# Adobe Reports Record Revenue in the Third Quarter



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 20, 2017)

```
<em>Strong Cash Flow and Earnings Highlight Third Quarter Results</em></p>
<p><strong>SAN JOSE, Calif. — Sept. 19, 2017</strong> — Adobe (Nasdaq:ADBE) today reported financial results for its third quarter fiscal year 2017 ended

Sept. 1, 2017.</p>
<p><strong>Financial Highlights</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Adobe achieved record quarterly revenue of $1.84 billion in its third quarter of fiscal year 2017, which represents 26 percent yearover-year

revenue growth.</li>
<li>Diluted earnings per share was $0.84 on a GAAP-basis, and $1.10 on a non-GAAP basis.</li>
<li>Digital Media segment revenue was $1.27 billion, with Creative revenue growing to $1.06 billion.</li>
<li>Digital Media Annualized Recurring Revenue (“ARR”) grew to $4.87 billion exiting the quarter, a quarter-over-quarter increase of $308 million.</li>
<li>Adobe Experience Cloud achieved revenue of $508 million, which represents 26 percent year-over-year growth.</li>
<li>Operating income grew 48 percent and net income grew 55 percent year-over-year on a GAAP-basis; operating income grew 43 percent and net income grew 46 percent year-over-year on a non-GAAP basis.</li>
<li>Cash flow from operations was $704 million, and deferred revenue grew to approximately $2.20 billion.</li>
<li>The company repurchased approximately 2.1 million shares during the quarter, returning $298 million of cash to stockholders.</li>
</ul>
<p>A reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP results is provided at the end of this press release and on Adobe’s website.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Mancubus (Sep 20, 2017)

Damn, this means they will never fix Lightroom. Why change anything when the company is making more money than ever?


----------



## tomscott (Sep 20, 2017)

Yet the products get buggier and slower.

Way to go cloud based subscription


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 20, 2017)

This type of thing makes me very annoyed. Where is the incentive for Adobe to improve their products or even make them work properly when they are raking in this much money? I can't believe so many people have bought into this vision of a world where everyone pays up whether the products are being developed or not.
At least when we paid to upgrade then Adobe had to put some interesting new features in each version or their revenue would dry up. Now the money keeps coming in regardless.
Well I have had enough - what are the other options? Is Capture One the only realistic alternative to Lightroom?


----------



## daphins (Sep 20, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> This type of thing makes me very annoyed. Where is the incentive for Adobe to improve their products or even make them work properly when they are raking in this much money? I can't believe so many people have bought into this vision of a world where everyone pays up whether the products are being developed or not.
> At least when we paid to upgrade then Adobe had to put some interesting new features in each version or their revenue would dry up. Now the money keeps coming in regardless.
> Well I have had enough - what are the other options? Is Capture One the only realistic alternative to Lightroom?



Ugh, I'm with you man. I've moved off of the entire suite (I have CS6), though I still use LR Stand-alone. IF they improve LR, and offer a stand-alone license I'll consider buying it. However, if I find a better alternative I'll move from Adobe in a heart beat.

I hate what they've done to creative professionals, with the holding of tools hostage.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2017)

daphins said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > This type of thing makes me very annoyed. Where is the incentive for Adobe to improve their products or even make them work properly when they are raking in this much money? I can't believe so many people have bought into this vision of a world where everyone pays up whether the products are being developed or not.
> ...



What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative. If they are creative they can afford the fees which are a lot easier to find than a one off license fee many times that amount, PS as a standalone was generally in the $600-700 range.

If they are at school/college/university they can get a crazy good 'educational discount'. If they have half a brain and want to 'stick it to the man' they can get a pirated fully functional copy of CC for nothing but the 30 mins it takes to install. Nobody is holding tools hostage.

As for the development, there have been many improvements to LR and PS over the last three years, the thing is they go unnoticed and unappreciated by those who have taken a stand against the corporate evil. Now we don't have the big new releases people don't add up the various changes and improvements that have been introduced.

I can understand people who say I am not comfortable paying monthly for a product, I can understand people who want a 'perpetual' license. But I can't understand this constant Adobe bashing, they said what they are going to do, they said why they had to do it (and they did have to do it as they were going bankrupt) and they did it, you have the choice, accept their decision to not go bankrupt and get either buy their products or not. Saying you hate them is ridiculous.


----------



## Batman6794 (Sep 20, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Well I have had enough - what are the other options? Is Capture One the only realistic alternative to Lightroom?



It may not be the only alternative, but it is SOOOOOOOOOO much better than lightroom. Download the 30 day trial, you'll be blown away.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative.
> 
> If they are at school/college/university they can get a crazy good 'educational discount'.



Absolute rubbish (or garbage)! The UK educational price is £9.98 ($13) a month - http://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/buy/students.html. In the USA it is $9.95/month http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/buy/students.html


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 20, 2017)

Actually, more profit means more money to hire programmers and make improvements. I doubt if its the photographer program that is raking in the dough, its the large companies that pay out the big bucks, and licensing actually works out better for them.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2017)

I have never used Affinity Photo and have just seen this review of today: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/software-review-affinity-photo-1-5-2

$50 one-off. Is it any good?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2017)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative.
> ...



Oh my! What's that, one and a half Starbucks instead of one?

I know educators who are paying next to nothing for the full Adobe suite.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



A freshly brewed Starbucks coffee is as low as $1.85, which is 5 per monthly description. Your knowledge of Starbucks prices matches that of your knowledge of Adobe pricing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2017)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Alan, I pay $7.99 for Adobe Creative Cloud Photographers Plan, and I have since I first got it over two years ago. The deals are regularly posted here on CR, B&H, Canon Price Watch etc.

I know several people on 'educators' plans that pay next to nothing (under $20 a month) for the full suite.

My White Chocolate Mocha is $4.95 before tax and tip, what can I say.....


