KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
you don't have to log on to use the programs.  You download them and they can be on multiple computers and all activated at the same time. You're just not allowed to use the same program on multiple computers at the same time..

I use the cloud and I like it. I'm seriously considering continuing my subscription.

BUT.. I agree that for those that only need a program like PS and can use it for years without upgrading, it's a bad deal and Adobe should keep the option of users to have the choice.

I liken their policy change to the fiasco of Netflix when they wanted to combine streaming and mail order subscriptions for a higher price.   Bad PR move and damn near collapsed them. 

I doubt Adobe, since they don't have the competition that Netflix did but.. will have that issue but it's still a slap in the face to their customers.

But you have to be on the net to verify you have a current subscription. I know a number of businesses theat do not have production machines online!

Phil Drinkwater wrote:
Same for me. It's the start of the end of my use of photoshop.

I use photoshop only for touchups. Otherwise it's Lightroom. If it goes all cloud I'll switch to Capture one or Aperture.

Gulag wrote:

the new key feature is your files just drop dead the moment you stop paying your monthly fee.

That sounds funny, but you as well as everyone that data does not "disappear."

DigiPhotoAZ wrote:

But you have to be on the net to verify you have a current subscription. I know a number of businesses theat do not have production machines online!

To each their own.  I am in advertising.  I know of no commercially viable photographer that does not have their computers networked together and on the net. 

I use CS to do photo composition. It's a big part of my business.
There are other programs that can do the job but Not sure I'd go that route.

DigiPhotoAZ wrote:
Funny how they forget most artist do not want all their files accessible on the cloud. Also despite this big push for subscription on cloud that everyone is doing, most people want to OWN their software, not rent it. It will push more people to open source, linux based apps.

The files are not on the net. They are on your computer.  The only thing that you need access to the net for, is to download the programs and updates and update the subscriptions.

What other apps do you know of that what Photoshop can do?

KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:

DigiPhotoAZ wrote:
But you have to be on the net to verify you have a current subscription. I know a number of businesses theat do not have production machines online!

To each their own.  I am in advertising.  I know of no commercially viable photographer that does not have their computers networked together and on the net. 

I use CS to do photo composition. It's a big part of my business.
There are other programs that can do the job but Not sure I'd go that route.


The files are not on the net. They are on your computer.  The only thing that you need access to the net for, is to download the programs and updates and update the subscriptions.

What other apps do you know of that what Photoshop can do?

there are a few thousand things that Microsoft word or excel can do that I never use.  Its not about what-it-can-do. its about do-what-I-need.  I haven't tried Corel's latest product but if it does the job for people...you can bet they will consider switching.  or going to PSE for the next two product cycles to see what happens.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
there are a few thousand things that Microsoft word or excel can do that I never use.  Its not about what-it-can-do. its about do-what-I-need.  I haven't tried Corel's latest product but if it does the job for people...you can bet they will consider switching.  or going to PSE for the next two product cycles to see what happens.

I haven't messed with Corel in over a decade.. I may play with it.  I agree that I probably use 1/4 of what Photoshop can do.   

I have my niche and I'm fairly competent with it.  If I used another maker's digital editing program it would have to do the basics like layering, masking, dodging, burning, cloning.
I like the healing tool but can get around that. 

People who say they'll just buy LR are not comparing apples to apples.  LR and PS are NOT the same program.  PS can do pretty much everything LR can do but not visa versa. Programs like LR are not an option for me.

Most importantly it needs to be able to be read IN LAYERS (if necessary) that my client can adjust say in whatever program they're using and I find that most programs are propitiatory in that area.   

All my clients have PS. Most are NOT on the cloud and  I honestly don't see them transitioning smoothly. 

My very large corporate clients are typically behind the curve of updating software. I'm usually at least on version ahead of them.   Their IT guys have all sorts of firewall filters and shudder with every update and download.   

Can you imagine if they had to allow monthly updates to their systems?  They'd go insane!! LOL

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
...Adobe is in business to make money, not to satisfy you or I or others who only sporadically purchase photoshop or the entire suite.

Companies stay in business by satisfying their customers not by gouging them. You can't ignore that.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
I've been using Photoshop since day one, but have only purchased 3 of their suites because I use the software until it no longer meets my needs or when other features are too advantageous to pass up.  That's a poor business customer for Adobe.  Adobe would've made so much more money off of me via subscription right?   Right.

No, not necessarily. You would have to agree to follow their subscription plan. If it drove you away, they lose every dollar you would be spending on software.

Teila K Day Photography wrote:
That's Adobe's point.  It's a darn good point.

Based on the reaction of so many long time Adobe users clearly it isn't.

