GPS Studio Services wrote:

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.

This is one of the issues I have with this new scheme.  You have no way to opt out and they can continue to raise their prices year-to-year, and if you do decide to drop out you own squat to work with.  They can also sit back and not innovate enough to make updating their software as well.  Pretty much why people skipped updates for several versions:  No innovation.  No sale.  "Newest and greatest" hasn't occurred enough for their prior owners to move ahead.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try and hit their $150/mo. full-suite price either since they floated that price a couple of years ago to current full-suite owners in a poll.  This way will ease them into their plan as you have no way out and nothing to use if you didn't own a CS version prior.  As mentioned above, I somehow doubt retirees who may have used their CC products will continue to pay that price out of their SSI or pension either.  I noted they omitted 'retiree' out of their current Job/Occupation poll.

At least with AutoCad you can use the last working version if you do jump ship.  With Adobe, the entire ship sinks once you stop paying and you don't even own a barnacle for your troubles to play with.

If Adobe sinks overall, you'll own squat as well.  I somehow doubt their 500,000 claim which is probably some other cloud photo sales, multiple user stuff other than the entire CC version.  May be just marketing hype to drive sales of this Mafia-type threat "Buy insurance monthly (or weekly), or we'll bust this place up." scam.

It's unfortunate that people sign on for this scam as it will only perpetuate others to follow in their crooked footsteps.  Just lease your house - or anything you buy - "Forever" from your bank who can raise the lease at will and no need for a deed of ownership to you.

GRMACK wrote:
This is one of the issues I have with this new scheme.  You have no way to opt out and they can continue to raise their prices year-to-year, and if you do decide to drop out you own squat to work with.  They can also sit back and not innovate enough to make updating their software as well.  Pretty much why people skipped updates for several versions:  No innovation.  No sale.  "Newest and greatest" hasn't occurred enough for their prior owners to move ahead.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try and hit their $150/mo. full-suite price either since they floated that price a couple of years ago to current full-suite owners in a poll.  This way will ease them into their plan as you have no way out and nothing to use if you didn't own a CS version prior.  As mentioned above, I somehow doubt retirees who may have used their CC products will continue to pay that price out of their SSI or pension either.  I noted they omitted 'retiree' out of their current Job/Occupation poll.

At least with AutoCad you can use the last working version if you do jump ship.  With Adobe, the entire ship sinks once you stop paying and you don't even own a barnacle for your troubles to play with.

Two immediate solutions come to mind.

1.) Use Gimp or purchase a non Adobe Photoshop like software (like mediachance) until cloud buster software enters the marketplace.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mediachance/videos?view=0

2.) Look to acquire available copies of CS (if you don't own CS already) and wait it out.

Adobe is like crack for creatives (great software with conditions that suck). But if you can't or won't subscribe to CC at least you have some working solutions until more competitive solutions arrive.

CC Single app $19.99 US per individual
CC all apps $49.99 US per individual

Let the fleecing begin!

Love the Arts wrote:

Two immediate solutions come to mind.

1.) Use Gimp or purchase a non Adobe Photoshop like software (like mediachance) until cloud buster software enters the marketplace.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Mediachance/videos?view=0

2.) Look to acquire available copies of CS (if you don't own CS already) and wait it out.

Adobe is like crack for creatives (great software with conditions that suck). But if you can't or won't subscribe to CC at least you have some working solutions until more competitive solutions arrive.

CC Single app $19.99 US per individual
CC all apps $49.99 US per individual

Let the fleecing begin!

Please read the previous posts on GIMP. Some of us working in a 16-bit workspace, on a platform that's stable. GIMP is a royal pain in the cock for some of us, as well   I'm with ya on looking at competitors and "waiting it out", however. I edit in Lightroom, which I cannot get results even *close to in any other program (currently working on this in CaptureOne 6. I do 70%-80% of my retouching in Sagelight Professional, then I finish it off in CS5.1; there's nothing new in CS7/CC to draw me into purchasing it every month thus far. I'll need to ask Robbie about the comparison between the two, he may know smth I don't   (Rob Ford, our Mayor in Toronto here - who's been said to star in a crusty iPhone video of a man smoking crack)

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

A K wrote:
I'm not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other. However, a few things (not all) said above are not accurate. Anyone reading this might want to check out the Adobe site to see what it actually says.

I did read the Adobe site and caught onto the crack dealer part very quickly thank you.