----------



## AlanF (Sep 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I doubt very much that you give a $14 tip to bring it up to 1 very expensive coffee per Adobe subscription. At $4.95, you are drinking a venti size, which if made with whole milk and whipped cream, contains 620 calories. That is very bad for your health and I would not like to have your contributions cut short by a coronary.


----------



## Wizardly (Sep 20, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Actually, more profit means more money to hire programmers and make improvements. I doubt if its the photographer program that is raking in the dough, its the large companies that pay out the big bucks, and licensing actually works out better for them.



That's not how this works, that's not how went of this works. More profit means more executive payout, means share buybacks, means higher share price . Programmers are many lines above under the r&d costs. Profit means they *could* add r&d and remain profitable, but it doesn't mean they have to or will.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 21, 2017)

Those results have probably delayed Lightroom 2016 to 2020.
I don't mind the subscription model (the discounting is a pain in the arse - everyone should pay the same).
You couldn't say they've improved Lightroom or Photoshop much in the last two years. It's almost all bug fixes and camera lens updates.
I think they've run out of ideas.
Piracy will become a bigger issue for them if they don't start improving them. If one of the other companies could get very smart on selection tools and making composites easy I'd stop with Adobe. Affinity is quite good.


----------



## deleteme (Sep 21, 2017)

There is always a lot of heat in discussions about Adobe.
Being the 800lb gorilla in the market makes you the overdog and a target.

I have been using Adobe products since the early 90's and have used a lot of the competition. 
While there is always room for improvement I find myself in conversations with many photographers who are very satisfied with how Adobe products work for them.

Speed? Yes, some operations seem slow at time but as I am using 50MP files I guess I am not surprised. The only function that is unacceptable from the standpoint of speed is lens blur. So I don't use it. I have found a variety of fast and flexible tools in PS that obviate its need.

Capture One has never been intuitive nor seems to have a quality advantage. It is just a different flavor. So for the effort I prefer the workflow of LR.

Price: I pay $10 a month. This runs my business that grosses a 6 figure income.
I pay $2.85 for a fancy coffee 4 times a month and get 10 minutes of relaxation and an encyclopedic knowledge of local restrooms.

Adobe makes a lot of money. Good for them. They convinced a lot of people that they provided value for money. Anyone wailing that they MUST have Adobe products is deceiving themselves. The list of products that are "almost as good as Photoshop or Lightroom" is endless according to their fans.
That is great. The fact that they can aspire to Adobe's revenue stream will incentivize them to make a better business argument for switching.

OTOH the current crop of dissatisfied clients seem to be those who don't want to pay prices that would support a comprehensive app lineup or the service that that demands. IOW the loudest voices are the ones who want cheap, fast, mad features and the ability to run on a 6 year old laptop with 1GB of RAM.

Those guys are not on anyone's marketing radar.


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 21, 2017)

I pay roughly the same for netflx, and Spotify. But light room and photoshop are the only ones that show me a return in investment.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2017)

Do you watch the same movie over and over again on Netflix and never a new one? Do you drink a fresh coffee each time or regurgitate the drink old one again? Because that is what you are doing when you use Adobe software. Paying for Netflix and Spotify is not an "investment" for most people. Comparisons with paying for totally different, luxury goods is irrelevant to renting software.

In the past year, I have used much of the Adobe Creative Suite (CS6, not CC) to produce a textbook with InDesign, annotated proofs with Acrobat Professional, diagrams with Illustrator and PS for scientific work. Adobe software is among the least intuitive I have the misfortune to use, matched only by some of PS competitors. 

It's the Adobe ransomware business model I hate - it smacks of forced taxation that the Vikings imposed on us and we kicked them out. I don't mind renting my cloud storage because it requires ongoing use of servers etc. But, I don't want to be forced to rent for ever and ever software that hardly changes from one decade to the next. I want to have the choice, as I do for my car, laptop, phone etc to buy them outright and not have them taken away if I stop paying. Steve Jobs hated Adobe, and he could hardly be described as someone "who want cheap, fast, mad features and the ability to run on a 6 year old laptop with 1GB of RAM".

Up to CS6, my lab provided Adobe licenses routinely. Now, because of the cloud model it has stopped and we have Adobe just when absolutely necessary.


----------



## winglet (Sep 21, 2017)

All this arguing about whether the monthly price is high/low missed the point of the original poster: that if the company is making record profits, maybe they could invest some of that in making the products slightly less sh$t.

Reading that they're raking in the profit only tells me that I shouldn't feel bad at all about not paying at all! ;D


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2017)

winglet said:


> All this arguing about whether the monthly price is high/low missed the point of the original poster: that if the company is making record profits, maybe they could invest some of that in making the products slightly less sh$t.


+1


----------



## SteveM (Sep 21, 2017)

I'm a big fan of Adobe and have used their software for 15 or more years. This is a genuine question, no sarcasm intended, other than the speed enhancements many appear to want, what other features could adobe add to LR6 that would make LR7 a 'must have' update? (Clearly, they must already exist in Lightroom cc)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2017)

AlanF said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative.
> ...





AlanF said:


> ePhotozine has just reviewed it. It does look like a stunning lens. The MTFs are stellar: At 400mm in the centre, 4100 lw/ph on the A7R II out of a maximum possible of 5304 for the sensor.
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-fe-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6-g-master-oss-review-31417
> 
> The Sigma 100-400mm on the 5DSR gave 3800/5792
> ...



Hmm... strangely inconsistent for somebody who's posts are always consistent. Did somebody hack your account Alan or did you get a Venti by accident?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2017)

Wizardly said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, more profit means more money to hire programmers and make improvements. I doubt if its the photographer program that is raking in the dough, its the large companies that pay out the big bucks, and licensing actually works out better for them.
> ...



I recommend that you read the Adobe reports and get some information as to what they are doing, and where they are going. Doubting without any clue to what is happening does not help to understand that huge amounts are being invested. Its true, programmers are not making anything, if much at all. Many, if not most are in India and get paid by the line. Like it or not, they are now a cheap commodity, and are plentiful. The money goes to those very few and rare individuals with a vision for creating new features and products that people will plunk their money down for. They define the software parameters and how it will work.

