Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Releases New Creative Cloud Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I disagree.
I'm a CC member now for three months and at first I thought like you, that this cloud method from Adobe was just a way of money-grab. But I was so wrong. I went to the meeting in Amsterdam arranged by Adobe and I'm convinced that you get so much value for your money. As both designer and interaction designer I need several Adobe products and I also like to be up to date, so I often updated my CS master collection when a big update came out, that cost me each time several hundreds of euro's. They frequency of updates now with CC is much higher then it was with spreading dvd's which customers could by. On top of that you get $25.000 worth of professional fonts for use in commercial work without the need to pay for it. It's all included in your adobe CC account.
If you simply count up the updates, and you simply look at the things you get and the value of it then this new Adobe method is not really more expensive then it was before where customers needed to buy updates that cost several hundreds of euro's.
Simple calculation:
Adobe Master Collection cost (at amazon) about €1630
A new account to get access to all the Adobe products cost you €61,50 p/m
That's more the 26 months. Meaning more then 2 years! 2 years in which you're up to date and in previous time you had to pay about two mayor updates that had cost you about the same.
In other words, that Adobe makes 'more' money then before is only slightly accurate when people start paying for the products instead of using them illegally which I think is even an immoral thing to do to begin with. Good products cost money, business spend a lot of work in creating new stuff and those programmers need a salary as well....
And if you can't pay about 1630 each two years for being up to date with mayor multimedia products in the field you like to work in then you do something wrong to start with and should seriously consider to take an other job.
And you're able to say hell to this all and using CS6 for the coming two years when you've bought the program on dvd, Adobe will even bring out updates when it comes to improve CS6, but yes, there will be no CS7 true. So it's not that black and white. I rather like to use up to date programs after a time period of 2 years that enables me to move on along with new technology innovation. In other words, I don't want to stay behind just because I don't want -any- update...
Just saying ^^
Last edited:
That's absurdly judgmental of you and has been discussed earlier in this thread. The difference can be significant. Right now I get to choose whether or not and WHEN to upgrade based on my needs. The new models is an ongoing forced update that in the long run could easily cost me more money based on my personal upgrade pattern. And then if I stop - instead of stlll being able to open my files - they essentially become hard drive wasteland.
It also doesn't take into consideration that companies or schools that have to pay for licenses vs owning the software.
I'm certainly glad OSes don't work this way. Could you imagine if instead of being able to buy an OS outright - you had to pay monthly. And if you didn't - the computer would stop booting?
Adobe crows about 700k cloud adopters...
Seems impressive. A rounding success bringing in billions to the Adobe coffers.
--
In 2010 Photoshop alone had about 10,000,000 users. So... this remarkable achievement only snared 7% of the market. Telling huh. The penetration number has to be much lower though as the user base in 2013 is surely larger, not to mention the users who work in other apps within the suite. Some former users simply vote with their feet and leave or hold on to legacy products.
My advice to folks would be to purchase a used older version. Also the timing for trust in "cloud-based computing" platforms could not be worse (NSA, anyone? lol). Never thought I would see the day when Quark engenders more love than Adobe, but it is here.
To the detractors who revile specific cameras and software tools as amateur, you are being foolish (not too mention that LR and Aperture offer credible if not superior imaging workflows for high volume professionals). The three most popular cameras in the world right now are the iPhone 4s, 5 & 4m followed by the Canon EOS 5D and 7D. It isn't about the tools, it is about the user. Annie Leibovitz herself recommends the iPhone as the camera of choice. The best camera is the one you always have with you. Those who disparage the tools are often wannabe professionals. It is usually the same ones who think pros have to use MacPros instead of well-equipped imacs. Again, it isn't always about the tool.
The app movement has destroyed the notion of exorbitant software pricing, but has led to great profits due to an expanded user base. If Adobe wants to become the next proprietary, premium priced software suite that chases an ever shrinking user base, go ahead. I wish them luck with that. If they had their way Lightroom would still be priced at the $299, but Apple has forced their hand (thankfully).
Seems impressive. A rounding success bringing in billions to the Adobe coffers.
--
In 2010 Photoshop alone had about 10,000,000 users. So... this remarkable achievement only snared 7% of the market. Telling huh. The penetration number has to be much lower though as the user base in 2013 is surely larger, not to mention the users who work in other apps within the suite. Some former users simply vote with their feet and leave or hold on to legacy products.
