year instead of buying a $300 upgrade every six years. I wouldn't bet money on it, though, which is just one of the many reasons I'm glad I do not hold any position in ADBE.


----------



## Meh (May 11, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Not really the same thing. If a website goes down, you've lost access to articles. Yes, I'd expect them to extend your subscription if it is down for very long, but frankly, even if the site went away, the only thing you've actually lost is the last month's subscription fee, or the last year's fee if you were subscribing on an annual basis. It's peanuts.



Of course it's the same thing... you're just arbitrarily choosing to place higher importance on one than the other as a differentiating factor. This whole argument about needing to go back and access working PSD files long into the future is also very arbitrary. Well, what if I've been paying for my diglloyd, been using some techniques to get some shots, then in the future I want to go back and use the technique again but need to refresh my memory but the web site is shut down or I let my subscription lapse. Same thing more or less.

Anyway, my point is only that you have a guy who is complaining about Adobe's new model when he uses a very similar (essentially the same) model for selling information... the traditional way people bought information was in a book that they now "owned" and regardless if the publisher went out of business or stop publishing the book the purchaser still had their book and the information in it. Is that not the argument that's being used against Adobe's CC model. Meanwhile, the guy complaining in his article has abandoned the traditional model of selling information in favor of a subscription model.

And like many before you in these threads, you're bringing up the "what if Adobe goes out of business"... yes it could happen but it's not likely and wouldn't be without warning since as a public company there would be many news announcements and we'd be able to see their earnings fall quarter after quarter. So please enough of the doomsday scenarios.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2013)

Just a note of how users are reacting, the petition is over 20,000 signatures. Let's say that they only bought Photoshop CS at one point @ 699$ and refuse to update.

https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model


That's around 14 Million less dollars for adobe, not including other apps, just Photoshop. I do hope adobe wakes up.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 21, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Just a note of how users are reacting, the petition is over 20,000 signatures. Let's say that they only bought Photoshop CS at one point @ 699$ and refuse to update.
> 
> https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model
> 
> ...



You do realise Adobe is a multinational corporation with a market capitalisation of around 22 billion US dollars and sales around 13 million A DAY? If every one of those objectors refused to ever give Adobe another cent their sales would see less than a 1/3 of 1% drop.

Not saying don't object, just putting it in perspective.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Just a note of how users are reacting, the petition is over 20,000 signatures. Let's say that they only bought Photoshop CS at one point @ 699$ and refuse to update.
> ...



20,000 Users petitioned, that doesn't mean they're isn't more like 100,000 or more. Even yet, add Dreamweaver, Fireworks, and Indesign and you've got hundreds of millions of dollars. Adobe won't go bankrupt over night but over time could lead to its waning as the market leader.

So yes, It's relative.


----------



## GodIsLove (May 21, 2013)

I owned CS5.5... I just upgraded to CS6 and do not plan on going to Creative Cloud. I want to own my own software... not be forever indebted to a company with rent. If my budget ever gets tight with my business, then I suddenly lose access to my only means to continue earning a living. Not a good business move for me. I expect we'll see some strong competitors showing very soon that will fill the void where Adobe dropped us.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 22, 2013)

Unfortunately, if anybody was going to offer a serious alternative to PS, they would have by now. And the Adobe development freight train isn't going to stop for anyone. I've downloaded the trials of the competitors' software and it all just seems cheap and amateurish in comparison.


CS6 will be ahead of the pack for a long long time. So buy with confidence.


Also, the added features that Adobe will add to PS CC might just be covered by third parties through plugins. 
In fact, the plugin developers might just be about to hit the jackpot.


We buy CS6 and they provide the updates. Works for me!


----------



## pdirestajr (May 22, 2013)

CC really only makes sense for professionals who use most of their creative suite tools. Between Lightroom and PSE, shouldn't the hobbyist market be covered? I really don't se why the whole internets went nuts over this. Nothing in this digital universe is really tangible or "owned" for any significant period of time. Shoot film or pick up a paintbrush! Art will go on.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 22, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> CC really only makes sense for professionals who use most of their creative suite tools. Between Lightroom and PSE, shouldn't the hobbyist market be covered? I really don't se why the whole internets went nuts over this. Nothing in this digital universe is really tangible or "owned" for any significant period of time. Shoot film or pick up a paintbrush! Art will go on.