Kevin Connery wrote:
A technology which can't be used is...a technology which can't be used. Mock the people who make the concepts and technologies available, and you demonstrate a quite limited view of science, technology, and progress.

Here is what I wrote: "Just like any other giant software companies, Adobe has never been innovative or creative, and every one of those "innovative" technologies used in their products was pioneered by someone else. How about the technology of layer that we use everyday in Photoshop? It was created by Alvy Ray Smith at NYIT back in 1970s."

My point is all giant software companies have never been "innovative" if you can revisit their history. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Charles Wang are the top three software entrepreneurs,  who have build huge software business and also made themselves become very wealthy, not only because they are "smart" but also they are ruthless businessmen.  Are Microsoft, Oracle and Computer Associates "innovative"? If so, how did they obtain those innovations? The same answers also apply to Adobe.

Yes, my view has very shallow depth of field when it comes down to inevitability between science, technology and progress. Yes,  Fascism was the proof that enlightenment and technology had not led to the liberation of human beings as the great philosophers of the enlightenment thought it would. Instead it led to Dachau, and so this was not its destination. This was not the destination that had been hoped for it. The 19th Century believed in progress. Adorno once cynically remarked “There is no history that leads from slavery to freedom, but there is a history that leads from the slingshot to the megaton bomb”.

Finally, let me share this guy's observation with you.

GRMACK wrote:
. . . Looking back over the decades of Photoshop, not much has really changed in their interface other than the ACR part for new cameras.  No new camera, then why bother to upgrade?  Menus look very similar from early versions to CS6.  May be a dying duck other than supporting new RAW outputs from newer cameras.  Their new scheme of locking people out of retouching their images pending no payment seems to be their game plan for some time.

Fwiw, I haven't used a new word processing program since Word 2003.  Nothing has changed there, and I could use Open Office for free as a replacement. . .

It indeed is a bit of a conundrum for software companies like Adobe and Microsoft. How can they increase profits when they've reached marked saturation and can't make their products appreciably better than the prior version, to entice customers to upgrade. I'm sure Microsoft is also considering a subscription-only model as well. If you think the uproar about Adobe's move is something, can you imagine if/when Microsoft forces consumers to pay $20/month for Windows, $50/month for office?

Of course, the subscription-only model is a very bad deal for most consumers. I think we are at a very important crossroads of sorts. The personal computer has become one of the most important societal developments in history. The reasons for this include, importantly, that it is affordable and can be used with autonomy. If those 2 aspects are taken away, I am very afraid it would be the beginning of the end of the freedom we've thus far enjoyed and benefited from.

GRMACK wrote:
Future boxed software, as we now know it, may reside on the smaller pads and phones and the laptop/desktop may be a dinosaur soon too and no need for it.

I think there will always be a strong market for personal computers. Sure there's a lot of people who really only need a pad or phone. But those will never replace the horsepower and efficiency of a computer that is needed for real work and creative projects.

Philip of Dallas wrote:
I encourage everyone here to sign this and spread the word. If you want to stop Adobe (and other software companies with proprietary formats), from abusing their monopolistic power - this is the time to draw the line in the sand. A DOJ investigation could nip this thing in the bud.

Kevin Connery wrote:
I'd encourage people to think before signing something which publicly accuses a company of multiple illegal acts. Unless you have reason to believe the claims are true, it's a matter of putting your name on a false accusation.

Much respect to you, Kevin. However, I think you're interpreting the petition different from what it actually is.

From my interpretation, the petition is asking the DOJ to decide if Adobe is abusing what is essentially a monopoly. How Adobe got to be a monopoly is not really the issue, and no one is saying that it was illegal. Frankly, though, I think the petition could have been better written, and even left that part out.

Now, is Adobe's latest move illegal? I think it should be, but as a matter of law, it's not clear. We're in new territory here. And that's why I think it is reasonable to ask the DOJ to look at the issue.

In the past, when a company becomes a monopoly and starts to abuse the power that goes along with it - the government steps in and makes them stop.

KonstantKarma wrote:
That "we the people" website is such a laugh.

I like living in a democracy and I'm for anything that empowers the people to make it better.

Gulag wrote:

Here is what I wrote: "Just like any other giant software companies, Adobe has never been innovative or creative, and every one of those "innovative" technologies used in their products was pioneered by someone else. How about the technology of layer that we use everyday in Photoshop? It was created by Alvy Ray Smith at NYIT back in 1970s."

My point is all giant software companies have never been "innovative" if you can revisit their history. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Charles Wang are the top three software entrepreneurs,  who have build huge software business and also made themselves become very wealthy, not only because they are "smart" but also they are ruthless businessmen.  Are Microsoft, Oracle and Computer Associates "innovative"? If so, how did they obtain those innovations? The same answers also apply to Adobe.

