# Adobe to Show Next Creative Cloud on June 18



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 28, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/adobe-to-announce-next-creative-cloud-on-june-18/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/adobe-to-announce-next-creative-cloud-on-june-18/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>“Everything new is new again”, or so says Adobe. If you’re a Creative Cloud person, you may want to mark June 18, 2014 on your calendar, as that’s the day Adobe will announce and show their latest and greatest suite of applications.</p>
<p>We’ll see new desktop and mobile apps, as well as some hardware. Adobe plans to stream the keynote and give us a peak at the hundreds of new features.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.creativepro.com/article/find-out-whats-coming-soon-to-adobe-creative-cloud" target="_blank">CP</a>] via [<a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/adobe-will-revealing-next-evolution-creative-cloud-june-18th-keynote/" target="_blank">PP</a>]</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://creativecloud.adobeevents.com/ccnext/" target="_blank">Visit Adobe</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## m (May 28, 2014)

So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.


----------



## expatinasia (May 28, 2014)

m said:


> So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.



I am sure they could, but even the biggest companies need a little drama, anticipation, PR and marketing!!


----------



## IWLP (May 28, 2014)

m said:


> So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.



Oh, sure they can do that, but it's a little more difficult to get people to pay attention to you that way. 

Especially when most of your attention-getting communication is something like, "Hey, uh, we had someone hack our servers and your account may have been compromised. If you could change your password, that would probably be a good idea," or, "We would like to apologize that our servers are down ..."


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2014)

I must be the only photographer who relly doesn't care much for Adobe's newest releases. Their recent products have fallen foul of bloat ware and I really don't expect any new headline features to grab me. 
I'm a use of Lightroom, but their latest release doesn't work on Windows Vista....which is still supported by Microsoft. So why should I have to upgrade my OS just for an Adobe product? 
I have various machines, Vista 64x, Win 7 64x and Win 8 64x...but the newest Adobe LR installer won't run on my Vista box....sigh....I'm bored of this....


----------



## Joe M (May 28, 2014)

I too don't really care for any new CC announcements. I'm the sort that sticks to what I know until I'm forced to change. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I value solid performance over flashy good looks. Spending time figuring out what went where with programs that get updated and refreshed all the time just sucks time out of my day. So when I actually commit, for example, to fire up PS CS6 finally, I stick with it until I have to change. Reasons to do so include dramatically improved ACR and/or unsupported cameras or worse still, unsupported O/S. Not to rehash the old CC vs. everyone else, but when the time comes next, I'll likely go the DXO route and keep CS6 for layer work.


----------



## COBRASoft (May 28, 2014)

I'm a happy owner of DxO Optics Pro and haven't used PhotoShop since (except for some occasional plugins and effects).


----------



## Harry Muff (May 28, 2014)

I wonder what video and 3D stuff they are going to add to PHOTOshop this time...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I must be the only photographer who relly doesn't care much for Adobe's newest releases. Their recent products have fallen foul of bloat ware and I really don't expect any new headline features to grab me.
> ...



Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.
Vista was Win NT 6.0, Win 7 is Win NT 6.1 and Win 8 is Win NT 6.2
There hasn't been a new OS since Vista, all the new ones are shell cometics and a few functional updates. Plus marketing and branding. If microsoft wanted to, they could easily have released a service pack to update Vista to either or the new Operating Systems. There is more commonality between them then there are differences.


----------



## 2n10 (May 28, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Given the performance gains over Vista they are worthy updates.


----------



## Zv (May 28, 2014)

I almost signed up for CC until I saw what happened to Pye @ SLR Lounge. 

Nope. Sorry Adobe, that's unacceptable.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 28, 2014)

I've been using Adobe cc for photographers for a while now. Its $10 a month and is great.

There has been speculation that the new version of Lightroom will arrive in June. Lots of people are wondering if it will be a cc version only. I doubted it, but that might be the case.


----------



## distant.star (May 28, 2014)

.
"Everything new is new again" sounds to me like, "Same shit, different day."


----------



## unfocused (May 28, 2014)

m said:


> So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.



My thoughts exactly. CC customers were promised updates as soon as they became available. I guess maybe they are only available once a year.