A lot of us might not be pros (yet), but we still like to do the heavy retouching that only PS will allow us to do.


Lightroom is enough for most, but not all of us. I use it to get me into the ballpark before going into PS. The rest of the time it is just a photo organiser.


----------



## unfocused (May 22, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > CC really only makes sense for professionals who use most of their creative suite tools. Between Lightroom and PSE, shouldn't the hobbyist market be covered? I really don't se why the whole internets went nuts over this. Nothing in this digital universe is really tangible or "owned" for any significant period of time. Shoot film or pick up a paintbrush! Art will go on.
> ...



There are thousands of users out there who are not professionals, but who use more than one program. For decades Abode has marketed their products to both professionals and hobbyists/amateurs/part timers. It is that second base of users that Adobe is abandoning. Their one-size-fits-all pricing means a hobbyist (once the "promotional" pricing ends) has to cough up $600 a year. 

The Adobe apologists can talk until they are blue in the face, but the public knows when they are being ripped off.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 22, 2013)

Ironically, the best way to send a message to Adobe is to buy their product.


Buying CS6 rather than renting will show the model we prefer. And when it comes round to the time when people would normally be upgrading, then they'll notice that people are sticking with what they've got.


----------



## Meh (May 22, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Ironically, the best way to send a message to Adobe is to buy their product.
> 
> 
> Buying CS6 rather than renting will show the model we prefer. And when it comes round to the time when people would normally be upgrading, then they'll notice that people are sticking with what they've got.



That'll show 'em... give them that $200 and see how they like it... take that Adobe!


----------



## 7enderbender (May 22, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> Ironically, the best way to send a message to Adobe is to buy their product.
> 
> 
> Buying CS6 rather than renting will show the model we prefer. And when it comes round to the time when people would normally be upgrading, then they'll notice that people are sticking with what they've got.



Nah, not even. They'll notice that people like me bought CS5 and LR3 and nothing since. They blew LR4 and now their expecting me to spend a lot more money on something that I have no control over. I hate updates because there always is something that doesn't work like before. Once I have something that works for me I stick to it until something breaks. Bad bad consumer, I know.

And I have no issue with canceling something if it doesn't work any longer - like flickr after the latest "upgrade".

Maybe Yahoo or Adobe don't care because they have enough other people loving the new stuff. Good for them.


----------



## brett b (May 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> STEMI_RN said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one who thinks $10 a month is a pretty good price for PS?
> ...



Exactly. Plus, if you think the price will remain static for ever...think about cable companies always offering a great deal...good for 6 months...then...

Public corporations brainstorm in think tanks...scheming of ways to increase profits, reduce spending, dislodge every penny they can from their customers and create a scenario where the customer is completely dependent and therefore stuck paying whatever they dictate. 

They are daring people to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, there isn't one.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

> "They are daring people to find a better alternative. Unfortunately, there isn't one."



There are lots, it just depends on your honesty, inclination, and necessity.


----------



## zim (May 22, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> If anyone is interested, here's what Scott Kelby says about CC
> 
> http://scottkelby.com/2013/my-take-on-adobes-announcements-yesterday-at-the-max-conference/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
> 
> Of course, it's to some extent a biased opinion but anyway...




Interesting article but I found the comments on it even more so particularly this quote….

[Bryan O'Neil Hughes (Senior Product Manager for Photoshop)] _"Lightroom is for photographers. And the Lightroom team is very aware of the reaction by photographers to Photoshop CC. We don't have plans to make Lightroom a subscription-only option but we do envision added functionality for the CC version of Lightroom."_

Well that won’t upset anyone! Seems like the in-mates really have taken over the asylum.


----------



## RGF (May 23, 2013)

I would like to see adobe charge differently for those of us who have purchased PS CSx versus those who have not purchased the s/w.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!

There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)

oh except I wasn't gushing over how I love the new Adobe subscription model
please this level of sensorship is retarded cant he mod that removed my posts
please PM me with a reasonable reason why?

seriously is Adobe paying CR to crush the negative feedback or what?
:


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

here is Adobes new ambasador for CC


----------



## Click (May 23, 2013)

^^^ Ha ha ha ;D


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!...



Join the club. The moderation on this site is horrible...frequently crosses over into thought police territory.