Yes, my view has very shallow depth of field when it comes down to inevitability between science, technology and progress. Yes,  Fascism was the proof that enlightenment and technology had not led to the liberation of human beings as the great philosophers of the enlightenment thought it would. Instead it led to Dachau, and so this was not its destination. This was not the destination that had been hoped for it. The 19th Century believed in progress. Adorno once cynically remarked “There is no history that leads from slavery to freedom, but there is a history that leads from the slingshot to the megaton bomb”.

Finally, let me share this guy's observation with you.

This is where a simple 'like' button would be perfect.

DigiPhotoAZ wrote:

I use photoshop only for touchups. Otherwise it's Lightroom. If it goes all cloud I'll switch to Capture one or Aperture.

Me too.

John Allan wrote:
Oh great! The Unstable version has professional features.
That's useful. (sarc)

OH great, the sarcastic commenter has no idea of the significance of future features (that we badly need) or the use of a BETA (to test said features), that's highly intellectual (sarc)

Gulag wrote:
Yes, my view has very shallow depth of field when it comes down to inevitability between science, technology and progress.

That about sums it up, yes.

DigiPhotoAZ wrote:
Funny how they forget most artist do not want all their files accessible on the cloud. Also despite this big push for subscription on cloud that everyone is doing,most people want to OWN their software, not rent it. It will push more people to open source, linux based apps.

Then someone needs to educate those people that for decades they haven't owned the software they purchase. They only hold a license to use it.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
OH great, the sarcastic commenter has no idea of the significance of future features (that we badly need) or the use of a BETA (to test said features), that's intellectual (sarc)

You get a partial pass for ignorance because you're new.
However, you have zero idea what my technological credentials are.
I'll start by saying my enterprise software and consulting company is enjoying its 24th year in business. I've rehabilitated at-risk multi-million dollar client projects, in part by restructuring their development paradigm.
I promote/leverage open source / free software where it makes sense, but have the experience borne wisdom to know when it doesn't.

Just to clarify my original statement regarding the 'unstable' version.
1) If you're producing software, you don't label your beta software the 'unstable version'. That just screams amateur.
2) Your beta release should not be unstable. Stability issues should be resolved in the alpha test environment - unit / integration / UAT.

This isn't the place to debate free software ideology. Just setting you straight on your reckless assumption.

Abby Hawkins wrote:
Didn't work when EA made Sims/Sim City "social" and an "online experience".  Won't work here, either.

Welp, it was nice knowing you, Photoshop...

Yup! I need to pick up a version of Lightroom before it goes to the cloud...

John Allan wrote:
Just to clarify my original statement regarding the 'unstable' version.
1) If you're producing software, you don't label your beta software the 'unstable version'. That just screams amateur.

Beta software is generally, by definition, unstable. In fact, this may even be more like nightly or weekly alphas. This is a completely FREE product.  For you to be so elitist about it.... lol...

Instead of critiquing them, since you know everything about creating photo retouching software, you should create some yourself ;P.

John Allan wrote:
2) Your beta release should not be unstable. Stability issues should be resolved in the alpha test environment - unit / integration / UAT.

Um, that's the whole point of this release.  So they can work out the bugs with their rather large userbase, which obliterates the amount of people who are actually programming it.

John Allan wrote:
This isn't the place to debate free software ideology. Just setting you straight on your reckless assumption.

My reckless assumption that your snark was based in ignorance? Well now I am convinced that you know everything about programming?  I'm not here to get into a fight with a computer mastermind in here.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
OH great, the sarcastic commenter has no idea of the significance of future features (that we badly need) or the use of a BETA (to test said features), that's highly intellectual (sarc)

What gives you the impression he doesn't? Was it the fact that he's been at this a while now what did it? Or that he's an established working photographer? Or was it....nevermind. You'll miss my sarcasm, too. Bearing in mind the tale that a horse can only be led to water, I'll clearly explain that (IMO) John was referring to our here-and-now requirement to combat the here-and-now issue Adobe is presenting us with. Here-and-now. Not "future", but "present". And dumbing it down for your benefit is my present to you  

John Allan wrote:
Just to clarify my original statement regarding the 'unstable' version.
1) If you're producing software, you don't label your beta software the 'unstable version'. That just screams amateur.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
Beta software is generally, by definition, unstable. In fact, this may even be more like nightly or weekly alphas. This is a completely FREE product.  For you to be so elitist about it.... lol...

Instead of critiquing them, since you know everything about creating photo retouching software, you should create some yourself ;P.