I favor the perpetual license model specifically for times like I am having now. I am on minimal income (My military retirement and a little bit I get from my photography). When I don't have a lot of money I am relying on things I bought previously to continue working indefinitely so I can continue to make a little bit of money until at some point I have some luck and happen to have lots of money for awhile, at which point I upgrade my software and buy new stuff. then I go back to making only a little bit of money for awhile.

The awhiles can be end up being longer then a year, the previous one was 18 months, this one is running 10 months so far.

What Adobe is asking me to do is pray that I never have a bad spell that lasts longer then 6 months (90 days if you don't do the annual thing). I have already had two dry spells lasting longer then that, which means that once I go past 180 days, I won't be getting any more money in using Adobe products, because I can't if I use their subscription model.

So it is time to start looking at alternatives so I don't have to switch software at an inconvenient time, like right before the dry spell ends maybe.

KonstantKarma wrote:
Adobe is very much aware of the flack they've received from the decision, and I'm sure they anticipated it before making it.

If you have a problem with the Cloud subscription, you are no longer in the Adobe commercial target market and your opinion really does not matter, to them.

If I went to a new car dealership and asked if I could buy a new car for $50 and a hamburger, they would laugh me out the door. I can't afford a new car. I'm not their target market.

Adobe is laughing those not in their market out the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out!

sorry but your analogy is bullshit and your reasoning flawed.  Everyone who already had legal copies of their software is their target market. Nobody (except on MM perhaps) thinks reducing the customer base is a good idea. They have these things called shareholders who will panic at the thought of numbers going down no matter how much bullshit you throw at them about it being better for the bottom line eventually.

as for the car dealership analogy: FAIL.  everyone COULD buy a new car before and many are now balking at the eventual price.  its not someone wanting to pay 50 bucks. Its someone who could afford it before and could make an informed (or not) buy/lease decision.   This is going from a 15,000 car to 60 equal payments of 350$ and no way to buy out the lease EVER. 
but I bet if you raised a fuss they would buy you a burger for free while you waited or delivery

Gulag wrote:
It was Adobe's business decision and it doesn't force a gun to your head tho. Take it or leave it, that's entirely up to you. Kicking/screaming/crying can't help much.

But, unfortunately that is absolutely what it does (puts a gun to your head), because, at least for Photoshop, there really is no equal professional option. However, for other Adobe products there are equal alternatives. I've said before, if you want to diminish Adobe's stranglehold on the creative market, stop using all their products where there is a professional level alternative. Leave them with one product and wait for someone to buy them out as their stock plummets.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
But, unfortunately that is absolutely what it does (puts a gun to your head), because, at least for Photoshop, there really is no equal professional option.

Yes, but if you are using it in a professional capacity, $260 a year, really isn't that much. 

I think adobe does want to stop the fact that every kid on the planet has a pirated copy of the software and is trying to mark a return to selling professional tools to professionals (or non-professionals willing to pay a professional price). 

Whether or not this will put a smidgen of a dent into the amount of piracy they face, I don't know, but I can appreciate the second half of the equation. 

Having said that, I don't like the lease only option anymore than anyone else. I will, however, pay it because I make money from it.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
But, unfortunately that is absolutely what it does (puts a gun to your head), because, at least for Photoshop, there really is no equal professional option. However, for other Adobe products there are equal alternatives. I've said before, if you want to diminish Adobe's stranglehold on the creative market, stop using all their products where there is a professional level alternative. Leave them with one product and wait for someone to buy them out as their stock plummets.

It'll be interesting to see how other companies respond to this. People often say that Adobe is a monopoly (it fits the oligopoly market better), but there are other companies that could exploit this opportunity should Adobe continue down this path.

A week or so ago I got an email from OnOne writing they're still going to continue to offer perpetual licenses and that customers will have the option to use their software as a plug-in or as a stand alone application. Nik software offers similar options as does CaptureOne and each company could potentially up their game and eventually offer a viable alternative to Photoshop. In fact, Dan Margulis mentioned that Google will be offering photo editing software. They certainly have the capital and the means to compete with Adobe if they choose too.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:
If you own CS6 you can keep using it for ever, since the license is yours.

The whole "Camera Raw doesn't support newer cameras" great, use LR or C1, or Focus.

If you're a photographer and you edit your own work you need something with a file handeling edit workflow which camera raw doesn't have anyway.

You don't need to have a subscription to the whole suit, you can just get photoshop.
So stop saying $50 a month

This is pretty much my plan at the moment. Insofar as I'm aware, Adobe will continue to support its dng converter so that'll take care of any future camera purchases.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I think adobe does want to stop the fact that every kid on the planet has a pirated copy of the software.

