Malameel wrote:
Personally, I love the new CC model.

I do not see a difference between paying monthly or paying a huge lump sum every other year. For the most part, it averages out. For me it is a much cheaper business model.

Of course, I use many Adobe products. I also purchased every upgrade since PS5 including Illustrator, after effects, InDesign, Premiere, etc. that are now all only $50 a month which is a steal (and easy for an accountant to keep track of).

...


Don't fear progress. The world is not flat.

This works for YOU. Gotcha. Yes, for someone who purchases 4-6+ adobe products every cycle, yes, it is a great deal.

Many people do not do this. Personally, I went from CS2 to CS5, and spent a grand total of about $500, and am set for the next several years. 12 years for $500 ($3.47/mo) isn't bad. $20/mo? almost six times what I pay now, for NO ADDITIONAL FEATURES - WITHOUT PERPETUAL LICENSE?

No thanks.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
Oh...  you mean like a photographer holding on to a brides negatives in case she wants more prints years down the road.  She can have prints only if she pays again.  Except down the road, the bride finds the photographer is no longer in business.  How many times has that played out all over the U.S.?

... but since you can view your files until the cows come natively through your OS (jpg, tiff, etc.), or through any number of stand alone software packages (raw, dng), irrespective of whether you keep paying for the CC or not, you're not making a strong argument.

No... I mean like exactly what I said. It's an analogy, using the comparison you made of a wedding photography investment (which is a one-time investment, in today's model anyway) amount to perpetually paying for the usage of software. They are two different situations in that regard. Your comparison isn't parrelell in concept and therfore doesn't hold up as such. The point being that, what ever the amount of the investment $600, $1200, $3500 or whatever, one shouldn't have to continuously pay or in essence, lease what they've already paid for. Again, taking the wedding scenario, suppose a bride's five older sisters all had the same photographer shoot their weddings and they all had beautiful albums they could open and look at anytime they wanted. This family had grown to rely on and expect a certain level of quality and enjoyment from the service of this photographer. Then all of a sudden the sixth bride is informed that in order to open and enjoy her album each month she'll have to keep paying indefinitely (regardless of the amount of the initial price or the monthly rate, that's not the point).
Again, it's an analogy and the concept of perpetually paying for use of something that has been traditionally paid for in a one-time investment has to be abstracted from both scenarios to see my point.
And here's one more word about the last part of your reply to my above statement. The bride shouldn't have to find, use and/or buy another "key" if you will, to open and enjoy her album. I hope people are able to get these analogies I've made, as I won't be arguing back and forth about what I'm saying.

Culture Image wrote:

No... I mean like exactly what I said. It's an analogy, using the comparison you made of a wedding photography investment (which is a one-time investment, in today's model anyway) amount to perpetually paying for the usage of software. They are two different situations in that regard. Your comparison isn't parrelell in concept and therfore doesn't hold up as such. The point being that, what ever the amount of the investment $600, $1200, $3500 or whatever, one shouldn't have to continuously pay or in essence, lease what they've already paid for. Again, taking the wedding scenario, suppose a bride's five older sisters all had the same photographer shoot their weddings and they all had beautiful albums they could open and look at anytime they wanted. This family had grown to rely on and expect a certain level of quality and enjoyment from the service of this photographer. Then all of a sudden the sixth bride is informed that in order to open and enjoy her album each month she'll have to keep paying indefinitely (regardless of the amount of the initial price or the monthly rate, that's not the point).
Again, it's an analogy and the concept of perpetually paying for use of something that has been traditionally paid for in a one-time investment has to be abstracted from both scenarios to see my point.
And here's one more word about the last part of your reply to my above statement. The bride shouldn't have to find, use and/or buy another "key" if you will, to open and enjoy her album. I hope people are able to get these analogies I've made, as I won't be arguing back and forth about what I'm saying.

I don't know when you got into professional photography, but the traditional model was to *not* make a one time sale.  The bride had to come back if she wanted more prints.  You had to come back if you wanted more pics.  You had to come back if you wanted quality enlargements, or you were restricted to having the local 1hr photo place in the mall make an enlargement from the photograph vs. neg.