Thinking in terms of programmers has little to do with what is happening.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 21, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ...it smacks of forced taxation that the Vikings imposed on us and we kicked them out...



I'm curious about this. Would those be the same Vikings whose progeny conquered England in 1066? It seems like one might temporarily resist, but ultimately conquest is inevitable.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You are at perfect liberty to pay for your passion of a regular heart attack special white chocolate mocha and send your monthly danegeld to Adobe. I pay for my passion of sharp telephoto lenses. But, I do not expect everyone to follow my passions or argue that those who don't are cheapjacks. And, consistent with my philosophy, I buy my lenses and don't sign a contract to rent them for the rest of my photographic life and lose them if I fail to pay the ransom.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 21, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...it smacks of forced taxation that the Vikings imposed on us and we kicked them out...
> ...



The tax was originally against the Danes = danegeld. The Normans who conquered England in 1066 were the descendants of Scandinavians who had interbred with the French, possibly of Norwegian descent but perhaps of Danish and Swedish as well. The Normans were bastards who destroyed Anglo-Saxon society, and it took centuries to recover. A lesson for what happens when you allow software and other tech companies to dominate you.


----------



## Jopa (Sep 22, 2017)

Recently got a new Dell XPS (i7700 HQ, 32GB). It's not something crazy fast like gaming laptops or desktops, but it's a decent machine. LR is barely moving, almost unusable. It works slow but better (usable) on the same generation MB Pro with twice less memory. Seems like a garbage software to me, and Adobe should be very proud of selling such [email protected] and making huge profits, people are buying it so why not?  Photoshop still works ok on both machines though.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I'm a big fan of Adobe and have used their software for 15 or more years. This is a genuine question, no sarcasm intended, other than the speed enhancements many appear to want, what other features could adobe add to LR6 that would make LR7 a 'must have' update? (Clearly, they must already exist in Lightroom cc)



No answers yet to this simple question. I'll ask another, what improvements has Adobe made in the cloud version compared with my legacy CS6?

(Adobe in a nasty stroke has stopped updating the RAW converter to accept new models. But, that doesn't worry me as I use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversion and use PS only after that.)


----------



## LDS (Sep 22, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Like it or not, they are now a cheap commodity, and are plentiful. The money goes to those very few and rare individuals with a vision for creating new features and products that people will plunk their money down for. They define the software parameters and how it will work.



That's why more and more recent software is plain rubbish. Skilled and competent developers are not a commodity, especially for sophisticated software like PS or LR. Just like anybody able to operate a camera is not a "photographer". 

You may have a vision, but if you lack the proper skills and experience to turn it into something tangible and working flawlessly, that's useless. 

Time will tell if Adobe is going to invest that huge pile of money into product R&D, or it will become complacent and will just remunerate more executives and stockholder - it would be not the first one to follow the second path, especially when there's not enough competition pressure. Many of them got into troubles later.


----------



## Diko (Sep 22, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> This type of thing makes me very annoyed. Where is the incentive for Adobe to improve their products or even make them work properly when they are raking in this much money?


 What makes you thing they don't that the very minute we are discussing it here ;-)



privatebydesign said:


> What bulls!t. If a creative professional can't afford $7.99 a month then they aren't very creative. If they are creative they can afford the fees which are a lot easier to find than a one off license fee many times that amount, PS as a standalone was generally in the $600-700 range.


 And I do recall times when it all was above the $3k border... ;-)



Batman6794 said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > Well I have had enough - what are the other options? Is Capture One the only realistic alternative to Lightroom?
> ...


 Nope... Actually there's a bunch of others ;-)



Hector1970 said:


> I think they've run out of ideas. Piracy will become a bigger issue for them if they don't start improving them. If one of the other companies could get very smart on selection tools and making composites easy I'd stop with Adobe. Affinity is quite good.


 I think and I believe NOT. Adobe is smarter than that, though there are no indication on that. ;-) I want to go shooting and upload them photos in the cloud and let someone in the other side of the world to who's passionate about it make amazing post production then I want my customer to log in in the URL and account I've provided and make their decisions. And all that in all-in-one.

I have no damn idea if Adobe can pull that off, but they have all they need. I don't want to pay to five different providers for five different services in order to offer the best to my customers. Adobe has the potential thanks to CC like no other else! 

Perpetual license?
In the age of internet.... where no more diskettes are required for installation...? 
In the age of piracy - where one single program is shared in a nick of time - Adobe are and should be smarter than that.

No one is selling product. Everyone is going for service.



LDS said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Like it or not, they are now a cheap commodity, and are plentiful. The money goes to those very few and rare individuals with a vision for creating new features and products that people will plunk their money down for. They define the software parameters and how it will work.
> ...


 True being told - I feel like not really original ideas come now and then.... I feel like everyone think the same way in the internet age.... I feel like people are afraid to say NO - we need it the other way around. 

_*It's not the devs - it's the users that lack the imagination ;-)*_


----------



## daphins (Sep 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



Who’s said anything about “able to afford”? I’m a successful professional with the ability to purchase whatever software I need. I have however made a personal CHOICE to not “rent software” that gives a private company power over my intellectual property. As it is, LR is the only Adobe software left where if young quit paying rent rent, you can still access your personal art.

Adobe can take a piss. I have liabilities for years beyond when a contract ends that requires me to bro able to access my art. I refuse to purchase th CC from Adobe as long as their current policy stands.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 23, 2017)

daphins said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > daphins said:
> ...



FYI: While I agree with you entirely on the rent vs. own question, LR will continue to have limited function after expiration. 