No, that has nothing to do with it. Quote Winston Hendrickson, VP of Creative Solutions, Adobe Systems, Inc.: "While service options that connect to our servers are inherently less prone to piracy, once a user downloads software to their computer the piracy threat is the same as for our perpetual products".

KonstantKarma wrote:
Adobe is very much aware of the flack they've received from the decision, and I'm sure they anticipated it before making it.

If you have a problem with the Cloud subscription, you are no longer in the Adobe commercial target market and your opinion really does not matter, to them.

If I went to a new car dealership and asked if I could buy a new car for $50 and a hamburger, they would laugh me out the door. I can't afford a new car. I'm not their target market.

Adobe is laughing those not in their market out the door. Don't let it hit you on the way out!

It has little to do with affordability for most, I'll suggest. Nothing to do with it for me, personally. I could afford the $50/month for the single-program PS if-needed, but I refuse to be extorted. If we pay-or-get-nothing like snivelling little wenches, we're doing a disservice to all photographers and other users of Photoshop. In turn, as-mentioned by others this will lead to similar actions by those in other fields of work. It's not only photographers who have dry-spells and spells where they live-it-up, I believe most if not *all small business-owners work on a similar schedule/follow a similar pattern. Last January, I was rocking-out with my D90 - NO backup - using View NX/2 & Photoshop 7.0; currently, I'm doing....well, my ad to assist listing my gear should on its own be a sound indicator: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st15895073   I'm now with an association, have my own Makeup Artist working for me Casually, and will be building my own studio in the Fall/early-Winter. Any photographer who is daft enough to see the Cloud as a good thing is like the sheep, a weak follower. You take what you're given, like the little bitches you are. Guys like me, we're the fox. We'll stand up to attepts to force control on us like Adobe seems to be trying, and when we have the resourcefulness to spend our money elsewhere with those who prefer to *earn our business they'll eventually feel it where it matters most: in the wallet. Ironically, the wallet is usually kept right near the ass - which is where Adobe is trying to stick it to their consumers, foot-first

RennsportPhotography wrote:
I think one of the things most people forget is that PS was never aimed at the photographer market, it was for illustrators, and most photographers only scratch the surface of what the program can do. As Kelby pointed out in a video cited earlier in this thread almost everything a photographer needs is in Elements.

It was not that long ago that if you used LR you needed PS to do any editing, now LR does a lot of what used to be PS work and I would imagine that by the time LR 6 or 7 is out most photographers will have little need of PS if present trends continue. In addition we do not know what new products Adobe may have lined up and perhaps something between LR and PS, aimed at photographers will become available.

Photographers are a pretty diverse group, ranging from part time pros making a couple of thousand a year to studios with seven figure billings. You often have the amateur with the top of the line cameras and lenses while many pros have to budget to get what they need. Adobe saw their present model leaving money on the table and made a change, one I do not like but in general I prefer to buy rather than rent.

Will they piss off a lot of people? Yes. Will they lose some customers? Yes. Will their competitors try to take advantage? Yes. Will some of those customers come back? Yes. Will Adobe make more money? They hope so.

I like their products and will continue with LR and update my PS5 to PS6 this month and wait and see how things play out.

Will LR EVER have Layers?  If not (which is what I suspect), then PS will still be needed - and only someone who has never used layers would argue that layers aren't needed...because the reality is that layers make almost ALL photo editing possibilities possible.

And I agree that Elements is a good alternative with many tools, but it lacks some important ones, e.g.: 16-bit editing, curves, patch tool, CMYK color mode, lab color mode - just to name a few very important tools.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

sorry but your analogy is bullshit and your reasoning flawed.  Everyone who already had legal copies of their software is their target market. Nobody (except on MM perhaps) thinks reducing the customer base is a good idea. They have these things called shareholders who will panic at the thought of numbers going down no matter how much bullshit you throw at them about it being better for the bottom line eventually.

as for the car dealership analogy: FAIL.  everyone COULD buy a new car before and many are now balking at the eventual price.  its not someone wanting to pay 50 bucks. Its someone who could afford it before and could make an informed (or not) buy/lease decision.   This is going from a 15,000 car to 60 equal payments of 350$ and no way to buy out the lease EVER. 
but I bet if you raised a fuss they would buy you a burger for free while you waited or delivery

You're missing the point. The target market has changed. Adobe is now targeting professionals and serious hobbyists - For whom $20 a month for software they find important or very useful is truly not a big deal.