There isn't anything to "argue" about.  Adobe is a business and most people in most businesses know that a basic facet of increasing revenue, is if you can make the customer come back again, and again.    Photography used the same model for decades until the bottom dropped out.  People don't come back today, because they have a choice.   Adobe knows you have little "choice" and is making their profit while the getting is good.  I fully support their business logic because it makes financial sense for Adobe...  and Adobe is in business to reap profit, not to carry you as a photographer.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
There isn't anything to "argue" about.  Adobe is a business and most people in most businesses know that a basic facet of increasing revenue, is if you can make the customer come back again, and again.    Photography used the same model for decades until the bottom dropped out.  People don't come back today, because they have a choice.   Adobe knows you have little "choice" and is making their profit while the getting is good.  I fully support their business logic because it makes financial sense for Adobe...  and Adobe is in business to reap profit, not to carry you as a photographer.

Well, that bottom will fall out sooner than later. Arrogance will fail with competitions (soon to come in this case with Adobe)

Charles Reilly wrote:
This move by adobe is very serious for many users.. it has not been well thought out and comes with a plethora of problems... to many to list here.. this video addresses some

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-hYc_SEDqw

If you haven't and I strongly suggest you do sign the petition at change.org and pass the message on..

Adobe made $1billion net profit last year.. this is just a money grab

Charles

What on earth does how much Adobe made last year have to do with anything?   A billion in profit isn't squat if you've got massive payroll, and want to purchase several corporations which sell for almost a billion EACH.

A billion is not a lot of money in Corporate money.  It's like winning an educated middle class person winning 1 million dollars.  It isn't squat. It's enough money to pay down a 5,000 square foot (property) mortgage in a low crime area that's already established.  .  .  Or  enough to pay for med school and have enough left over to buy a $20-$50k car with room for kids, and a nice down payment on a mortgage in the city close to work.

What's sad is that the U.S. has gotten so poor, that many people have forgotten how horribly worthless the U.S. dollar has become relatively speaking.  a few million dollars today is still middle class.   A billion in big business isn't a lot of money... that would barely cover Southwest buying ten new 737s  (the most popular "cheap" airliner in the industry).

Chuckarelei wrote:

Well, that bottom will fall out sooner than later. Arrogance will fail with competitions (soon to come in this case with Adobe)

From a business standpoint I'm very interested in seeing how Adobe fairs in this matter.  Arrogance is a term that has been used in conjunction with Apple, for decades...  we see today where arrogance took them

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

I don't know when you got into professional photography, but the traditional model was to *not* make a one time sale.  The bride had to come back if she wanted more prints.  You had to come back if you wanted more pics.  You had to come back if you wanted quality enlargements, or you were restricted to having the local 1hr photo place in the mall make an enlargement from the photograph vs. neg.

There isn't anything to "argue" about.  Adobe is a business and most people in most businesses know that a basic facet of increasing revenue, is if you can make the customer come back again, and again.    Photography used the same model for decades until the bottom dropped out.  People don't come back today, because they have a choice.   Adobe knows you have little "choice" and is making their profit while the getting is good.  I fully support their business logic because it makes financial sense for Adobe...  and Adobe is in business to reap profit, not to carry you as a photographer.

I've been "into professional photography" quite a while and I first started doing wedding photography in 1995, before digital and the current state of the internet. So, I'm well aware of the "traditional" model. What I'm talking about and what this issue concerns, are contemporary modes of doing things. In modern, conventional and forward-thinking terms, (i.e. WPPI) most photographers operate in the current model I'm referring to, where there's a one-time investment that includes an album as the major product. If you're unaware of this major shift, you should look into it.

The need you feel, to point at me as "the photographer" to be carried by Adobe is highly unwarranted and out of line. Again, I was simply making an analogy for the situation at hand, not referring to outdated (by conventional standards) modes of photographer operation. My analogies stand and my point made. They are impenetrable by off-point and out-of-sync attempts to discredit them for what they are. They exist independent of me except that I created them but they serve very well to the point I made. Argue with someone else about the point they're making, and don't make inappropriate assumptions that people want to or expect to be carried by Adobe.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

What on earth does how much Adobe made last year have to do with anything?   A billion in profit isn't squat if you've got massive payroll, and want to purchase several corporations which sell for almost a billion EACH.

ummm a billion in profit would be calculated AFTER the massive payroll even if it was gross not net. And if you want to purchase several corporations worth a bil each it would be no problem. thats a no brainer.  people will loan you money for that any day of the week.  so ya... a billion in NET profit is a big deal.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

ummm a billion in profit would be calculated AFTER the massive payroll even if it was gross not net. And if you want to purchase several corporations worth a bil each it would be no problem. thats a no brainer.  people will loan you money for that any day of the week.  so ya... a billion in NET profit is a big deal.