----------



## LDS (May 28, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.



Don't be deceived by Windows version numbers. Because they're not used in marketing materials, they are used in a more "technical" way. Usually they are bumped when there is some big changes in the underlying kernel. That's why Windows XP and 2003 were still version 5 like Windows 2000, although they were big improvements as well. There are also big improvements in 7 and 8.x over Vista, especially perfromance-wise.
But one reason Vista gets very little support nowadays is it is very little used, its market percentage is in the single digit range. Thereby developers prefer to target 7 and later, and take advantage of some new good features not available before. Even MS Office 2013 requires 7 or better, despite being Vista still supported, but I guess not for too long. Expect most new software drop Vista support soon, especially now XP has reached is end-of-life - what was written to run on XP would have run on Vista also. Especially for graphic intensive applications (but not only), 7 and later are far better than Vista.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 28, 2014)

LDS said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.
> ...



Yea, Vista had a ton of underlying framework changes which were part of the reason why it was pretty Meh. But, it did set the groundwork for Win7, which is what they should have released, except they were on a deadline. Although I bet Win7 launch would have been pretty rough if Vista hadn't had all the hardware/software guys time to shift, at least in part, over to the new frameworks. 

Win7 made fixes & improvements on the core services, as well as fixed the UI. Win8/8.1 has added additional core services functionality & tweaks over Win7, as well as a massive UI overhaul. So even so, Vista kernel + core services are quite a bit different than Win8/8.1 kernel + core services, even if the official 'NT version' is the same. They are definitely different products. Vista just set the stage for the newer versions. Kinda like how Win2000 set the stage for WinXP in a huge number of ways.


----------



## captainkanji (May 28, 2014)

I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.


----------



## Click (May 28, 2014)

captainkanji said:


> I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.



+1


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

Wait what???? I thought the whole thing about their 'magical' 'cloud' is that it was supposed to have constant and continuous updates and also that is why they couldn't continue with the old version and now they make it sound like well CC1 was CS7 and now we have a new major update CS8 ooppps I mean the magical CC2.

The whole thing is a rip and a sham. It's nothing to do with distributed computing, it's just an obnoxious rental model that does less than nothing (literally so) for their customers.


----------



## LarryC (May 28, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've been using Adobe cc for photographers for a while now. Its $10 a month and is great.



+1. As long as it stays at ~$10/mo, I'll remain very glad I made the move to CC.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

m said:


> So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.



haha looks like you and everyone else already beat me to my comment!

what a sham!

remember when they scared everyone into upgrading to CS6 otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to upgrade to CS7 (even though they knew they were renaming CS7 the CC and turning it rental only)? sham sham sham


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



They did change the driver model for 7+ though and DirectX models (although in the latter case it was a bit of a sham to be honest, since they more locked it out of the older systems than actually truly made it different).

Too bad stuff like AmigaOS and BeOS are not what we have today instead of Windows and Apple (and linux).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 28, 2014)

captainkanji said:


> I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.



+1


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 28, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.
> ...



Well...in legal terms you own a perpetual license to use the software. Not the software itself. But I agree with the sentiment expressed.


----------



## sparda79 (May 29, 2014)

LarryC said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using Adobe cc for photographers for a while now. Its $10 a month and is great.
> ...



+2


----------



## eml58 (May 29, 2014)

LarryC said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've been using Adobe cc for photographers for a while now. Its $10 a month and is great.
> ...



Nothing quite like Adobe to bring out the angst in People, but I agree with the above sentiment.

I'm one of those that was reluctant to go to the CC system from CS6 & LR4, but I was eventually swayed by the offer of CC for Photographers, you get Photoshop & LR, for around $10/month, $120/year for updates & future upgrades doesn't seem too bad a deal in my view, but it's subjective, of course.

I've been using the CC system since inception, receive all new updates, seems to have been at least one update/month, system works fine, no complaints & to date, painless.

Any new Upgrades (as against updates) will be an automatic upgrade if your already on CC & paying your monthly payment, again, seems reasonable, while it's at $10/month, but I expect at some point the subscription will increase, inevitable really.