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/07/what-happens-to-lightroom-after-my-membership-ends.html


----------



## Talys (Sep 25, 2017)

Relatively cheap subscription have proven to be extremely successful for highly pirated software like Office and Photoshop, because the overwhelming sentiment from people who like the software and used to pirate it is, "I'd pay for it if it were fairly priced." 

What's fairly priced? Look at the price tags for O365 Home/Enterprise and Adobe PS+LR/CC, and you have an idea of what a whole lot of market study has yielded.

Personally, for Lightroom/Photoshop, I think it's a great bundle that is affordable even to hobbyists, and that Adobe hasn't added in some "not for commercial use" clause in it makes me like them more.


----------



## daphins (Sep 25, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> daphins said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yep, LR does, but PS, AI, and AE don’t. To my knowledge, LR is the only one that still does, and I honestly don’t trust Adobe to keep it that way.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2017)

Can't people take 15 seconds to do a google search before spouting off?

There are tons of programs and advice on opening and converting PSD files if you just type it in. Plus, you can always convert files to a .tif or .jpg. Alternatively, you can spend about $50 and pick up Photoshop elements to open the files. And, just like in the analog era, you always have your negative (now we call it a a raw file.) So, just as we used to do in the darkroom days, you can reprint the negative. 

Anytime you use a proprietary file type to store a document you run the risk of not being able to open it if you dump the program it was created in. That's not unique to Adobe. But as with any other program, there are usually programs available to read or convert those files.


----------



## Talys (Sep 25, 2017)

Does anyone remember how much Photoshop USED to cost, _by itself_? Or lightroom? PS was like $700, and extended version was about $1k. Plus $150 for Lightroom.

That's $750-$1150. Versus $10 / month. 

:

Now, if Adobe were clever, they would throw in Illustrator at an extra $10 / month, and a bunch of people who barely use Illustrator would pay twice a much.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> Does anyone remember how much Photoshop USED to cost, _by itself_? Or lightroom? PS was like $700, and extended version was about $1k. Plus $150 for Lightroom.
> 
> That's $750-$1150. Versus $10 / month.
> 
> ...



They do throw it in plus everything else Adobe for $10/month for teachers and students. Just enrol as a student somewhere.
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/buy/students.html?promoid=61PM819L&mv=other


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2017)

Talys said:


> Does anyone remember how much Photoshop USED to cost, _by itself_? Or lightroom? PS was like $700, and extended version was about $1k. Plus $150 for Lightroom.
> 
> That's $750-$1150. Versus $10 / month.



First, back in those days you didn't need an ongoing relationship with the vendor; once you buy you're done. When/if you upgrade, you can give your old version to your cousin who might want to play with it.

Second, remember back in those days where every release was a large advance over the previous one? That's because we could hold onto our money until Adobe gave us a product worth buying. Now, while there is some advancement, it is very very slow.

I will say it again: the subscription model is fine for pros who make their living from it, but it's an insult to amateurs. Also, there is no reason Adobe cannot offer both a subscription for those who want it, and perpetual license (without major upgrades) for those who prefer that.

It's fine to make the case that subscription works for you, but don't extrapolate that to everyone.


----------



## LDS (Sep 25, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> First, back in those days you didn't need an ongoing relationship with the vendor; once you buy you're done. When/if you upgrade, you can give your old version to your cousin who might want to play with it.



No, you couldn't - legally, unless you bought a new full license, and not an upgrade. A software upgrade is part of the actual license.

These behaviors telss that Adobe, after all, could be right.... :


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2017)

LDS said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > First, back in those days you didn't need an ongoing relationship with the vendor; once you buy you're done. When/if you upgrade, you can give your old version to your cousin who might want to play with it.
> ...



For an upgrade you're correct. How much did an upgrade cost back then?

Adobe was definitely "right" in the business sense. It doesn't mean I have to like it.


----------



## daphins (Sep 26, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Can't people take 15 seconds to do a google search before spouting off?
> 
> There are tons of programs and advice on opening and converting PSD files if you just type it in. Plus, you can always convert files to a .tif or .jpg. Alternatively, you can spend about $50 and pick up Photoshop elements to open the files. And, just like in the analog era, you always have your negative (now we call it a a raw file.) So, just as we used to do in the darkroom days, you can reprint the negative.
> 
> Anytime you use a proprietary file type to store a document you run the risk of not being able to open it if you dump the program it was created in. That's not unique to Adobe. But as with any other program, there are usually programs available to read or convert those files.



Adobe is absolutely unique in when you quit paying a month fee, you lose access to your IP in Photoshop, Illlustrator, or AE. Autodesk still lets you use autocad, Revit and 3DS max, Maxon let’s you use C4D, Skethcup let’s you sketchupC and on and on and on.

No shit there’s other ways around it, but WHY would I want to go dig up some 3rd party software for my professionally created work when I’ve paid thousands now of dollars in Software costs over the last decade? It’s absolute nonesense that adobe does this. Paying an extortion fee may work for you, it doesn’t work for me and thousands now of others. I’m not going to let Adobe hold me by the balls to access my art.


----------



## Talys (Sep 26, 2017)

daphins said:


> Adobe is absolutely unique in when you quit paying a month fee, you lose access to your IP in Photoshop, Illlustrator, or AE. Autodesk still lets you use autocad, Revit and 3DS max, Maxon let’s you use C4D, Skethcup let’s you sketchupC and on and on and on.
> 
> No S____ there’s other ways around it, but WHY would I want to go dig up some 3rd party software for my professionally created work when I’ve paid thousands now of dollars in Software costs over the last decade? It’s absolute nonesense that adobe does this. Paying an extortion fee may work for you, it doesn’t work for me and thousands now of others. I’m not going to let Adobe hold me by the balls to access my art.



I get why some people don't like subscription software, but what you're saying is untrue.

