Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's a shame that Photoshop from over 10 years ago still wipes the floor of the Gimp today. Sadly, that is why free software will never ever compete with commercial software of any caliber what-so-ever...

Generally, though not always. If there's any one high end open source application that can stand toe to toe with them, it'd be Blender. Over the last 4 years, it's gone from a terrible thing only FOSS zealots and the desperately poor would use to absolutely fantastic. It's so good in fact, if the Blender Foundation spent a couple of release cycles smoothing off some of its rough edges rather than constantly adding new features, I'd consider it a better choice than Max and Maya.

I guess it all depends on who you've got working on your project. Blender seems to have dozens of the best and brightest working on it night and day, whereas GIMP is a couple of talented guys who only get to work on it in their spare time. Hence why the former seems to improve by leaps and bounds every three months, whereas the latter moves at a snails pace, seeing big releases every two years or so.
 
Should Anyone Get Through 600+ Posts To This One

Do companies change their pricing structure in order to get less money from customers, or more money?

Are all users of Adobe products in the same situation, as far as product use, as all other users?

If future versions of operating system software won't support current versions (pre-CC) of Adobe software will that hurt sales of those operating system upgrades?

This move is part of a long range plan, which included buying and eliminating competition, changing EULAs so that purchased software became borrowed-for-a-fee software, buying patents, becoming de facto monopolies, etc. It's part of a general trend among corporations: Regarding customers as entities to be bled dry, with all power and control gathered in the hands of the corporation. Adobe is following the trend, rallying around the slogan "More Money For Me!"

We can go along with it. Or not. Your call.
 
For those of you that are very displeased, which seems to be the majority of people, I would highly advise you not to waste your time being frustrated and posting on Internet forums and blogs. Take your efforts, energy, and time directly to Adobe with all of their communication channels. The higher the better.
 
It's like a lot of things. If you needed photoshop for one or two consumer jobs then buying it outright is bl***dy expensive. If you can see that you'll use it quite a lot, perhaps you'll buy it as one time purchase because you can see it'll pay for itself. But you change to this payment model, it may seem a bit cheaper as its per month/year but there's no end to this payment, it's continuous, with no access to your files if you don't keep paying. For me, and probably a lot of people it doesn't work. I have cs5 (from a Russian site so not full price thankfully :)), over the last 2 years with it I've done 3 band t shirt designs, a handful of posters, etc. But it's a sort of hobby, not my main job so I'm not getting paid for it. So with the new payment scheme, I would've sat there with PS costing X amount every month, sometimes not being used, and the times it is its a non paying job, so it would've cost me a hell of a lot to have.

It is a type of bullying adobe is up to. If you paid for your phone and over a year made a handful of calls, texts or web surfing, with weeks where it wasn't used, would you like to be paying on contract of pay as you go? Exactly. And for adobe to not see the fact that a large percentage of their customers are not pros getting continuous work to pay for Ps is rediculas. Adobe can't have it both ways; ie they want to sell as much of their software to as many people as possible, but then make it not cost effective for the many users that don't see a large income form using the software.

Rant over/
 
They're out of their mind

Till it will fail and they will backpedal furiously...
this if they ask 30 bucks at month...
maybe for 3 i could..but not 30.

Exactly. €1,- or €2,- a month… I think, I'll acquiesce. Any more than that, bye bye, Adobe.
Pixelmator, let us do frequency separation, advanced masking and all sorts of other high-end retouching techniques, improve the Selections and so forth, and you'll see me wave an eternal adieu to Adobe.

----------

Corporate greed is apparently getting more and more popular. (Edward Bernays, you, idiot, what did you do!)
Adobe, you're trying hard to outRandalStephenson Randal Stephenson. You're best with your greedy endeavour failing.
 
More than the annoyance of paying a subscription... what really gets me is that I need to be able to work offline. Sometimes my internet connection goes down. For awhile! How can they address this? How about a renewable certificate where you download the software when you're online... and the certificate is good for one month. When you're online again, the certificate renews along with your subscription payment. At least it can let us work offline!

You will be able to use the creative could for up to 180 offline. From Adobe's FAQ

"No. Your Creative Cloud desktop applications (such as Photoshop and Illustrator) are installed directly on your computer, so you won't need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.

You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you'll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you'll be able to use products for 180 days even if you're offline."

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
 
And I think automobiles are way too expensive so I guess I should just go steal one right? Don't get me started on movies or cable tv! I mean I know ad dollars pay for the programs I watch but I don't want to contribute to the people who actually make the things I "buy" :rolleyes:

No, because stealing a hard asset is depriving someone of that property. Stealing software doesn't deprive anyone of property.