----------



## Meh (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)
> 
> ...



Not sure what "second lot" you're referring to but the post you made last night deserved to be deleted and if I was the mod I would have banned you from the site.


----------



## RGF (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)
> 
> ...



I had a pair of posts deleted without feedback from the moderator. Though references to my posts were kept. I wish I had feedback on why they were deleted


----------



## RGF (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the second lot (there was no reference to fascists or nazis)
> 
> ...


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

Meh said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > WTF? my posts were deleted AGAIN!
> ...



Seriously? thats a bit extreme
I find fascists offensive too hence the reason i refered to Adobe as such


----------



## Meh (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



I found your post offensive. Your posts are often edgy and blunt but not offensive, they sometime make me chuckle just a little bit and that brightens my day. But your comment last night was out of place and unnecessarily associated Adobe with the behavior of a very extreme group.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

Meh said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Meh said:
> ...



I'm sorry for causing you upset and I agree the first post that had that reference probably crossed the line
As i said i find the extreme group offensive too and hence drawing the parallel as I do find Adobes actions seriously offensive. Perhaps I was a bit flipant with that usage.

However the replacement post had nothing even remotely along this line the most severe word i used in that was "dictatorial" which is a significant step down. I also mentioned that I felt the Adobe net minions roaming the web were treating their customers intelligence with disrespect. I am genuinely at a loss as to why the replacement post would be removed except that it's sensorship (or thought police as unfocused put it) which ironically enough is moving closer to the previously mentioned extreme groups tactics of simply removing any vocal opposition.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (May 23, 2013)

Don't worry Wickid, my post was deleted as well. 

Maybe, there is a mystery Adobe rep who is now an admin slowly convincing the mods to charge us $10/month to access C.R. online, otherwise our subscription will expire and we will be unable to access our old posts, or gain anything useful from the forum unless we re-subscribe.

Seriously though, I too am known to be a bit facetious at time, but this is a serious issue facing photographers, and forums like this help us discuss and even put our thoughts into words for the world to hear. I am not excusing the original post, nor was I even there to read it prior to being deleted, but I found no offence in Wickid's second posting.

-Tabor


----------



## Meh (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> I'm sorry for causing you upset and I agree the first post that had that reference probably crossed the line
> As i said i find the extreme group offensive too and hence drawing the parallel as I do find Adobes actions seriously offensive. Perhaps I was a bit flipant with that usage.
> 
> However the replacement post had nothing even remotely along this line the most severe word i used in that was "dictatorial" which is a significant step down. I also mentioned that I felt the Adobe net minions roaming the web were treating their customers intelligence with disrespect. I am genuinely at a loss as to why the replacement post would be removed except that it's sensorship (or thought police as unfocused put it) which ironically enough is moving closer to the previously mentioned extreme groups tactics of simply removing any vocal opposition.



All of yours and my posts in that exchange were deleted I presume because they were connected.

This is just me, but I don't like the name calling even if it's directed at a faceless corporation because it taints the whole discussion. If you don't like their new model just say so and say what you don't like. Why compare them, or anyone, to anything at all. The one thing I have little patience for on this site (and to be fair, the CR members are quite good compared to other forums) is personal attacks, insults, hate, bullying, etc.


----------



## Meh (May 23, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Seriously though, I too am known to be a bit facetious at time, but this is a serious issue facing photographers, and forums like this help us discuss and even put our thoughts into words for the world to hear.



It is, but let's have the discussion without any disrespect to anyone and not even towards Adobe. If you want to make your case to them it's best done respectfully and with an open mind.

Even something as simple as saying Adobe is insulting customer's intelligence is an insult to anyone who likes their new model... if I happen to like it then I must have limited intelligence. That may seem overly sensitive but it's not... if you want me to listen to and respect your opinions then shouldn't you do the same. If I and 500,000 other people are signed up and paying for CC then perhaps there is some value in it, unless we are all just stupid minions.

Some of you are furious about the pricing, the fact that you don't "own" the software (you never did anyway), the fact that it checks in once a month to confirm the license, etc. etc. and those are valid concerns. But let's say PS was only $5 per month... would all the other issues be acceptable or tolerable? If so, then this is just a pricing issue.