Gary Melton wrote:
Will LR EVER have Layers?  If not (which is what I suspect), then PS will still be needed - and only someone who has never used layers would argue that layers aren't needed...because the reality is that layers make almost ALL photo editing possibilities possible.

Not used it myself but http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/perfect-layers/ seems to work as a plugin for LR et al as part of the Perfect Suite.

As to the OP, I'm not sure if I will sign up but I do like some of the tools in the developement pathway and if these came in when ready, and not version by version, it would be a major reason for me to spend the money.

KonstantKarma wrote:
You're missing the point. The target market has changed. Adobe is now targeting professionals and serious hobbyists - For whom $20 a month for software they find important or very useful is truly not a big deal.

And you are missing the point!  The people for whom $20/month for PS is "truly not a big deal" makes up maybe 35% of the market for PS (if not less).  $20/month would ONLY make sense if Adobe came up with a new version every 10 months (then the price would then be equal to the $199 upgrade charge) AND if you are someone who ALWAYS upgrades as soon as a new version comes out.

As we all very well know - Adobe does NOT come out with a new version every 10 months, and even most pros don't upgrade as soon as a new version comes out.  My guess is that the average pro upgrades once every 2-3 years, and serious hobbyists upgrade every 3-6 years.  MAYBE 10-20% of the pros at most upgrade immediately when a new version comes out (even fewer of the serious hobbyists).

So, if you upgrade every 3 years, the cost for CC PS is $720 versus $199, 4 years and the cost for CC PS is $960 versus $199, etc.  AND, the bigger problem for me and others is that you ONLY have the software as long as you make monthly payments month after month after month...that once you stop making the monthly "ransom" payments, the software stops working.

I just don't understand why you and some others here on Model Mayhem - a website for photographers and models...a place where we are all supposed to be able to help each other out in our common struggles to create the best work we can with the least amount of difficulty - continue to support and side with the greedy jerks at Adobe who have decided to limit OUR options just so they can make MORE money off of all of us!  They are already making plenty!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

Gary Melton wrote:
And you are missing the point!  The people for whom $20/month for PS is "truly not a big deal" makes up maybe 35% of the market for PS (if not less).  $20/month would ONLY make sense if Adobe came up with a new version every 10 months (then the price would then be equal to the $199 upgrade charge) AND if you are someone who ALWAYS upgrades as soon as a new version comes out.

As we all very well know - Adobe does NOT come out with a new version every 10 months, and even most pros don't upgrade as soon as a new version comes out.  My guess is that the average pro upgrades once every 2-3 years, and serious hobbyists upgrade every 3-6 years.  MAYBE 10-20% of the pros at most upgrade immediately when a new version comes out (even fewer of the serious hobbyists).

So, if you upgrade every 3 years, the cost for CC PS is $720 versus $199, 4 years and the cost for CC PS is $960 versus $199, etc.  AND, the bigger problem for me and others is that you ONLY have the software as long as you make monthly payments month after month after month...that once you stop making the monthly "ransom" payments, the software stops working.

I just don't understand why you and some others here on Model Mayhem - a website for photographers and models...a place where we are all supposed to be able to help each other out in our common struggles to create the best work we can with the least amount of difficulty - continue to support and side with the greedy jerks at Adobe who have decided to limit OUR options just so they can make MORE money off of all of us!  They are already making plenty!

Wake up and smell the coffee!

I completely understand your point. The problem is, I support the free market and capitalism. Adobe has worked on their product long enough to think it's worth paying more for.

just so they can make MORE money off of all of us!

They aren't making a dime off of me, sir. I've never used PhotoShop, and don't plan to start paying them to use it anytime soon. www.photography-asheville.com

Brian H Photography wrote:
one issue is that these software suppliers forget is that over 50% of the country can still only get DSL speeds of 1.5 or less, like me.  Many still can not get high speed Internet at all.  For me the cloud is impossible to use on a daily basis. way too slow takes minutes to upload a simple photo.

Please read more of the thread before posting yourself sir, and you'll find yourself clearing-out the post you just made because it's as redundant as wiping my shoulder after I take a huge poop   You have the wrong understanding of how the Cloud works (I do *not support the Cloud in the least!).

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

“It is absurd to divide people into ‘good’ & ‘bad’. People are either Charming or Tedious.”
~Oscar Wilde