...straight line math?

I don't know what Adobe is invested in, but when I think in terms of depreciation, paying down debt, investments and buying for the future (buying in order to have  market relevance other than the Adobe Suites)...  and taking into consideration Adobe's size, over 10,000 employees-  a company that size having a net gain of $750-1b is more of a cautionary tale as opposed to "wow" factor in my opinion... and that's all it is of course, just my opinion.   We just see $1 billion differently is all.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
...straight line math?

I don't know what Adobe is invested in, but when I think in terms of depreciation, paying down debt, investments and buying for the future (buying in order to have  market relevance other than the Adobe Suites)...  and taking into consideration Adobe's size, over 10,000 employees-  a company that size having a net gain of $750-1b is more of a cautionary tale as opposed to "wow" factor in my opinion... and that's all it is of course, just my opinion.   We just see $1 billion differently is all.

DUDE!!  A billion dollars net profit IS still a big deal in business these days...VERY few companies in the WORLD make a billion dollars net profit in a year!!  Wake up!

*** and btw, Forbes ranks Adobe Systems as the 995th largest company in the world...995th out of the millions of the companies that exist on this planet!

Porsche Jones wrote:
I'm not a high end retoucher, but I do 98% of my work with GIMP, a free, open source alternative to Adobe Photoshop. There's a lot of talk about Adobe right now and I hope there will be less talk about them in the future.

http://birdhouseimages.tripod.com/webon … inGIMP.jpg

Apologies for not reading this whole thread to check for other GIMP advocates.  I don't meet many.

Gary Melton wrote:
DUDE!!  A billion dollars net profit IS still a big deal in business these days...VERY few companies in the WORLD make a billion dollars net profit in a year!!  Wake up!

*** and btw, Forbes ranks Adobe Systems as the 995th largest company in the world...995th out of the millions of the companies that exist on this planet!

Whether a billion dollars is a lot of corporate money depends on what where you want to take your company.  Just like $1,000,000 is a lot of money to  some, and not much money to others.  We just differ in how we think about money, I simply think in different business terms than you.  I do not consider a (only) 1 billion in "big corporate" money as big-a-deal as you do.

Because 99% of corporations don't make a billion, doesn't have any bearing on whether a billion today in the large corporate climate is "a lot of money".  I do not consider it a lot of money in a large corporate context.

I would surmise that 99% of the people on this planet don't make $100k per annum, will never have the means to purchase or qualify for a loan for a $1.5 million dollar house, or a $300,000 car... but in the grand scheme of things, I do not consider either a "lot" of money.  Neither do people with money.  $300,000 barely buys you a cheap Cessna 172 today!   The entry price to what I consider "good" and established neighborhoods is at least $1m (considerably higher on the coasts), and that's before assoc. fees, etc.. 

Most businesses on the planet aren't significant money makers/small business;  so while being in top 1,000 on some Forbes list might seem great to you, I don't find it impressive to even mention Adobe in the same breath as all "millions" of businesses on the planet.  Apples and oranges.

To me you're basically saying "Out of all the people who took the LSAT, Lauren scored in the top 1%!"  Ok, that's meaningless since most LSAT takers don't receive stellar scores.  I'm more apt to ask, "Out of all students admitted to Columbia, Yale, Harvard, NYU, Stanford, U of Penn, etc., law schools, in what percentile did Lauren place?"

Then I would ask you where does Lauren want to go in the field of law?  Scoring in the top 1% doesn't mean diddly if you want to be a patent attorney, where most of the top 1% of Law grads don't even qualify to take the exam, let alone able to pass the notoriously hard exam.

Edit: Depends on what Adobe wants to do, whether or not  a billion equates to  a heap of money.

We just disagree 

Hi_Spade Photography wrote:
I'll just tick with the CS5.