My advice to folks would be to purchase a used older version. Also the timing for trust in "cloud-based computing" platforms could not be worse (NSA, anyone? lol). Never thought I would see the day when Quark engenders more love than Adobe, but it is here.
To the detractors who revile specific cameras and software tools as amateur, you are being foolish (not too mention that LR and Aperture offer credible if not superior imaging workflows for high volume professionals). The three most popular cameras in the world right now are the iPhone 4s, 5 & 4m followed by the Canon EOS 5D and 7D. It isn't about the tools, it is about the user. Annie Leibovitz herself recommends the iPhone as the camera of choice. The best camera is the one you always have with you. Those who disparage the tools are often wannabe professionals. It is usually the same ones who think pros have to use MacPros instead of well-equipped imacs. Again, it isn't always about the tool.
The app movement has destroyed the notion of exorbitant software pricing, but has led to great profits due to an expanded user base. If Adobe wants to become the next proprietary, premium priced software suite that chases an ever shrinking user base, go ahead. I wish them luck with that. If they had their way Lightroom would still be priced at the $299, but Apple has forced their hand (thankfully).
I agree with your post but your calculations are not correct. Master collection today cost about $2,198.99 not close to $4000..... And updates cost less then buying the whole Master Collection again... so at the end you do pay more to Adobe. But you're right about the rest.
The amount you need to pay now as a new customer would equal the use of the master collection for just over 2 years of time. The only "debating" issue where people are "complaining" about is the argument that they can't decide themselves for not being able to use their programs after buying the whole previous version. This is incorrect, everyone with CS6 master collection can still use these programs without the need of a CC account and CS6 will also still receive updates but that will, of course, stop at some point....
So what about the time span? Years when big updates came out:
CS4 2008
CS5 2010
CS6 2012
You see, it's a two year time span. Instead of updating their software each two years you get regular updates which you can use when having a CC account. I prefer that method, why wait 2 years because everything has to be stored on DVD's and shipped to lot's of countries worldwide? When a new updates work, spread it out directly! This is 2013 where most companies, especially in Holland where I come from, have broadband internet. I've got 250 Mbit connection and updates are installed in seconds.
You can have several ways looking at this whole Adobe CC. But I'm on your side in this. Most complainers, among of them my own friends, have a illegal version and are "afraid" of not getting the newest stuff because hacking it will become much more difficult now. But to them I simply say: if you take yourself seriously as a designer / programmer working with the best products around making money with it you should be able to pay about $2100 each two years which is really nothing when you're selling good stuff using these Adobe products.
I understand that many people like to get everything free, but good products cost money. It's that simple.
Goes to propaganda meeting, gets converted.
Lets look at the hard facts (no exclamation points needed). All the calculations fall apart when you look at the PROFESSIONAL trend of version skipping. Just saying...
Here's why subscription models are dangerous to the software:
In the classic software model, you use the old software until the company makes something that is better enough to tempt you to buy the new version. In the new subscription model, you pay the company to NOT pull their entire app off your computer, leaving you no way to access all your data in proprietary format (like your psd files).
Which way provides incentive to make software better?
But it gets worse - it goes beyond just the software. Let's say you like an older version of not just the software, but the computer's OS, and the computer itself. If the subscription requires it, they could simply force an upgrade to a new OS to remain compatible. In which point you might have to buy a new computer, get a new OS you didn't want, and a new version of the subscription software you didn't want, just to not end up at zero.
Basically, these are the conditions that made companies like Microsoft - all they have to ensure is that their software doesn't suck SO bad, that you're prepared to leave it 100%. Else, you just keep paying them money.
In the classic software model, you use the old software until the company makes something that is better enough to tempt you to buy the new version. In the new subscription model, you pay the company to NOT pull their entire app off your computer, leaving you no way to access all your data in proprietary format (like your psd files).
Which way provides incentive to make software better?
But it gets worse - it goes beyond just the software. Let's say you like an older version of not just the software, but the computer's OS, and the computer itself. If the subscription requires it, they could simply force an upgrade to a new OS to remain compatible. In which point you might have to buy a new computer, get a new OS you didn't want, and a new version of the subscription software you didn't want, just to not end up at zero.