1. There are MANY companies with subscription software. On most of them, you have reduced or zero functionality if you cease your subscription. Examples:

- Microsoft Office 365
- Fonts.com (when you stop subscribing, SkyFonts removes all your fonts)
- Many accounting packages have a subscription version, from QuickBooks to Dynamics
- Cloud-based, Hosted Email
- MSDN/Visual Studio subscriptions
- Services like DropBox, OneDrive and iCloud beyond the free storage limits turn read-only when your subscription expires


2. There are programs other than Photoshop that can open PSDs, as has been previously posted.

3. There are programs other than Lightroom/Photoshop which aren't subscriber, that can open DNGs. If it's important to have continuity post-subscription, work in DNGs or TIFFs instead of CR2s. And you can still open your (original) CR2s, TIFFs and all that anyhow, PLUS you can view and print your LR modified RAWs.

4. Nobody is blackmailing you. If you're a user of an old version of Photoshop/Lightroom, it hasn't stopped working, and if you aren't, nobody is forcing to use PS/LR. Extortion would be if Adobe said, "Give us money every month or your fully licensed PS/LR will stop working!"

5. The irony is, at the price that PS/LR cost _now_ as a subscription product, it no longer costs thousands of dollars a decade. In fact, you get TWO copies of each, with all the new versions, for just $1,200 in 10 years. In buy-it-and-own-it model, you got 1 copy of photoshop for $600, and you'd be forced to upgrade if you wanted it to work properly in a new operating system, with 64-bit, new plugins, or whatever.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 26, 2017)

Talys said:


> 1. There are MANY companies with subscription software. On most of them, you have reduced or zero functionality if you cease your subscription. Examples:
> 
> - Microsoft Office 365
> - Fonts.com (when you stop subscribing, SkyFonts removes all your fonts)
> ...



There are crucial differences that render your argument by analogy dubious - in some of those examples cloud access is an essential feature without which the product could not work, in others you have the option of downloading to local-based software, but with Adobe the cloud it is an unnecessary imposition to force you to use it. DropBox, OneDrive and iCloud have to provide continuous cloud service so you can upload and access your files anywhere and they have to maintain their huge servers. With most Office 365 plans, you're able to download and install full versions of Microsoft Office programs like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on your PC, Mac, or mobile device. I don't know every e-mail package, but all the cloud ones I use download to my laptop and desktops. Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ...Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.



How do you think Adobe CC works? You download it and it resides on your computer. You need to connect to the internet occasionally, but that's only so they can renew the subscription, same as any other subscription software. Adobe throws in some free cloud storage but you don't have to use it.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.



That is the case right now: you can be off the Internet for a number of months at a time and your CC will continue to function.

My objections to the subscription model are fairly simple:

* I don't want an ongoing relationship with the vendor -- I want to make a purchase and be done. 

* Adobe has a dominant position (though not a monopoly) in this market so the subscription model relieves them of pressure to add features soon. It also gives them the freedom to increase prices without bound since you can't just defer your next purchase to safe some money.


If you're a pro the subscription makes sense. Otherwise, not so much.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 26, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.
> ...



What I meant is that, for DropBox, it is essential to be able to use the cloud and for your data to remain on it for continuous access, but it is not essential for Adobe-type software. Accordingly, for DropBox, you have to rent space on their cloud, but that should not be so for Adobe.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2017)

AlanF said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I guess I'm still not understanding your point. DropBox is for renting storage space. I don't know if they own their own servers or if they just rent them from a server farm, but essentially, all you get with these storage solutions is some space to store your files and some basic file software to store and access those files. 

Adobe is renting you some sophisticated software for photo editing, desktop publishing, web development, video editing, etc. depending on what plan you choose. They are two very different animals. 

Honestly, I don't know what will happen to my files when I quit subscribing to DropBox, but I'm quite certain they aren't going to leave my files on their server indefinitely once my subscription expires. 

Adobe is never going to do anything to my files, as they live on my computer or on portable storage devices. As long as I have access to a software program that will read my files, I'm not at risk of losing anything (unless of course my hard drive crashes). 

It is regrettable that Adobe chose the trendy "Cloud" name for their service, as it creates a lot a confusion in people's minds. Nothing resides in the "Cloud" with Adobe CC. They use the "Cloud" to update your programs and to verify your subscription, but that's about it.


----------



## Valvebounce (Sep 27, 2017)

Hi Unfocused. 
I think this makes more sense. 
They use the "Cloud" Internet to update your programs and to verify your subscription, but that's about it.
I could care less about this argument, not a lot less and I'd have to really try hard but I'm sure I could care a little less.  I use DxO and am happy with what I can do with it! I just thought this might make it easier to understand. 

Plus there is no "Cloud," it is just someone else's COMPUTER! 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## daphins (Sep 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



His point is addressing the previous comments about other subscription services being an apples to oranges comparison. Dropbox is a cloud-based service, and as such it requires access to the cloud. There is no other feasible way to do what they do. They have to provide the storage and on-going redundancy. 

It is unnecessary for Adobe as they can (have have previously) created programs that don't require any extra cost on their part. The can literally create the software, and you use it until you don't want to, or your computer becomes obsolete.

A better comparison would be buying a physical Western Digital external HD that requires you to pay an online subscription to have cloud backup, and if you stop the cloud subscription your external HD bricks. It would a stupid way of building in obsolescence, and nobody would stand for it, which is essentially what Adobe did.

Adobe CC has absolutely no benefits to my work. I don't use the online storage, I don't want them to push automatic updates to me (they've bricked my files and cratered my performance with their "fixes" in the past), and I find their tablet tools to be utterly useless for my work. A fun gimmick if I ever wanted to use them, but i don't. They don't make any meaningful updates to the software, and I find it incredibly annoying when I get logged out and have to log back in (my work has CC and I go to remote areas). 

They built in obsolescence and gave me absolutely no benefits. They just rake in money. As previously posted, there are OTHER companies that have successfully worked around this by allowing you to keep the last "version" that you paid for in perpetuity. Adobe is too damn greedy to do this and so we have these circular discussions on the inter-web.