I think that's the best move for most photographers, especially if you've already invested in one or more CS6 suites.  I hope Adobe makes a ton of cash, but I think most photographers can simply hold what they have without missing a beat, for a reasonably long time.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:

I think that's the best move for most photographers, especially if you've already invested in one or more CS6 suites.  I hope Adobe makes a ton of cash, but I think most photographers can simply hold what they have without missing a beat, for a reasonably long time.

I totally agree with what you are saying, I have the CS6 Suite, NX2, Nic Filters (suite), Photokey 6 Pro and Elements 10.  I will be a very happy camper for a very long time.  When I do decide to make a move, I will explore my options then.  I use to to pride myself on staying current, but not this time around.  WIth this latest development, I will be content right where I am at!

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
After much mashing of teeth and signing the petition against the CC7, I went on the Adobe website this morning.  I currently use CS6 and LR4 and know that I will want the newest latest of these programs. 

Realizing the for only twenty bucks a month I know have Premier, a full version of acrobat, InDesign and the rest of the stuff, it feels like a pretty good deal to me.

I currently own Final Cut Pro X but have not be real happy with it so moving to Primer seemed like a good idea.  While I seldom need In Design, on occasion I would use it and same for the rest. 

While I know that this system sucks for amateur users and I know that in ten years time when I retire but might still want to play with photoshop, the subscription model will be a problem for me, today I feel good about signing up.

I think the software that is most likely to take a hit from this will be Apple's Final Cut.  Maybe this is Adobe's way of striking back at Apple for abandoning Flash.

I believe to get what you want you need to get the Suite which is $50 per month, not $20. $20 is for Photoshop ONLY.

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
After much mashing of teeth and signing the petition against the CC7, I went on the Adobe website this morning.  I currently use CS6 and LR4 and know that I will want the newest latest of these programs. 

Realizing the for only twenty bucks a month I know have Premier, a full version of acrobat, InDesign and the rest of the stuff, it feels like a pretty good deal to me.

I currently own Final Cut Pro X but have not be real happy with it so moving to Primer seemed like a good idea.  While I seldom need In Design, on occasion I would use it and same for the rest. 

While I know that this system sucks for amateur users and I know that in ten years time when I retire but might still want to play with photoshop, the subscription model will be a problem for me, today I feel good about signing up.

I think the software that is most likely to take a hit from this will be Apple's Final Cut.  Maybe this is Adobe's way of striking back at Apple for abandoning Flash.

Vito wrote:
I believe to get what you want you need to get the Suite which is $50 per month, not $20. $20 is for Photoshop ONLY.

Adobe has been offering the ENTIRE CC suite to CURRENT customers for $19.99/month - for the first year only though.  I know, because Adobe sent me the offer...I said no thanks!

Hell, who knows what the entire CC suite will be a year from now - probably more than the current $49.99/month (for new customers)!

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Just to confirm, the entire suite is currently 20 bucks a month for current, Photoshop CS6 users.  Yes, next year it will go up but I will bet that it will not double.

While there are many programs i the suite that I will never open, there are several that I will use on occasion, and one that I almost bought anyway.  So for me, and I am speaking for only me, this offer is a good deal.

Do I agree with Adobe's new subscription model? No. Maybe the cost of serving the none professional market was to high. Maybe it is just a money grab.  But, I will take what works for me.

Yes, the current price is $20/month for current PS6 users...and next year, it will not double - it will increase by 250% to $50/month (minimum) as the $20/month offer is only good for the first 12 months (as stated in the offer from Adobe).

I can easily see the price for EVERYONE going to at least $60/month (if not more) a year from now, so you are right...it will not double, it will likely TRIPLE!

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Just to confirm, the entire suite is currently 20 bucks a month for current, Photoshop CS6 users.  Yes, next year it will go up but I will bet that it will not double.

While there are many programs i the suite that I will never open, there are several that I will use on occasion, and one that I almost bought anyway.  So for me, and I am speaking for only me, this offer is a good deal.

Do I agree with Adobe's new subscription model? No. Maybe the cost of serving the none professional market was to high. Maybe it is just a money grab.  But, I will take what works for me.