I would prefer the old system as with CS6 & LR4, but times change, most software systems eventually will go to the subscription system, a lot already have done so, if at some Point Adobe begin to price increase regards the monthly subscription, that will be the catalyse to review the cost of the system & decide on continuing or shutting it off, you in fact loose nothing, your files will still open in other software, just not in Layers as in Photoshop, I save in TIFF so although at first I felt it would be a big deal going to CC, it's proved not so big after all.

The Software is what it is, you either like to use it, or find something that does what you need at the price point you prefer, the only thing out there that comes close from what I've experienced, is On One's Perfect Photo Suite 8, excellent piece of software that's getting better & better, and no subscription, next iteration it may be a Photoshop alternative in full, but it's not quite there yet.


----------



## Tugela (May 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Wait what???? I thought the whole thing about their 'magical' 'cloud' is that it was supposed to have constant and continuous updates and also that is why they couldn't continue with the old version and now they make it sound like well CC1 was CS7 and now we have a new major update CS8 ooppps I mean the magical CC2.
> 
> The whole thing is a rip and a sham. It's nothing to do with distributed computing, it's just an obnoxious rental model that does less than nothing (literally so) for their customers.



Because the applications are integrated. Smaller changes that affect only one program can be made at any time (and are - there have been plenty of updates, it is only in the last few months they have fallen off, obviously because the platform update is coming), while platform updates that affect many programs will be done at the same time. You can't introduce changes to one program that call on or share features in another program that don't exist yet for example.


----------



## pwp (May 29, 2014)

Sheesh! I know Adobe bashing is fashionable, but the vitriol here is kind of strong.

Just about every photographer on the planet has built their experience with Adobe software there as a central tool and constant creative companion. I love what CC and its predecessors have enabled me to do and have no trouble at all with the current business model. Businesses including my own have the right and even a responsibility to keep looking at their business model and not simply adjust with the times, but to show leadership and innovation. Especially if it's a public company. 

If people don't want to pay for CC there are low-cost alternatives that are OK but possibly inferior, or perhaps simply unfamiliar, or there's the murky illegal pathway. This may be good for the wallet, but not good for the creative soul that is more likely to thrive in honest, clear air. 

I'm looking forward to CC 2.

-pw


----------



## climber (May 29, 2014)

Do you think, if something like CC 2 will come out, will currently CC subscribers be able to upgrade it? I mean with no additional costs.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 29, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.
> ...


+2


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2014)

Tugela said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Wait what???? I thought the whole thing about their 'magical' 'cloud' is that it was supposed to have constant and continuous updates and also that is why they couldn't continue with the old version and now they make it sound like well CC1 was CS7 and now we have a new major update CS8 ooppps I mean the magical CC2...
> ...



Not true. Yes, there have been updates over the past year, but mostly of the bug fix and tweak variety. I can't think of a single major feature that's been added since I started subscribing. And, yes, that pretty much violates the contract they had with their customers that major improvements would be made immediately available to their subscribers just as soon as they developed them without having to wait for version releases.

The programs are no more integrated than they ever were. Each is a standalone program and in fact one of the features of CC is that you can just download the programs you want. You don't have to download the whole suite and tie up your resources with programs you don't want or need (Flash for example).

I'm not an Adobe hater and I'm not a cloud paranoid. I subscribe to CC because it's a good deal and the price I pay is small in comparison to other photographic equipment. Heck I just ordered a filter and a memory card that cost almost as much as a year's subscription. 

Still, let's be honest about this. Adobe made certain commitments when they launched CC and now they've decided that their marketing strategy should trump that agreement. I'm not particularly upset, but I see no reason to defend them.


----------



## Snafoo (May 29, 2014)

I'm a CC user (PS and Lightroom) and I'm very happy with the arrangement. Not everyone is a hater...


----------



## wtlloyd (May 29, 2014)

Unfocused said:


> Not true. Yes, there have been updates over the past year, but mostly of the bug fix and tweak variety. I can't think of a single major feature that's been added since I started subscribing. And, yes, that pretty much violates the contract they had with their customers that major improvements would be made immediately available to their subscribers just as soon as they developed them without having to wait for version releases.