Which is why I personally will never subscribe. I'll use CS6 until I don't have a PC that can run it, or use other software to do my work. At this point I have alternatives to almost every Adobe product that I use, and if it weren't for my office holding onto Adobe, I'd use other things full time.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> There are crucial differences that render your argument by analogy dubious - in some of those examples cloud access is an essential feature without which the product could not work, in others you have the option of downloading to local-based software, but with Adobe the cloud it is an unnecessary imposition to force you to use it. DropBox, OneDrive and iCloud have to provide continuous cloud service so you can upload and access your files anywhere and they have to maintain their huge servers. With most Office 365 plans, you're able to download and install full versions of Microsoft Office programs like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on your PC, Mac, or mobile device. I don't know every e-mail package, but all the cloud ones I use download to my laptop and desktops. Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.



With Office365, you can download an application to your PC, but when your subscription expires, you can't run it anymore, except in limited functionality mode (like read-only), which is exactly the same as lightroom.

Am I wrong? I believe that you can run Photoshop/Lightroom without an Internet connection for at least a few days before it comes up with an error. I'm positive I've used both in situations when I didn't have Internet, since I've gone cloud. But if I am in error, please correct me. Since I went fiber at home, I never lose Internet, and work has a backup Internet connection, so it's entirely possible that I' mistaken. I just recall a couple of years ago, during an 3-day extended power outage, doing post on PS/LR on generator power (with no Internet).

Office 365, just like Adobe, no longer provide an EXE or MSI. It's just a little stub program that does all the download. O365 is actually even worse; you MUST install every single Office application. So if it's Enterprise, you fill up a laptop with stuff you'll never use on the laptop, like Publisher, even if the only things you want are Word/Excel/Outlook.

Of course, with Office, you have the choice of buying a copy that never expires. But it's a bazillion dollars in comparison to a personal 365 license, which also lets you (legally) install on multiple PCs.

Other software like Autodesk stuff works the same way (if you get the subscription model).

I do get that I put some software on the list that is literally cloud-dependent (like iCloud). But please keep in mind that I was responding to a post that asserted that Adobe is the only company ever that has software that stops working when you stop paying them == extortion. 

Incidentally, I think Fonts.com is a GOOD comparison. When you subscribe to Fonts.com, you pay $10 a month, and you have access to a bazillion fonts, all at the same time. You get to install them locally with SkyFonts as TTF/OTF/whatever. But when you stop paying, all those fonts magically disappear, and all your documents will still open -- but they won't have those fonts anymore.

Fonts.com is also MUCH MUCH cheaper than buying those fonts separately. If you're a graphics pro, or your company has a graphics department, that font bill can rack up something scary. The different varieties of just one font can pay for a 4 year subscription! If you want a premium extended family, like all the variants of Neue Helvetica, you could probably subscribe to fonts.com for decades. But of course, that won't expire 



daphins said:


> Adobe CC has absolutely no benefits to my work. I don't use the online storage, I don't want them to push automatic updates to me (they've bricked my files and cratered my performance with their "fixes" in the past), and I find their tablet tools to be utterly useless for my work. A fun gimmick if I ever wanted to use them, but i don't. They don't make any meaningful updates to the software, and I find it incredibly annoying when I get logged out and have to log back in (my work has CC and I go to remote areas).
> 
> They built in obsolescence and gave me absolutely no benefits. They just rake in money. As previously posted, there are OTHER companies that have successfully worked around this by allowing you to keep the last "version" that you paid for in perpetuity. Adobe is too damn greedy to do this and so we have these circular discussions on the inter-web.
> 
> Which is why I personally will never subscribe. I'll use CS6 until I don't have a PC that can run it, or use other software to do my work. At this point I have alternatives to almost every Adobe product that I use, and if it weren't for my office holding onto Adobe, I'd use other things full time.



All this is pretty fair. Adobe CC also has zero benefit to me.

But do keep in mind that Photoshop CS6 was horrifically unaffordable to hobbyists, unless they were getting educational pricing, and even then, it was far and away the best selling graphics software. The market share for graphics professionals is as close to 100% Photoshop as you can get, and Illustrator/InDesign is nearly at the same ubiquity. 

Also remember that Photoshop was never meant as a hobbyist's tool, and that it's _always_ been expensive.

You can't really expect Adobe to take a $700-$1000 product, give it to you for $120 a year, and then let you keep that version for perpetuity, right?

I really wish there were alternatives to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign too. Over the decades, I have tried as much as possible to support alternatives like CorelDraw, Quark Xpress and to a lesser extent various bitmap editors like GiMP and PaintShop Pro. I actually prefer Corel; I vastly prefer its Beziers. But it's a hopeless battle; I always end up buying the Adobe products because all it takes is one person that matters to ask, "Can I send you an AI/EPS/PSD?". They almost never open with 100% fidelity from another program, and never save and reopen properly.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> * I don't want an ongoing relationship with the vendor -- I want to make a purchase and be done.



I sympathize with this. 

As a software developer by day, I fought the whole subscription thing for a very long time -- much longer than most of my peers. I finally got worn down and gave up. I still kind of despise it in principle, but have given up the fight, and am consoled that at least the software vendors have passed the savings of decreased piracy/increased legal copies down to me.

The first to go was Office, then Visual Studio.

Adobe lasted to CS6 for me. I only bought about every third version of Photoshop that Adobe came out with; it was CS2 before that. I still use CS6 for everything other than PS/LR.

I do genuinely believe that at $10/month, it's a whole lot cheaper to subscribe than to buy every 2-3 versions of PS/LR. Unlike Photoshop, which I'm content using very old versions of, Lightroom needs to be updated with new lens and camera profiles, and new RAW formats, and Adobe has made that a relatively difficult upgrade (unlike ACR).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There are crucial differences that render your argument by analogy dubious - in some of those examples cloud access is an essential feature without which the product could not work, in others you have the option of downloading to local-based software, but with Adobe the cloud it is an unnecessary imposition to force you to use it. DropBox, OneDrive and iCloud have to provide continuous cloud service so you can upload and access your files anywhere and they have to maintain their huge servers. With most Office 365 plans, you're able to download and install full versions of Microsoft Office programs like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on your PC, Mac, or mobile device. I don't know every e-mail package, but all the cloud ones I use download to my laptop and desktops. Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.