Gary Melton wrote:
Yes, the current price is $20/month for current PS6 users...and next year, it will not double - it will increase by 250% to $50/month (minimum) as the $20/month offer is only good for the first 12 months (as stated in the offer from Adobe).

I can easily see the price for EVERYONE going to at least $60/month (if not more) a year from now, so you are right...it will not double, it will likely TRIPLE!

Just so we get the numbers right, it is $20 per month for Photoshop only.  You need not be a current CS6 user.  That is the regular cloud price.

It is $29 a month for the entire Cloud package, all the apps.  That is for users of CS3 or later.  That is for the first year only.  After that it goes up to $49 per month.  The point is that the $20 price is for Photoshop only and $29 is for everything.

If, like me, you have the entire Creative Suite, it is a much better deal than for someone who uses Photoshop only.  If I were a Photoshop only user, I would get the current CS6 and call it good for a long time to come.

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Just to confirm, the entire suite is currently 20 bucks a month for current, Photoshop CS6 users.  Yes, next year it will go up but I will bet that it will not double.

While there are many programs i the suite that I will never open, there are several that I will use on occasion, and one that I almost bought anyway.  So for me, and I am speaking for only me, this offer is a good deal.

Do I agree with Adobe's new subscription model? No. Maybe the cost of serving the none professional market was to high. Maybe it is just a money grab.  But, I will take what works for me.

Gary Melton wrote:
Yes, the current price is $20/month for current PS6 users...and next year, it will not double - it will increase by 250% to $50/month (minimum) as the $20/month offer is only good for the first 12 months (as stated in the offer from Adobe).

I can easily see the price for EVERYONE going to at least $60/month (if not more) a year from now, so you are right...it will not double, it will likely TRIPLE!

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Just so we get the numbers right, it is $20 per month for Photoshop only.  You need not be a current CS6 user.  That is the regular cloud price.

It is $29 a month for the entire Cloud package, all the apps.  That is for users of CS3 or later.  That is for the first year only.  After that it goes up to $49 per month.  The point is that the $20 price is for Photoshop only and $29 is for everything.

If, like me, you have the entire Creative Suite, it is a much better deal than for someone who uses Photoshop only.  If I were a Photoshop only user, I would get the current CS6 and call it good for a long time to come.

I received an email directly from Adobe - it offered me, as a current PS user - the opportunity to subscribe to the ENTIRE Creative Suite...not just PS...for $19.99/month...it gives a promotional code and it says I must sign up by July 31, 2013.

In the message (and where the links in the message take you), it is clear that it is $19.99/month for the ENTIRE CC...and it is equally clear that the price is only good for the first 12 months...which is why I'm not interested (I don't want to have to pay $49.99/month or more after 12 months)!

I'm sure they have been sending this same email offer to most of their current customers.

**edit**  and BTW, the offer I'm talking about is only in the email (and the links it takes you to)...you will not see this offer if you just go to the Adobe website.

KonstantKarma wrote:
Other than my portfolio, here's another example of a GIMP user's work on MM that I think is pretty fine.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/1085137/viewall

True... pretty impressive... and for the record... this 400+ image MM portfolio is 100 percent edited with Photobrush 5.0... not a single image 'Photoshopped'.  It has 100's of 1000's of comments and views and a recent TAG reading like this:

'Enjoyed ur port VERY MUCH! Theres soo many different styles which is awesome! Love ur style' 

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/2623/viewall

Gary Melton wrote:

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
Just to confirm, the entire suite is currently 20 bucks a month for current, Photoshop CS6 users.  Yes, next year it will go up but I will bet that it will not double.

While there are many programs i the suite that I will never open, there are several that I will use on occasion, and one that I almost bought anyway.  So for me, and I am speaking for only me, this offer is a good deal.

Do I agree with Adobe's new subscription model? No. Maybe the cost of serving the none professional market was to high. Maybe it is just a money grab.  But, I will take what works for me.

Gary Melton wrote:
Yes, the current price is $20/month for current PS6 users...and next year, it will not double - it will increase by 250% to $50/month (minimum) as the $20/month offer is only good for the first 12 months (as stated in the offer from Adobe).

I can easily see the price for EVERYONE going to at least $60/month (if not more) a year from now, so you are right...it will not double, it will likely TRIPLE!