Perspective Warp is a pretty major feature, as is linked Smart Objects and 3D Printing support. All in a Jan 2014 release. 
Go back through the rev. history, and you will see that Adobe has done what they said they would. All additions aren't expected to be essential for all photographers, but they do show a continous flow of new features


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Not true. Yes, there have been updates over the past year, but mostly of the bug fix and tweak variety. I can't think of a single major feature that's been added since I started subscribing. And, yes, that pretty much violates the contract they had with their customers that major improvements would be made immediately available to their subscribers just as soon as they developed them without having to wait for version releases.
> ...



Okay, I'll concede that. I'll admit that I haven't much interest in any of these features so I didn't really focus on them. I use Smart Objects, but mostly to go in and out of RAW to tweak adjustments on different layers. 

Still though, the main point is that we were supposed to dispense with version upgrades. Understand, I'm not worked up about it. Just kind of amused. The real kicker for me will be to see what sort of price they offer to subscribers to lure renewals.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 29, 2014)

> I'm a CC user (PS and Lightroom) and I'm very happy with the arrangement. Not everyone is a hater...



But will you still be happy if/when the price increased after your initial 12 months of subscription ?. Given that the regular price for just Photoshop CC is still $19.99 per month, it's unlikely that Adobe will be content at maintaining the Photoshop Photography Progam at $9.99 per month for long.


----------



## emag (May 29, 2014)

Snafoo said:


> I'm a CC user (PS and Lightroom) and I'm very happy with the arrangement. Not everyone is a hater...



Yup. I can't complain either. I still have CS2 and the even older PS6 and PS7. It was the price that kept me from upgrading, with CC that's not an issue......even if it does eventually go to 20/month.


----------



## Sabaki (May 29, 2014)

I've got zero complaints about the Cloud. 

If this was three years back and a retailer offered CS6 for $9.99 monthly payments, most would've jumped for it. 

So no, you don't get the packaging or discs but the latest version of PS is never more than an update away. Also, for those who are early adopters of lenses or bodies...


----------



## bitm2007 (May 29, 2014)

> If this was three years back and a retailer offered CS6 for $9.99 monthly payments, most would've jumped for it.



$9.99 is a great price, but what if the same retailer offered CS6 at $9.99 per month for the first 12 months then $19.99 a month or higher indefinitely to have the most recent version of Photoshop or $25 a month (after the initial 12 months) for what's now known as the Photoshop Photography Program ?.


----------



## Sabaki (May 29, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > If this was three years back and a retailer offered CS6 for $9.99 monthly payments, most would've jumped for it.
> 
> 
> 
> $9.99 is a great price, but what if the same retailer offered CS6 at $9.99 per month for the first 12 months then $19.99 a month or higher indefinitely to have the most recent version of Photoshop or $25 a month (after the initial 12 months) for what's now known as the Photoshop Photography Program ?.



Fair question but the $19.99 price point is based more on skepticism than anything Adobe has advised of. 
Further, for my $9.99, Adobe has also thrown in LightRoom, Bridge and various other programs for that price. 

The only reason why I'm somewhat aware and concerned of a price increase is because the amount of commentary from user/non subscriber who firmly insist that this is Adobe's way of duping the public.


----------



## Sabaki (May 29, 2014)

Just wondering if there is somebody here with an economics background that could play devil's advocate and go bat for Adobe?

Just how is their profit margin affected by the Cloud subscription? What kind of money is saved by not producing packaging and use of a disc?

How is this different from the way publishers charge a dollar for iPhone games or content for Facebook games?

Will the review point be all about the number of subscribers?

Just interested.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 29, 2014)

> Fair question but the $19.99 price point is based more on skepticism than anything Adobe has advised of.
> Further, for my $9.99, Adobe has also thrown in LightRoom, Bridge and various other programs for that price.



$19.99 was the regular price for Photoshop CC prior to the introduction of the Photoshop Photography Program $9.99 offer. Adobe is still listing the price for Photoshop CC as from $19.99 on their website, although when you click on the link it now redirects you to the $9.99 offer (see link below)



> http://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular.html



The $24.99 for Photoshop Photography Program (Photoshop CC, Lightroom, 20GB Cloud Storage, Behance Prosite) is a guestimate based on the fact that logically the bundle would need to be priced higher than Photoshop CC.