The problem is that there is a revenue loss, but it's the company's fault for doing something stupid. My photography has been ripped off through Internet copying, but the loss from casual copying isn't quantifiable because I can keep working. I'm moving closer to start suing over this issue when it's more than casual copying, but suing costs me money because it slows me down.

The bigger problem is when software theft is done to a company that has a de-facto monopoly on a market. When a large corporation's software continues to be dominant despite an abusive company policy or problematic software, the market isn't able to correct the problem by moving resources to a competitor. The thieves and casual copiers will keep supporting the monopoly through artificial demand, and individuals and companies that want to be legal are often forced to continue buying new versions of the software in order to remain compatible with the market demand that should not exist.
 
The biggest gripe has to be loss of choice.

Forget the $$$ involved. Adobe launched CC and gave customers a choice. You can buy the software you need just as always, or you could rent the software as you needed it.

There seem to be people who do like the way CC works for them just as there are those who liked upgrading when they needed to. The key here is that there was a choice.

What Adobe has done in one swift move has taken away the customers choice as to how they wanted to pay for Adobe's products. That will do more damage than any price hike ever could.
 
Adobe's Cloud keeps my overhead low

So, cs6 is my last adobe upgrade.
$600/year to use adobe apps is not worth it.

So you'd rather pay $3500 for a suit of software that will be considered "too old" in 3 years?

Their cloud structure allows me to buy software that is CONSTANTLY upgraded. AND if I have a big project that I need 3 extra seats for 2 months, I don't have to fork over over $10,000 to do so. It's only $300.

I love ADOBE's cloud system. It's great for people who don't steal software.
 
The biggest gripe has to be loss of choice.

For me the biggest gripe by far is the fact that you will no longer have access to your work the moment you want/have to stop paying Adobe. Subjected to that, I'd feel as if I no longer have ownership of my own creations. The work would in essence be held ransom by Adobe. "Pay up or you will never see your work again". There is no way I will ever place myself willingly in that position.

I truly hope Adobe crash and burn, as they are trying to set a very, very dangerous precedent.
 
I love ADOBE's cloud system. It's great for people who don't steal software.

There's people here complaining who do pay but don't buy the whole suite so therefor you're implying they're pirates? because not one size fits all.
 
So you'd rather pay $3500 for a suit of software that will be considered "too old" in 3 years?

Their cloud structure allows me to buy software that is CONSTANTLY upgraded. AND if I have a big project that I need 3 extra seats for 2 months, I don't have to fork over over $10,000 to do so. It's only $300.

I love ADOBE's cloud system. It's great for people who don't steal software.

And there is the rub for many. This makes it much more difficult to steal Adobe software.
 
For any serious professional I don't think the price of monthly subscriptions is an issue (but there are other issues for them).

Just wondering how many of that serious pros are there as a customer base for adobe ?
 
So you'd rather pay $3500 for a suit of software that will be considered "too old" in 3 years?

Which software are you referring to? The Adobe Master Collection (I'm assuming the rest of the apps in CS will move over to CC) costs $2599 via Adobe and even less through other resellers. All major updates to the CS have been at least 1 to 1.5 years.

It's only cheaper if you always upgrade each time. Some people skip a version or two. So that moves 1 year to at least 2 to 3 years. Adobe is now forcing you to upgrade.

Their cloud structure allows me to buy software that is CONSTANTLY upgraded. AND if I have a big project that I need 3 extra seats for 2 months, I don't have to fork over over $10,000 to do so. It's only $300.

That's a scenario where renting is a good thing.

I love ADOBE's cloud system. It's great for people who don't steal software.

Yes piracy is real. I don't do it. I own CS6. But at the same time CC isn't right for me. The main issue, however, is the fact that you're tied to the CC and will pay for it indefinitely. The moment you stop paying you loose all access to the apps AND your files. You won't be able to open your files cause the apps will stop working (unless someone comes up with a way to open files in another similar program).

But if you honestly think this will stop piracy, then I think you're in for a surprise. People will find a work around.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I just looked at the way it works, and it can and already has been pirated ;) (Assuming that at least ONE person uploads updates to piracy sites)

Nice try Adobe.
 
Well they gained me as a customer. No way I would've dropped $3000 on CS6. But a few bucks every few months - I can swing that. I'm willing to bet there are more people like me than there are like you and Adobe gains net customers from this.