> ...



"bazillion dollars"? ? ? ? The official price for Microsoft Office 2016 lifetime licence directly from Microsoft is £120, and it is cheaper from some 3rd party sources (if you can trust them). 

_Free Office_ is compatible with Word and is completely free https://www.libreoffice.org/ 
(Reading the Office site, it seems that you can download a free older version of Word etc that do allow editing, but I haven't downloaded to check as I use Office 2011 already.)

We Mac users get Pages, Keynote and Numbers free, and can open Office documents and export to Office.

I get Microsoft Office 365 for free in my university, yes no charge, and Bill Gates has funded a fantastic graduate programme. Not only are you comparing "apples and pears" with the software retailing models, Microsoft are saints compared with Adobe!

Added later
The cloud version of Microsoft Office, is a pretty good deal as you get a terabyte of cloud storage per user for the 5 pack (up to 5 terabytes) for £79.99 p.a. or a single user for £59.99. So, you are getting the storage deal of DropBox plus sharing of files plus software.


----------



## daphins (Sep 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There are crucial differences that render your argument by analogy dubious - in some of those examples cloud access is an essential feature without which the product could not work, in others you have the option of downloading to local-based software, but with Adobe the cloud it is an unnecessary imposition to force you to use it. DropBox, OneDrive and iCloud have to provide continuous cloud service so you can upload and access your files anywhere and they have to maintain their huge servers. With most Office 365 plans, you're able to download and install full versions of Microsoft Office programs like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint on your PC, Mac, or mobile device. I don't know every e-mail package, but all the cloud ones I use download to my laptop and desktops. Adobe could provide a downloadable version, as in the past, that you can use without being connected to the internet and not require any storage on the cloud.
> ...



That's the thing though, I'm not a hobbyist and I owned the Suites from CS3 Design & Web Premium, CS5.5, & CS6 Production Premiums. The cost has drastically gone UP for using this software, while arguably the product has evolved very little.

It cost me $950 to upgrade from CS3 to CS5.5. CS3 came out in 2007, CS4 came out in 2008, CS 5 came out in 2010, and CS5.5 came out in 2011.

CS3 to 5.5 was a legitimate upgrade with new tools. It cost me $950 over the course of 4 years ($237.5/year)

Current cost of Adobe CC to access the applications in CS3 & 5.5 $539.89/year

The cost of my software nearly doubled if you don't own the Master Collection. Now granted, this is ignoring the cost of upgrading from CS3-CS4, but that's the point. CS4 was a train wreck with little functional upgrades, but huge performance hits in the software. There's a reason it did poorly and people didn't buy it. At either rate, on a bi-annual release schedule with $800 upgrades, the cost would still be significantly less than the current CC subscription cost. I don't have the specific numbers anymore, but when the shift to CC was announced, it was clear that the only people that saw a price "benefit" were people who owned the Master Collection. Everyone else was paying quite a bit more.

Autodesk as you mentioned has a subscription service. They're different from Adobe in that when you cancel your subscription, you still get access to the last version you subscribed to, which is logical. Subscribe from 2008-2017 and cancel your subscription, you have 2017 in perpetuity. This is important, because some of us have projects that require we be able to access and edit our work for years beyond when a contract expires. An architect needs to carry liability insurance for 7 years on built projects. Under current CC operations, they had have to pay 7 years of CC fee's (whatever Adobe decides those are) beyond their retirement date to meet their legal obligations.

I'm not against subscriptions, I'm against companies making the arbitrary decision to brick software. It's a profit driven decision, and takes away the rights of consumers to access their intellectual property.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 27, 2017)

As with all forum posts, there seem to be three types of people:


Those who are basically satisfied with a particular brand (Canon/Adobe/Apple/Whatever).

Those who have found a competitor they like better and moved on.

Those who want a particular brand to make and sell a product under terms that they dictate and with features they want and at a price that is less than the market dictates.


If you fall into category three, it might be a good idea to critically evaluate your own position, because it is usually unrealistic. 

I'm not thrilled with the subscription model. But, I can accept that it is the way we will purchases most software in the future. 

The way I look at it is, if for $50 a month, Canon would give me unlimited use of a 1DX II, every lens Canon makes, every flash Canon makes and even a 7DII or 5DIV when I wanted, I'd happily turn the equipment back in when my subscription ran out. 

I really have a hard time arguing with the value proposition of Adobe's subscription, even if I only use a tiny fraction of what they provide me. Would it be nice if it cost less. Of course. But then, I wish every camera and lens Canon makes would cost less.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> "bazillion dollars"? ? ? ? The official price for Microsoft Office 2016 lifetime licence directly from Microsoft is £120, and it is cheaper from some 3rd party sources (if you can trust them).
> 
> _Free Office_ is compatible with Word and is completely free https://www.libreoffice.org/
> (Reading the Office site, it seems that you can download a free older version of Word etc that do allow editing, but I haven't downloaded to check as I use Office 2011 already.)
> ...



I said, bazillions of dollars _in relation to the cloud offering_.

If you want a permanent license to the main Office365 applications: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Access, and you're NOT looking at special pricing (educational, partner, etc.), the price is many hundreds of dollars. I haven't bought one either personally or at work since 2013, so I won't guess, but I know the open license price is very unattractive compared to Office365.

With the exception of Partners, you cannot legally use any of the discounted Office licenses (Home, Education, etc) for business. I assume in the calculation that one is not illegally using a discounted license (like using academic for business), because that's like saying, "well, the pirated version is free".

Free Office is a web-based, pale shadow of the desktop applications. Almost no serious business uses it except in the most fleeting of ways, like to view a PowerPoint on a laptop that doesn't have PowerPoint installed. It's like saying, well, Photoshop Express is cheap!