----------



## LDS (May 29, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Because the applications are integrated. Smaller changes that affect only one program can be made at any time
> ...


Probably the reason is that software - even a single application - is usually built as a series of layer with a "core", and then external ones. Whenever you touch the core, or an internal layer, all external ones may be affected and may need changes, and surely needs a lot of tests to ensure everything works as before (or better).
That means it's very difficult to release those changes "incrementally", especially if they break some "interfaces" among modules and thereby needs to apply all needed changes everywhere.
While is much simpler to work at the "external" layer level, where there are no dependencies. Thereby expect some features to be released as soon as available, while deeper, bigger changes will be released in longer cycles, and as a whole.
The subscription model is designed to ensure a steady stream of cash to the product maker, not to ensure a steady stream of new features to the user.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 29, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > If this was three years back and a retailer offered CS6 for $9.99 monthly payments, most would've jumped for it.
> 
> 
> 
> $9.99 is a great price, but what if the same retailer offered CS6 at $9.99 per month for the first 12 months then $19.99 a month or higher indefinitely to have the most recent version of Photoshop or $25 a month (after the initial 12 months) for what's now known as the Photoshop Photography Program ?.


 
What if they dropped the price to $4.95 a month?

You can play what-IF all day, but it means nothing. Prices will go up, that's a given, wages increase, and all of the related expenses increase, so given a pretty constant number of customers with slight growth, prices will edge up.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 29, 2014)

> What if they dropped the price to $4.95 a month?
> 
> You can play what-IF all day, but it means nothing. Prices will go up, that's a given, wages increase, and all of the related expenses increase, so given a pretty constant number of customers with slight growth, prices will edge up.



Time will tell


----------



## Marsu42 (May 29, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What if they dropped the price to $4.95 a month?



In that case, many people would grow even more suspicious - why would a near-monopoly software enterprise nearly give away their software for free. Surely, there's bound to be a catch, and it can't be good :-}


----------



## unfocused (May 29, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > What if they dropped the price to $4.95 a month?
> ...



Although Google pretty much did that with NIK. Still haven't figured out why. But, I bought it anyway.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 29, 2014)

> You can play what-IF all day, but it means nothing. Prices will go up, that's a given, wages increase, and all of the related expenses increase, so given a pretty constant number of customers with slight growth, prices will edge up.


[/quote]

If I was confident that the price of the $9.99 Photoshop Photography Program was only going to edge up over time I would sign up today. It's the fact that Adobe has previous charged $19.99 for just Photoshop CC and are still listing it was such on their website that I find off putting. 

It would take a major (must have) version upgrade or a longer locked in price (3 years +) to persuade me to subscribe


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Just wondering if there is somebody here with an economics background that could play devil's advocate and go bat for Adobe?
> 
> Just how is their profit margin affected by the Cloud subscription? What kind of money is saved by not producing packaging and use of a disc?
> 
> ...



They think it will be good since they will lock in a steady, dependable stream of revenue instead of having to deal with an uncertain feast and famine non-rental mode. Of course a steady stream, it it is just a trickle, can turn out to be worse in the end (so far the numbers appear to be worse).

They don't need CC rental model to do away with packaging, already many people got earlier versions without any packaging.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Just wondering if there is somebody here with an economics background that could play devil's advocate and go bat for Adobe?
> 
> Just how is their profit margin affected by the Cloud subscription? What kind of money is saved by not producing packaging and use of a disc?
> 
> ...



I will.

What most of us photographers, one man bands, and casual amateur users fail to grasp is that the vast majority of Adobe users are businesses, I have seen figures of over 90% of revenue actually comes from businesses, we are just a very small but vocal minority of Adobe users. It is a pro piece of software that is marketed at imaging and graphics professionals, along with video, websites and publishing to greater and lesser extents, the fact that it is such a flexible photographic editing tool is almost incidental.