Someone said that 20,000 people have signed the petition... 20k is a big number but it's less than 5% of the people who have signed up (assuming Adobe is being honest about that number, which they probably are since it would be a disclosure item in the financial audit). Those 20,000 people are not wrong, they may genuinely not like the new model, but neither are the people who like the new model.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (May 23, 2013)

Meh said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously though, I too am known to be a bit facetious at time, but this is a serious issue facing photographers, and forums like this help us discuss and even put our thoughts into words for the world to hear.
> ...



Meh,

To my knowledge, I have yet to insult your intelligence, but I do see your point. We all need to go back to being friends. I can potentially see the value in the new model and yet it is no where close to being as valuable to me as I'm sure the Adobe crew has hoped. For my business, this simply is not my cup of tea. I am certainly glad that you and others have shown your support for their product as I believe it is easier to push against the new format than it is to defend it. I, for one, simply hope that we can all get what we desire whether it is a box, digital download, or subscription plan. If that were to happen, I think the rough seas would settle. I'm not holding my breath for that to occur, but we can certainly all have our dreams.

-Tabor


----------



## Meh (May 23, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Meh,
> 
> To my knowledge, I have yet to insult your intelligence, but I do see your point. We all need to go back to being friends. I can potentially see the value in the new model and yet it is no where close to being as valuable to me as I'm sure the Adobe crew has hoped. For my business, this simply is not my cup of tea. I am certainly glad that you and others have shown your support for their product as I believe it is easier to push against the new format than it is to defend it. I, for one, simply hope that we can all get what we desire whether it is a box, digital download, or subscription plan. If that were to happen, I think the rough seas would settle. I'm not holding my breath for that to occur, but we can certainly all have our dreams.
> 
> -Tabor



No worries, I was not referring to anything you said... it has been said by others in several different ways, some subtle and some direct, that Adobe must think customers' are stupid to think this subscription model is a good idea. I'm not quoting anyone directly.

I think you're right that Adobe will not back down and offer boxed versions. They've made a pretty substantial business decision and did so only after seeing the success of the subscription model over the past year. Yet they are going to keep selling CS6 for a while and that shows they were sensitive to the issue before they announced CCl. What they might do to appease the folks that don't like the CC model is support CS6 longer and they might reduce the pricing for single applications or offer a PS+LR package since that is the combo most photographers use.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

Meh said:


> Even something as simple as saying Adobe is insulting customer's intelligence is an insult to anyone who likes their new model... if I happen to like it then I must have limited intelligence. That may seem overly sensitive but it's not... if you want me to listen to and respect your opinions then shouldn't you do the same. If I and 500,000 other people are signed up and paying for CC then perhaps there is some value in it, unless we are all just stupid minions.



Ah Ok I thought i had clarified in a previously deleted post
I said Adobe is insulting it's customers intelligence I dont believe that this statement means that anyone that likes the new model is of substandard intelligence.
My intent was that they are insulting our intelligence by giving one option of one model and shoving it down our throats simply because they have a monopoly and are in a position to do so. The insult to customers intelligence in this action is if they believe people that dont like / agree with the new system will put up with it like good little sheep. (please note that I am by no way of this statement implying that you or any CC adopter is a sheep, merely that this is how adobe want us all to be and to follow along with what they want.)

If some people like the subscription model and are happy with it then thats great for them
However Adobe should offer the choice.

I personally prefer to look at an upgrade version and see if its worthwhile for me for example there is no way in hell I will ever run windows 8 on a computer I think windows 7 may possibly be the last microsoft OS i even bother with. I dont like metro and dont like the changes luckily microsoft dont have the market dominance they once had and apple provide a very competative competition these days
another example office 365? no chance i will bother with this there is nothing office 2011 cant do that i require so i'll keep using that as its a perpertual licence. This is sort of how I see CS6 too however the gotcha that Adobe have and use to really hold their customers by the proverbial balls is the camera raw support for new cameras, this is a sneaky enough method of ensuring people upgrade and I've never liked it but put up with it.

I prefer to be able to have a look at the next version and the extra features it offers and see if i will have any use for those or if the current platform i'm using will continue to be suficient.