Edit -

Okay, I looked up some real prices (sorry, they're in Canadian dollars). Source: Microsoft Store.

For Word Excel PowerPoint OneNote Outlook Publisher Access:
For personal: 5 computers, $100 / year = $20 / pc / year
For business: 5 computers, $126 / year = $25 / pc / year

To buy it:

Office Home & Personal: Word Excel PowerPoint OneNote - $150 for 1 PC (That's missing a LOT of stuff)
Office Professional: Essentially the same as O365: $400 for 1 PC.

So, in an apples-to-apples, if you're using Office for business purposes the choice is $2000 for 5 PCs or $126 for 5 PCs, a factor of nearly 16x. Even for Personal, it's a much better deal to subscribe.

Yes, to me, that's bazillions!


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I'm not thrilled with the subscription model. But, I can accept that it is the way we will purchases most software in the future.
> 
> The way I look at it is, if for $50 a month, Canon would give me unlimited use of a 1DX II, every lens Canon makes, every flash Canon makes and even a 7DII or 5DIV when I wanted, I'd happily turn the equipment back in when my subscription ran out.



Not a bad comparison. I would happily pay $50/month for as long as I'm engaged in photography to rent Canon's top-of-the-line camera 

I'm pretty much like you. I am not thrilled about the subscription model either, but accept it as the format for most software purchases in the future. It is much cheaper at the end of the day for software that's important to me, and it totally falls apart for software that I hardly ever use (and upgrade very infrequently).


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2017)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > "bazillion dollars"? ? ? ? The official price for Microsoft Office 2016 lifetime licence directly from Microsoft is £120, and it is cheaper from some 3rd party sources (if you can trust them).
> ...



You don't have to guess, just visit https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/office
The US price for single home use, NOT special pricing (educational, partner, etc.), is $149.99 for a lifetime licence compared with $69.99 p.a. for cloud use. $149.99 is not "many hundreds of dollars". Is 149.9/(69.99x_n_ years) bazillions of dollars? After 2 years, the ratio becomes less than one.


----------



## Talys (Sep 27, 2017)

AlanF said:


> You don't have to guess, just visit https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/b/office
> The US price for single home use, NOT special pricing (educational, partner, etc.), is $149.99 for a lifetime licence compared with $69.99 p.a. for cloud use. $149.99 is not "many hundreds of dollars". Is 149.9/(69.99x_n_ years) bazillions of dollars? After 2 years, the ratio becomes less than one.



That is a comparison of apples to apple wedges.

Office Home includes 1 copy of Word, Excel PowerPoint, and OneNote which may be activated once, on a single PC.

Office Professional includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, Outlook, Access, and Publisher, which may also be used only on a single PC (it's also much more expensive, at CAD$400).

Office 365 includes the same applications as Office Professional. And you can install it on 5 PCs. You can even relicense them to different PCs, like Photoshop/Lightroom on CC, which you cannot do when you purchase the desktop copies. Just like PS/LR, you can go and install it on all your of your PCs and laptops, even if you own 10. You can just have 5 (or 2 in the case of Adobe) activated at once.

Also: if you're a professional photographer, for instance, and you want to use legally licensed software, you must purchase a business copy of Office. There is a $230 single PC option that includes Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook, if you need neither Publisher nor Access. However: it is still 1 PC. To get it up to 5 activations is still almost $1,000, and you still can't move it from one machine to another.

Don't take it from me that it's a good deal, take it from Microsoft. Their O365 sales have skyrocketed. It's wildly popular... because it's a much better deal than purchasing the standalone software. For many small businesses, it's also the difference between using legal software and piracy.

Anyways, my original point is totally lost in this, which is that Adobe is neither unique in its licensing practices nor extortive in its pricing. PS/LR for $10 / month is cheap as a professional-grade piece of graphics software. If you can't afford that, or if your use doesn't justify it, use something else.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 27, 2017)

You have strayed from the key point of the objections. If you decide to stop paying the ransom money to Adobe, you no longer have access to process your files. If you stop paying for Word, Excel or Powerpoint, you can buy a stand alone licence for your PC or Mac for far less than many hundred or a bazillion relative dollars and continue working. Or, you can process them free with readily available gratis software. That is the nub of the objections to the Adobe model.


----------



## Talys (Sep 28, 2017)

AlanF said:


> You have strayed from the key point of the objections. If you decide to stop paying the ransom money to Adobe, you no longer have access to process your files. If you stop paying for Word, Excel or Powerpoint, you can buy a stand alone licence for your PC or Mac for far less than many hundred or a bazillion relative dollars and continue working. Or, you can process them free with readily available gratis software. That is the nub of the objections to the Adobe model.



Oh well, I guess we're back full circle. MY original objection was that the allegations that (a) Adobe is unique in having a subscription product and that (b) Adobe is extortive in its practices are both untrue.

1. There is clearly other subscription software that works at reduced or zero functionality upon expiry of the subscription. Those who cannot accept this live in a world of alternative facts.

2. After your license expires, you can still use pretty much everything other than Develop. That includes printing, viewing, and I think, exporting (I could be wrong). Regardless, you can still just click a checkbox and save everything as TIFF or PSD, with modifications in metadata, by default anyways. Or, you can use DNG. 

I think it's an unrealistic expectation is that $10 a month software continues to work with 100% capabilities after you stop paying the company, but I guess that's just me. 

I do get that the entire concept of subscription software really offends some people. If that's the case use something else for photography. In Photography, we are blessed with many alternatives. As Canon owners, we're doubly blessed with having DPP, which is a fine RAW converter and reasonable cataloguing program _for free_. In some ways, I personally think it's inferior to Lightroom (and certainly it's not a Photoshop replacement), but free is a good price.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 28, 2017)

In totalitarian societies, there are those that vigorously support the tyrants, those that work within the system as the easiest way to survive, and those who join the resistance and fight for a better world. Same with tech giants. Vivre LibreOffice!


----------