I received an email directly from Adobe - it offered me, as a current PS user - the opportunity to subscribe to the ENTIRE Creative Suite...not just PS...for $19.99/month...it gives a promotional code and it says I must sign up by July 31, 2013.

In the message (and where the links in the message take you), it is clear that it is $19.99/month for the ENTIRE CC...and it is equally clear that the price is only good for the first 12 months...which is why I'm not interested (I don't want to have to pay $49.99/month or more after 12 months)!

I'm sure they have been sending this same email offer to most of their current customers.

**edit**  and BTW, the offer I'm talking about is only in the email (and the links it takes you to)...you will not see this offer if you just go to the Adobe website.

Just because it is for a limited time doesn't, but may, mean that they won't have future incentives to keep subscribers.  The big problem with the deal is that it is good for people who use the whole suit. $50x18=$900 which was the price for the last upgrade.

Zave Smith Photography wrote:
I think the software that is most likely to take a hit from this will be Apple's Final Cut.  Maybe this is Adobe's way of striking back at Apple for abandoning Flash.

Final Cut Pro is the industry standard. I can only imagine is sales going up and up because of Adobe's stupidity.

WMcK wrote:

Final Cut Pro is the industry standard. I can only imagine is sales going up and up because of Adobe's stupidity.

Final Cut Pro was the industry standard until Apple came out with Final Cut Pro X which many pros hate, including myself.  This gave a huge opening to Premier and with this new CC suite, I think that Adobe is going to really grab some market share here.

I love Apple and have thousands of dollars in Apple products but lately they have slipped up a bit, Final Cut Pro X was a huge banana peel.

Gary Melton wrote:
I received an email directly from Adobe - it offered me, as a current PS user - the opportunity to subscribe to the ENTIRE Creative Suite...not just PS...for $19.99/month...it gives a promotional code and it says I must sign up by July 31, 2013.

In the message (and where the links in the message take you), it is clear that it is $19.99/month for the ENTIRE CC...and it is equally clear that the price is only good for the first 12 months...which is why I'm not interested (I don't want to have to pay $49.99/month or more after 12 months)!

I'm sure they have been sending this same email offer to most of their current customers.

**edit**  and BTW, the offer I'm talking about is only in the email (and the links it takes you to)...you will not see this offer if you just go to the Adobe website.

Interesting and I believe you.  I signed up for the $29.95 special 10 months ago.  I revert to $49.95 in just two months.  When I signed up for the $29.95 that was the lowest introductory price they had.  Of course, I have the CS3 and CS4 master collections.  When I did this, CS5 was current and CS6 was just coming out.  I own CS3 Master Collection and CS4 Master Collection.

Perhaps this is something they are doing for the CS6 people since they aren't offering you any upgrade at all (as a perpetual license) and you have the current version.

Select Models wrote:
And for the record... the reason this thread has motored to 17+ pages is because thousands of you guys are sick and tired of getting screwed by Adobe... and you finally got your balls together to say something about it...    Never spent ONE DIME on Adobe software here...

Competitive software developers are loving the move that Adobe is making.  Get ready for all the new products that will be on the market in the future.  I remember how cocky Quark Xpress was until Adobe introduced In Design.

I feel that history will repeat itself and new competitive software products will be on the market in the very near future.  I love Adobe software but it looks like they are shooting themselves in the foot and they will have priced and inconvenienced many users out of the market.

I believe software offerings for creatives will be abundant in 2014-2015.

Love the Arts wrote:

Competitive software developers are loving the move that Adobe is making.  Get ready for all the new products that will be on the market in the future.  I remember how cocky Quark Xpress was until Adobe introduced In Design.

I feel that history will repeat itself and new competitive software products will be on the market in the very near future.  I love Adobe software but it looks like they are shooting themselves in the foot and they will have priced and inconvenienced many users out of the market.

I believe software offerings for creatives will be abundant in 2014-2015.

+1

I feel the same way about it, tbh. Things evolve, hey? It seems some people were expecting Adobe to be THEE software-suite for their entire career or smth   Lolz!

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

“Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter.”
~Oscar Wilde

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Rent-not-own very much like a hire car.

No...seriously...what it's most like is heroin dealer/junkie: once someone is "hooked" on their products, they won't be able to quit.  Adobe totally understands this.