Yes i find the pricing model of CC offensive, they are using the good ol bait and switch lower prices up front with a substantial increase once everyone is hooked on their crack they are pedaling to use another metaphore. but worse still once they have you hooked they are free to change the goal posts when, and however they please this is the insidious part of the whole CC environment.

part of the problem is the packages they offer are so full of bloat that I wont use, I really dont want to be paying monthly for all that I dont care if some package i dont use gets some wonderful extra feature yet I still have to pay for that as well as the 10 other programs i dont use. Perhaps a lower price for each component and the ability to totally customise your own CC package might be more appealing to me and most likely many others however point 1 still applies that you are at their mercy for whatever they want to do pricewise in the future. For example someone might want to use only photoshop, premier pro and Adobe Acrobat Pro and all the other stuff is fluff filling up my hard drive that i dont use and yet still have to pay for, this does not seem fair to the customer.

Having a copy of the software that you pay for, licence and use for whatever duration you wish for that up front cost does not carry this risk, sure there are some semantics regarding if you actually own the software or not due to licence terms and conditions however this is largely irrelevant in a practical sense

Even though Adobe say you can still buy CS6 they have completely removed the ability to purchase this from their website. The implementation of the CC like a Guillotine coming down on the customer is another problem I have with how Adobe went about this. Seriously do their marketing people really think this is going to make people happy? I really think their market dominance has led them to a level of Hubris that is going to alienate alot of customers. Market dominance has a habit of doing this to any big company, I'll again use microsoft as an example with their laughable initial licence implementation on windows 8 which they have since backpeddled on very fast. Or how about apples refusal to incorporate usb host technology into Ios products iphones, ipads etc when android have had this for some time now.

There is a point where a customer will accept being pushed around by a company to and the company continues to push but eventually there is a tipping point where the level of outright disprespect of the customer by the company goes too far and the customer eventually votes with their money and has good serious look at the competition It took me a solid 2 years to transition from windows to mac but I did it because i had enough of the microsfot gouging this is where Adobe are now.

Perhaps the Adobe net reps (I have previously refered to them as minions I still believe this is a valid term as they provide little constructive help other than trotting out the party line) perhaps they could take the negative feedback to Adobe who might look at fixing the model and at least go back to selling standalone purchases to those customers that prefer that model.

Lastly the issue of piracy, it is utterly laughable if Adobe think this model is even going to cause software pirates and hackers to even break stride, I am certain that hacked versions will be out in very little time.
so those that want to use pirate software will actually be inconvenienced the least. Its the users that want to do the right thing by Adobe and buy the software that are getting the roughest deal and the most disrespect from the company.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (May 23, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Even something as simple as saying Adobe is insulting customer's intelligence is an insult to anyone who likes their new model... if I happen to like it then I must have limited intelligence. That may seem overly sensitive but it's not... if you want me to listen to and respect your opinions then shouldn't you do the same. If I and 500,000 other people are signed up and paying for CC then perhaps there is some value in it, unless we are all just stupid minions.
> ...



New Adobe moderator takes this down in 3... 2... 1... :


----------



## wickidwombat (May 23, 2013)

they better not there is nothing insulting or offensive in that one
infact taking it down would validate the inital rant post that was taken down that got Meh all upset


----------



## zim (May 23, 2013)

FWIW - CS6

US
https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=20

UK
https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesuite6.html?start=20


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 7, 2013)

The "Eliminate the mandatory Creative Cloud subscription model petition" now has over 29,500 supporters

https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 7, 2013)

My 2cents...

I hated this idea at first for many of the reasons brought up here. But, I am kind of coming around in thinking about it. I may have to go and thoroughly read the terms of service. But - I am currently on CS5, I have not felt the push to upgrade to CS6 because the bulk of what I do is in Lightroom (I use PS for the fine tuning side of things that lightroom just can't do). So for a user like me, PS is just a fine editing plugin for lightroom - and yeah that's definitely not worth forking over the dough to upgrade unless there is some substantial new tool I feel I need to have.

So, for someone like me, this new CC may actually not be a bad thing. Unless there's something I am missing, I can now have the latest capabilites without having such a large up front price. As a wedding/portrait shooter in an area that has very defined seasons - meaning my need for PS would be from May-November - at $20 a month that would mean I'd be paying about $140 (maybe more if I need it in the winter). I have to check the fine print to see if there are penalties for letting your subscription lapse, or, some kind of silly startup fee. This may be a loophole that they find a way to fill by implementing penalties, but, it may be awesome for the occasional user because they can now have access to $600 software for $20 (as long as they don't mind just using it for a month. 