Businesses get a 100% tax deduction on leases, purchases have to get depreciated over several years, from a business perspective leasing is a vastly better cash flow option. The core purchasers of Adobe products are happy with the leasing model, it is a good thing for them. A $50 cheque each month with a full deduction, or find $2,000 ish lump sum every two or so years and then have to hold that expense on your books for years.

Also us small but vocal users were not really very good revenue providers. We tended to buy one version of PS and then run it until our cameras weren't supported or there was a must have feature several versions later. How many times did you skip versions of PS? Most of us just got every other one, if that, think about the cash flow implications for Adobe with that model. 

Now there are several really good articles out there about Adobes revenue stream plans, basically they expect to lose money, or rather not take in as much money, for over three years, they don't expect to be creating more revenue under the subscription model for five years. They have run the numbers, the numbers, despite our (small users) opinions is good, subscription levels are good enough to encourage investors and the share price is up. Adobe, despite the PR issues to "us", is doing well because for their core market and main revenue providers, the subscription model is much more efficient.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ADBE+Interactive#symbol=ADBE;range=2y


----------



## eml58 (May 30, 2014)

I think Private pretty well has it & well presented, it's a Business Model, aimed at a Target Audience, Businesses, Amatuer Photographers are incidental.

It's about Cash Flow, any smartly operated Business wants to lock in cash-flow forecasts as far out as possible, the subscription model allows that to happen.

Give it another 5 Years there is likely not going to be any software provider that doesn't lock in Business that doesn't include a subscription model.

i remember reading somewhere Adobe the business, made 1 Billion in 2012 in profits, they can afford to take some Pain while People get used to the future, companies like this look long term, not the next 12 months, the next 10 to 20 years.

Reading this thread reminds me of my Brother in Law, hates the Kindle, why ?? well he likes a Book to have a "tactile" feel, my argument (when I can be bothered) is the Book is about the information contained, surely, he disagrees, I argue with my Kindle I can carry 500 Books, he argues you can only read one at a time, I argue I'm saving trees, he doesn't give a S___ about Trees, and so it goes.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2014)

Private and eml58 are not incorrect, but there are some factors that also need to be understood.

Adobe software may be run by huge corporations, but they also have a massive base of small business and free-lance users that they rely heavily on. And, not solely for revenues. It's in Adobe's best interests to make sure that creative professionals use their products, just as it's in Canon's best interests to make sure that top level professional photographers use their products.

It builds their reputation and assures future business success. Website developers, graphic design studios, mobile application developers, graphic artists, etc. etc., all tend to be small businesses -- often one person shops. It's like wedding photographers for Canon -- there are a lot out there and most operate on small budgets. 

Adobe has to have a business model that works for these people as well and I think they know it. In fact, they are developing business models for "enterprises" (large businesses) and for individuals as well. I don't even think Adobe has quite figured it all out yet. But, it's not quite correct to assume that individual practitioners are unimportant to Adobe. They are very important to their business model and I seriously doubt they will price themselves out of that market.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

Unfocused,

My point was business users, of any size. The only people that can't benefit from the tax breaks and cash flow advantages of the subscription model are people who are not registered businesses or DBA's, if you are invoicing people you get the benefits of the subscription model, that includes all your small businesses and free lancers, and even people like me, a one man band generalist free lancer.

The only people who have cause to moan are the people who can't write off the lease payment, and even then they have to make excuses to moan because it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years? And if you didn't Adobe don't care about you because they never got much money off you anyway.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 30, 2014)

> it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years?



You haven't taken into account that a user may already have a perpetually licenced version of Photoshop (and/or Lightroom), that the $9.99 price is only locked in for 12 months and that you would have nothing tangible to use or resell if you decide to end your subscription for any reason.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 30, 2014)

How long til you have to pay to fire up your computer? Maybe drop some coins in arcade-style?


----------



## bitm2007 (May 30, 2014)

> How long til you have to pay to fire up your computer?



I've paying this for years in the form of an electricity bill !!!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering if there is somebody here with an economics background that could play devil's advocate and go bat for Adobe?
> ...