I have never dropped $3,000 on a single purchase from Adobe. In actuality, I only use Photoshop and Bridge because my main focus is photography. The first version of Photoshop that I purchased was CS(1) that I paid for in full, I think it was no more than $400. Every version after that however, was purchased as an upgrade with the upgrade price which were no more than $200. And I did skip versions as well as purchase a version prior to release here and there resulting in me getting the latest version for free, as I did with purchasing CS5 to get CS6 for free. :D

Honestly, I don't think I have even gotten to $1,000 with just purchasing the initial full version of Photoshop and subsequent upgrades. By the way, I was forced into purchasing CS3+ upgrades because of the switch from PowerPC to Intel, otherwise, I would have stayed on CS2 for years to come. At this point, I'll be staying with CS6 for the foreseeable future or until Adobe realizes the folly of their ways or someone else comes into the void.

If you do the math and pay the $50 that Adobe is going to charge with the subscription service, in 16 months, you'll pay what I paid over the last decade. Sure, you might get access to the other CS apps but odds are you don't need them all. Still think you'll be getting the better deal with a subscription instead of paying in full?
 
Yes, as I said in my own post if you read it through, based on MY usage, someone who upgraded with each new release.

The fact remains: Why can't they do both?

I agree with you, people should be given options.

Some may prefer to always have the latest version, and don't mind paying more. But some may feel the current version is good enough and no motivation to upgrade. Adobe should allow both, and not forcing everyone to move to the more expensive option.

And yeah, I don't like idea of "renting" software. It's a long term commitment to me, just like buying an insurance. I can always make an installment with my credit cards, if cash flow is a concern to buy the full version, but not to commit to an endless monthly payment contract with Adobe.
 
Not at all. Like it's been said before, always on DRM is easily broken. I doubt it'll take a good crack team even a week to bypass it.

Possibly, I would assume it would have been done already.

You can't deny that this gives Adobe much more control than they had previously which is largely the reason behind this shift in my opinion.
 
Possibly, I would assume it would have been done already.

You can't deny that this gives Adobe much more control than they had previously which is largely the reason behind this shift in my opinion.

I'm not sure Adobe has improved it's piracy protection, I guess it has just shifted. I'm not sure what protection there is for phishing scams, now that the software requires an online authentication system.

I don't see how monthly licensing is a greater security measure than perpetual licensing. The software could have the same authentication system for both kinds of licensing.

Another risk is Adobe now stores your credit card data, and has ramped up its profile as a hacking target ... eg remember the Steam game-on-demand hacking event.

The biggest repercussion in Adobe's announcement is it's increasing its leverage over the design industry, because it now has a subscription-only hold on our native files. While Adobe dangles some very fine carrots in front of us, the stick they are wielding is being kept well under the radar. My conversations on Adobe's forums about the issue of file access after subscription cancellation borders on flippant. It doesn't seem to be a concern to them that I won't be able to open my files.

Once the mass of CC subscribers get their software updates others who haven't subscribed will be forced into a choice between adopting CC to be able to collaborate with other CC subscribers and stay relevant in the design/media industry or stay with CS6 or other outlier software and hope that file compatibility won't matter to their business. But if you do adopt CC, then you accede control of your native files to Adobe.

A rock and a hard place.
 
Generally, though not always. If there's any one high end open source application that can stand toe to toe with them, it'd be Blender. Over the last 4 years, it's gone from a terrible thing only FOSS zealots and the desperately poor would use to absolutely fantastic. It's so good in fact, if the Blender Foundation spent a couple of release cycles smoothing off some of its rough edges rather than constantly adding new features, I'd consider it a better choice than Max and Maya.

I guess it all depends on who you've got working on your project. Blender seems to have dozens of the best and brightest working on it night and day, whereas GIMP is a couple of talented guys who only get to work on it in their spare time. Hence why the former seems to improve by leaps and bounds every three months, whereas the latter moves at a snails pace, seeing big releases every two years or so.

Except it no longer has global illumination/radiosity. That's a considerable step backward. Sure you can use an external renderer, which defeats the purpose of an all-in-one integrated tool, and might cost something to use, and might come with incompatibilities, etc...

----------

And there is the rub for many. This makes it much more difficult to steal Adobe software.

BS. This isn't about piracy. It's about locking people into regularly giving Adobe money, despite Adobe not regularly maintaining the products. They can't keep producing new versions and luring in an already saturated market to each new version every 12-18 months (because they have nothing of value to offer, though i would PAY for a vastly de-bloated and sped-up efficient version of Photoshop), so they have to find a way to lock people into a REGULAR money bleed.

That's all it's about. Nothing more. Piracy is mostly made-up loss aversion nonsense. This subscription thing wont get the pirates to pay. Nothing will.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.