I do hope they don't go cloud with lightroom. We shall see what happens I guess. If enough people boycott CC, then it won't take adobe too long to change their tune...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> My 2cents...
> 
> I hated this idea at first for many of the reasons brought up here. But, I am kind of coming around in thinking about it. I may have to go and thoroughly read the terms of service. But - I am currently on CS5, I have not felt the push to upgrade to CS6 because the bulk of what I do is in Lightroom (I use PS for the fine tuning side of things that lightroom just can't do). So for a user like me, PS is just a fine editing plugin for lightroom - and yeah that's definitely not worth forking over the dough to upgrade unless there is some substantial new tool I feel I need to have.
> 
> ...



It looks like the month-to-month plan is $30 per application, so more like $210 for May to November. You could buy the annual plan and cancel, but there are cancellation charges after the first 30 days.

Also, if you don't have an older version of Photoshop already on your computer, you won't be able to access or edit your files during those down months.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 7, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > My 2cents...
> ...



As far as I understand - that's just for the PSD files...anything saved locally in TIFF or Jpeg is still accessible?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2013)

You are correct. I was thinking of being able to edit the PSD files.


----------



## tron (Jun 7, 2013)

unfocused said:


> You are correct. I was thinking of being able to edit the PSD files.


How about PSD files with compatibility enabled?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 7, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ^ its not uncommon for large corporations to beat the little guy. Look at Getty canceling many big time contributors at Istock for simply speaking against Getty. Adobe would have the same power and quite frankly, I don't trust enough to give that power to anyone but the end user.


+1


----------



## RGF (Jun 7, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ^ its not uncommon for large corporations to beat the little guy. Look at Getty canceling many big time contributors at Istock for simply speaking against Getty. Adobe would have the same power and quite frankly, I don't trust enough to give that power to anyone but the end user.
> ...



But in the end, competition and the market place will decide the winner. If Adobe abuses it consumer base too hard, we will walk when a viable alternative appears. The more abused consumers feel, the easier it will be for a competitor to entice them to jump. On the other hand, if Adobe is too generous then it will not have the funds to develop the next round of enhancements and competition will out innovate them and they will lose.

Though balancing act. IMO they should have given current CS6/LR4 the option of $15/month with a 5 year price lock for PS and LR in the cloud. Anyone with older version would need to upgrade to the latest version or pay extra.


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 8, 2013)

If someone steals your stuff (or you are worried about someone stealing your stuff), get a lawyer.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 17, 2013)

According to Photo Rumors Adobe is considering a new $9.99, 3 year pricing model for Photoshop Creative Cloud

http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 18, 2013)

bitm2007 said:


> According to Photo Rumors Adobe is considering a new $9.99, 3 year pricing model for Photoshop Creative Cloud
> 
> http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/



Muahaha! Drink the adobe kool aid and make all your new PSDs with CC and when the three years are over, none of them will be compatable with CS6 and now your really screwed. Lol. I'm not adopting at any price.


----------



## RMC33 (Jun 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > According to Photo Rumors Adobe is considering a new $9.99, 3 year pricing model for Photoshop Creative Cloud
> ...



Pref .TIFF with the cost of storage being so low. Can't do 32 bit HDR with .PSD anyway, so moot point for me.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 18, 2013)

As someone who was about to purchase Photoshop CS6 when CC was announced this would be a tempting offer. A full version of Photoshop for $359.54 (36 x $9.99), that's much less than I was prepared to pay last month. Would have preferred it to have been the latest version but at least I would get something tangible out of the subscription model.


----------



## Malte_P (Jun 18, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bitm2007 said:
> ...




why not? there is 32 bit PSD.


----------



## eml58 (Jun 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > According to Photo Rumors Adobe is considering a new $9.99, 3 year pricing model for Photoshop Creative Cloud
> ...



Still, $9.99 for a 3 year Contract, I might be swayed, I mean, they might give a discount on a 10 Year Deal, $19.99 ??


----------



## taperoo2k (Jun 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > I bet if you read the license agreement of most of the other software, you'll be very surprised to know it's not only Adobe who owns you.
> ...