A few things of note:

the head of Adobe dumped a LOT of stock right after he gave his big speech to investors about how this new model would be so amazing for investors, a bit curious no? seems like he pumped up the new model, got the stock to soar, and then cut and ran to an extent

i have heard that some major institutions and businesses have no been so happy with the CC thing at all


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> because it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years? And if you didn't Adobe don't care about you because they never got much money off you anyway.



The numbers are far worse if you use more than just photoshop/lr.

And at the end of the day as soon as you quit paying you are left with nothing!

And people who bought and paid into CS kinda got left with starting the same place as everyone else who had never put in a dime (even worse, since Adobe had tricked a lot of CS5 users to upgrade to CS6 at the last instant, right before CC).

And you are acting like all of those business are starting from scratch, surely the 90% figures you use are not all new to Adobe products, so why are you using numbers like $650 and $800 and such?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki said:
> ...



Well neither of those, if true, have had a negative effect on the share price so far. Something is worth what the market says it is, the market has said Adobe is worth more. As an investment opportunity a company committing to a five year income restructuring is pretty dramatic, and potentially viewed as risky, also the investor needs to think seriously about length of investment. I am sure before the five years is up there will be glitches, but so far the new model, as viewed from the share price, has been an unbridled success.

As for your two rumours, well stock rumours are more frequent and more inaccurate than Canon rumours, without supporting verified quotes, or paperwork, it is just as likely to be a big institution trying to cover a short sale.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years?
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't taken into account that a user may already have a perpetually licenced version of Photoshop (and/or Lightroom), that the $9.99 price is only locked in for 12 months and that you would have nothing tangible to use or resell if you decide to end your subscription for any reason.



Yes, and as soon as you stop paying the lease on your car, trucks, computer, building, you are left with nothing tangible to use or resell.

The subscription model is a model for BUSINESSES, not hobbyist photographers.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > because it takes a few years of the photo package at $9.99pm to have bought PS and LR outright. Indeed if you add up LR at $149 and the last PS at $650, for $800 (which they still couldn't write off), you are looking at nearly seven years of monthly package payments, who didn't upgrade PS quicker than 7 years? And if you didn't Adobe don't care about you because they never got much money off you anyway.
> ...



Boohoo. Adobe don't care.

Stop being bitches about this, it is a pro program for pro users. Adobe have bent over backwards to appease the hobbyists that didn't fit into their core business model, and account for a fraction of their income. Use your CS6, get LR and CC for $9.99, torrent the complete package for free, I don't care, but understand this is how businesses deal with each other and Adobe sell a product marketed to businesses, NOT HOBBYISTS. We/you are being treated as incidental, because I/you are.


----------



## bitm2007 (May 30, 2014)

> Adobe have bent over backwards to appease the hobbyists that didn't fit into their core business model, and account for a fraction of their income



Has Adobe have bent over backwards to appease the hobbyist or to boost subscription numbers ?.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

bitm2007 said:


> > Adobe have bent over backwards to appease the hobbyists that didn't fit into their core business model, and account for a fraction of their income
> 
> 
> 
> Adobe have bent over backwards to boost subscription numbers



Yes, because that is their business model!


----------



## bitm2007 (May 30, 2014)

> Quote
> Adobe have bent over backwards to appease the hobbyists that didn't fit into their core business model, and account for a fraction of their income
> 
> Adobe have bent over backwards to boost subscription numbers
> ...



Exactly


----------



## dgbarar (May 30, 2014)

Hopefully they will fix the issues I am having with the current Creative Cloud and my late 2013 rMBP. What problem is that you ask? Well, beginning with a Adobe's mid-March update to Creative Cloud I began to have problems with the MBP waking back up immediately after going to sleep. I would get black screen and responsive cursor for about 25 seconds before the display would come back on.

After playing around with my computer for a couple of months (deleting the hard drive and re-installing from a Time Machine back-up several times) I finally began looking at the programs I have in my start-up adding them back one-by-one. Finally, I found the switch to this problem--Adobe Creative Cloud. With Creative Cloud closed no problem. With Creative Cloud running 25 second delays in waking up.

Don't they test this stuff?

Don Barar


----------



## Zv (May 31, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer 

Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what. 

So right now we still need the perpetual license product as a back up. And then there are sync issues. All less than ideal. If you didn't have a back up version and you the server went down or something you are screwed. 