Incorrect. That's Alpha. Beta is "Done & Stable, and 95% done". That last paragraph was nothing but immaturity speaking. In the fora here, we aspire to speak to the thoughts and opinions presented by others, and not the presenter themselves. I do not give you a pass.

John Allan wrote:
2) Your beta release should not be unstable. Stability issues should be resolved in the alpha test environment - unit / integration / UAT.

Um, that's the whole point of this release.  So they can work out the bugs with their rather large userbase, which obliterates the amount of people who are actually programming it.

Read my above-post, noob.

John Allan wrote:
This isn't the place to debate free software ideology. Just setting you straight on your reckless assumption.

My reckless assumption that your snark was based in ignorance? Well now I am convinced that you know everything about programming?  I'm not here to get into a fight with a computer mastermind in here.

Again, attacking the poster in a bout of immaturity. If you wish to fight with V&P rather than keep your head & learn things in your first year or two, then by all means you have the right to make your own choices. Good luck, Norm the Newguy


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

photoshutter wrote:
I use CS4 and OS 10.6.8, why we need to pay $600 every year??

Do not question the great and powerful Adobe.
Pay no attention to the accountant behind the curtain.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
My reckless assumption that your snark was based in ignorance? Well now I am convinced that you know everything about programming?  I'm not here to get into a fight with a computer mastermind in here.

Welcome to the forums.

My recommendation is that you spend some time reviewing the site and forum rules before continuing to violate them.

Kevin Connery wrote:

Welcome to the forums.

My recommendation is that you spend some time reviewing the site and forum rules before continuing to violate them.

I do believe you are misquoting.  Those words came from our own hometown fave Dannyboy in this post https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18261012

Philip of Dallas wrote:
If you think the uproar about Adobe's move is something, can you imagine if/when Microsoft forces consumers to pay $20/month for Windows, $50/month for office?

Too many competitors and open source alternatives. OpenOffice or LibreOffice are very robust systems and large organisations who are currently paying 200$ / employee every 4 years looking at paying 20$/month per employee for a subscription plan would certainly be looking at LibreOffice or other similar products to see if they could be viable for their business.

I currently use:
LibreOffice
MySQL
Thunderbird
Sunbird

For my own business. The only MS product I really miss is ACCESS for some easy portable web dev but even then, there are alternatives.

Adobe is getting close to being obsolete like MS.

Gimp isn't quite there yet but with this move development might start up in earnest and there are other alternatives as well from Corel and the likes. Lightroom is nice but it's not irreplaceable either.

Nature abhores a vacuum ... the vacuum created by Adobes subscription model will get filled up by something else.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
I do believe you are misquoting.  Those words came from our own hometown fave Dannyboy in this post https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18261012

No, he got the quote correct. (https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18260665) I was jumping in on John's side (not that he required it!). Thanks for the thought though, Dan. Hope all is well for you over there

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

Eric Lefebvre wrote:

Too many competitors and open source alternatives. OpenOffice or LibreOffice are very robust systems and large organisations who are currently paying 200$ / employee every 4 years looking at paying 20$/month per employee for a subscription plan would certainly be looking at LibreOffice or other similar products to see if they could be viable for their business.

I currently use:
LibreOffice
MySQL
Thunderbird
Sunbird

For my own business. The only MS product I really miss is ACCESS for some easy portable web dev but even then, there are alternatives.

Adobe is getting close to being obsolete like MS.

Gimp isn't quite there yet but with this move development might start up in earnest and there are other alternatives as well from Corel and the likes. Lightroom is nice but it's not irreplaceable either.

Nature abhores a vacuum ... the vacuum created by Adobes subscription model will get filled up by something else.

Le +100

AMCphotography2 wrote:

Yup! I need to pick up a version of Lightroom before it goes to the cloud...

Try Capture One instead. You won't regret it!

WMcK wrote:

Try Capture One instead. You won't regret it!

I agree with this.  I am going to let the dust settle for a few months.  If Adobe decides to stick with this new model, I will drop lightroom too as it will only be a matter of time before they force their customers into subscribing to this too.

WMcK wrote:

Try Capture One instead. You won't regret it!

I just tried it a few days ago, thanks to Adobe & this move. I found the conversions to be quite saturated, and not nearly as detailed   Yes, I desaturated by like -20 - similar to what I do in LR3 (-15/-20). I liked the DR-controls. I tried CaptureOne 6, on my 32-bit Vista laptop (I don't uninstall/reinstall on my Workstation unless I'm 100% about what I'm doing).

I also tried LR4, and didn't really like it as much as my 3.6; they over-simplified how to go-about doing things, removing control from the user. Not that I *need to replace anything anytime soon, software-wise....