You own the license key for the software, nothing more. All Creative Cloud does is make you pay a monthly subscription for that License key, instead of paying a one off fee for it. Adobe has always had more power than the end user. If you break the T&C's and EULA then Adobe can revoke the License key easily i.e. blacklist the license key on the authentication server side of things. Once Adobe starts to turn off the authentication servers for more recent versions of CS like they did for CS2 then you'll be in a right old pickle. If you can't use a license key, then having a copy of the software on disc is redundant. 

I really don't see what all the fuss is about, if anything Creative Cloud makes it clearer just how much power Adobe has always had over users. If you think Adobe's EULA's and T&C's are bad take a look at Apple and Microsoft ones for their respective Operating Systems.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 18, 2013)

Adobe has disabled the activation server for CS2 products, but they still provide a serial number so that customers who legitimately purchased the products can continue to use them. Hopefully this will continue to be the case with more recent versions of CS products.

http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/


----------



## taperoo2k (Jun 18, 2013)

bitm2007 said:


> Adobe has disabled the activation server for CS2 products, but they still provide a serial number so that customers who legitimately purchased the products can continue to use them. Hopefully this will continue to be the case with more recent versions of CS products.
> 
> http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/



That I know, but Adobe is not offering updates for CS2, so there will come a point when CS2 will not not work in future Operating Systems. Which means having to run it in a virtualized OS if you want to keep using CS2. Adobe probably hopes people will not want to do that and upgrade to more recent versions of it's software.


----------



## bitm2007 (Jun 18, 2013)

Adobe are not offering updates for CS3, 4, 5 or 5.5 either. So isn't that already the case with them as well ?.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 18, 2013)

eml58 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bitm2007 said:
> ...



It still come back that after three years, sure you have a copy of cs6 but none of the PSDs you've made using CC will work fully. Then they jack up the price at the end of those three years and now your hands are tied. Do I trust adobe to support CS6 with updates? Nope. They've never done it in the past with any releases. They simply released a new version of PS. 

Adobes like "yes, you can trust us but we need to put these shock therapy wires on your head. Trust us we won't put electricity thru them" *smile *wink *wink.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 18, 2013)

When have they ever stopped the psd format from working? For as long as I can remember there has been the Maximize Compatibility option.




This is Adobe, who champions dng as an archival file format.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It still come back that after three years, *sure you have a copy of cs6 but none of the PSDs you've made using CC will work fully.* Then they jack up the price at the end of those three years and now your hands are tied. Do I trust adobe to support CS6 with updates? Nope. They've never done it in the past with any releases. They simply released a new version of PS.


Yeah, now you are just creating conspiracies from thin air. My files from CS2 and CS3 still work in CS6, and seeing as Creative Cloud is based very much on CS6 w/ upgrades, your PSD files will still work. Or, you can save them as .tiff, .dng, or a variety of other formats that work perfectly fine in a dozen other programs.


----------



## Forceflow (Jun 18, 2013)

preppyak said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It still come back that after three years, *sure you have a copy of cs6 but none of the PSDs you've made using CC will work fully.* Then they jack up the price at the end of those three years and now your hands are tied. Do I trust adobe to support CS6 with updates? Nope. They've never done it in the past with any releases. They simply released a new version of PS.
> ...



You have it the wrong way around. It's not the question if your CS6 files are going to work in CC but if your CC files will work in CS6. (As this will be the last version you'll be able to use if you stop using CC) And that is going to be a big if. That is putting a lot of trust into Adobe and their shareholders. If they at some point decide to change the PSD format so it wont be compatible with non CC versions you'll be stuck dead in the water. Since the updates will pretty much roll out without you knowing about it they can all of a sudden switch off compatibility and by the time you realize what happened a big chuck of your work may already have been saved in the new format.

I am not again CC, but I am against having CC as the only option. Because this clearly points out that Adobe wants to pressure people into the CC model. They do not want to give people a choice. And a company who does that might just decide to up the pressure a bit more down the line. TIFF and DNG are all fine as long as you don't rely on the ability to change effects or layers later on. Personally I often use that ability with my images and loosing the actual PSD with all it's functions would mean I would have to start from scratch.


----------



## RMC33 (Jun 18, 2013)

Malte_P said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



There is, but this method of HDR is not supported using PSD, even in the 32 bit mode. I have never liked PSD, preferring TIFF for holding a bit more data and like I stated before, storage is dirt cheap.


----------