And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 31, 2014)

Zv said:


> There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer
> 
> Our issue - be that a professional company or hobbyist - is that there is no back up system in place in case CC server is down or if you decide to take a break. If you pay a monthly fee you should be able to use the service no matter what.
> 
> ...



That all sounds like eml58's brother in law.

How does a CC server being down stop your local program working? Adobe have said even if your computer is not connected to the internet CC will run fine for three months without online verification. If you tell them you won't be able to go online for longer they can extend that to 6 months off line, server issues are a red herring.

If the lease fee goes up to a level you are not prepared to pay, don't pay it, use something else. We'd all like a Ferrari but more of us can afford a Toyota, we'd like to eat steak and lobster but can't afford that either, same for businesses. As for we'd all happily pay the $10, well that clearly isn't the case with all the bitching and moaning going on. 

So your real argument is, I don't like the price they might charge in the future! Well you could say that about health insurance and gas prices, or any number of other things that are sold to us by corporations.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 31, 2014)

For me, it is based on economics. I got PS CS6 and LR at a huge discount through an offer through TDP for 325 in 2012. The cost is a sunk cost because it was before CC. After CC came out, I upgrade to LR5 for 70. I'm not a heavy PS user, and CS6 is good enough for me. I was happy with LR4 but got LR5 as a Christmas present. I don't foresee getting another LR upgrade unless I replace my 5DIII with a future camera that is not supported with the current software.

My fear is that they will charge 9.99 (or worse 19.99) for LR/PS when all I need is LR, especially if LR is no longer sold as a stand-alone program. That will result in a higher cost to me than buying yearly LR upgrades.

A steady revenue is good for the company but not necessary good for the consumer. It potentially leads the company to be less innovative and rest on their laurels. PS is mature enough for me that I only feed the need to upgrade every 4 or 5 years (when I build a new computer). LR is mature enough but they get you on new camera/lens profiles.


----------



## Zv (May 31, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> For me, it is based on economics. I got PS CS6 and LR at a huge discount through an offer through TDP for 325 in 2012. The cost is a sunk cost because it was before CC. After CC came out, I upgrade to LR5 for 70. I'm not a heavy PS user, and CS6 is good enough for me. I was happy with LR4 but got LR5 as a Christmas present. I don't foresee getting another LR upgrade unless I replace my 5DIII with a future camera that is not supported with the current software.
> 
> My fear is that they will charge 9.99 (or worse 19.99) for LR/PS when all I need is LR, especially if LR is no longer sold as a stand-alone program. That will result in a higher cost to me than buying yearly LR upgrades.
> 
> A steady revenue is good for the company but not necessary good for the consumer. It potentially leads the company to be less innovative and rest on their laurels. PS is mature enough for me that I only feed the need to upgrade every 4 or 5 years (when I build a new computer). LR is mature enough but they get you on new camera/lens profiles.



You could convert your future files to DNG and they would work just fine on your old versions. One extra step in the workflow though.


----------



## Zv (May 31, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing wrong with the subscription model. It is a sound business plan and even affordable for the consumer
> ...



I probably should have done my homework before writing that comment. It seems they do allow up to 30 days offline usage before the application tries to verify the license. If you're an annual subscriber it's 99 days in offline mode. 

It also states that you still have access to your files even if you cancel. 

OK, seems like a solid deal now that I've had a chance to think about it and look up my questions. Sign me up for some steak and lobster!


----------



## bitm2007 (May 31, 2014)

> And then there's the uncertainty of the monthly fee. As a business how do you factor in future costs? Next year the monthly fee could be $30 p/m or more. Pretty sure we would all pay the $10 a month if that was all there was to it.



If Adobe had introduced the Photoshop CC at $10 a month I would have sign up straight away, however they introduced it at $19.99 a month. This has put a doubt in many photographers minds as to how much Adobe will be content to receive in the long term for what is now known as the $9.99 Photoshop Photography Program.

Personally it would now take a longer fixed term contract or the option to purchase 3 or perferrably 5 years membership (at an agreeable rate) in advance to persuade me to subscribe.


----------