Basically, these are the conditions that made companies like Microsoft - all they have to ensure is that their software doesn't suck SO bad, that you're prepared to leave it 100%. Else, you just keep paying them money.
You didn't read his post properly he was saying that if you convert the UK sterling price to USD, it comes out to about USD 4000. It was the rest of his maths and logic that was faulty, as I explained when I replied to his post.
This is a disgraceful strawman. I am not looking to get anything for free: I'm objecting to a business model that forces me to pay the full retail box price of the software I use every two years in monthly installments, where I previously used to pay an upgrade price at a time of my choosing. I'm objecting to a business model where a cashflow crisis will cause the software I rely on for a living to stop working.
But that's just incorrect..
If you bought adobe products, which I have, you can use those products as long you like without paying for it.
It's also incorrect that you'll loose your stored psd files for instance when you have a CC account and not paying for it any longer. Even when you're not paying any longer you'll still have access to your stored PSD files on the cloud. The only thing that chances is that your stored amount of data of 20 gig of space for a normal CC account will be brought down to 2 gig. When you've stored more then 2 gig of data online you then anything above the 2 gig can't be synchronized with your other computers but you'll have 90 days (that's about 3 !! months) to download all your files until you get under your 2 gig of free space you'll always have.
True, but is that such a big deal? I own CS6 but what the relevance of that when after few years CS6 is obsolete ? And Adobe is charging way less for students and schools.
That's not really a fair way to compare it. First of all Adobe is about many products in which many of it's users using those products to make money with. You could argue that iOS could also be used to make money with, but it comes along with hardware while Adobe is just about software. That's a big difference.
I agree that "renting" software should come along with frequent updates, but that's what Adobe does. Not only do they offer updates, they also provide customers with a fast amount of free to use costly products such as professional fonts for commercial use worth $25.000 and the possibility to store and share your files online with your CC store account of 20 gig. So it's not just about "renting" a software and that's it. You get frequent updates and you pay after two (!!) years more money when you had instead bought CS6 and decided not to update it after two years. But seriously, I don't know many CS3 users to be honest here, do you?
While the new CC apps are cloud based, the software does not require a constant internet connection to function.
Good.
Annual users are required to connect to Adobe's servers and check in after 180 days, while month-to-month subscribers will need to check in once per month.
And when Adobe goes out of business or just decides to shut down the server we're left with non-functional software tools and can't access our data. Very, very bad.
Ongoing fees
Deal breaker. I buy software once.
Good.
Annual users are required to connect to Adobe's servers and check in after 180 days, while month-to-month subscribers will need to check in once per month.
And when Adobe goes out of business or just decides to shut down the server we're left with non-functional software tools and can't access our data. Very, very bad.
Ongoing fees
Deal breaker. I buy software once.
I understand what you're stating here and that was my reaction at first as well. Don't forget, I've payed for CS6 Master Collection and I don't like to pay monthly services of any kind. But when you add up the cost and when I look at my -own- situation I have to conclude that I pay not that much more while gaining much more then in previous, the old, situation. I always updated CS4 to CS5 when it came out, as well when CS6 came out again two years later....
So knowing that and knowing the prizing you pay today it's hasn't become much more expensive to me as in the previous situation.
You only got a point on two things:
1. You, indeed, don't 'own' the software any longer when you stop paying
2. You can't use a CC product when you stop paying
CS6 instead, you do own and you can use in two years of time. But seriously, with the time span of 2 years where a whole new CS comes out, you seriously still decide to work on CS6 while most of the industry in your field is working with CS9 years later?
The "only" thing I regret is that you can't state to skip an update because it doesn't matter, you're paying for it so why not updating it then? But in return you'll be up to date, anytime and when I decide not to update from CS6 to 7 or even worse years later to CS8 for example (because CS7 doesn't exist any longer) then I've to ask myself: what am I doing with an product that's become absolute in the first place?
Again, I understand your feeling, had the same myself at the beginning, but once you see the benefits of the cloud, knowing you're up to date any time plus knowing you're getting so much new programs with it if you would like to use those then it's not that bad. As for prizing, an important part in my case, I don't pay that much more then I did before. So I don't see any 'real' problems.
But again, that's how I look at it.
----------
In that case you're software has become obsolete.
I ran CS3 for over three years. Got CS5 when Adobe first started muttering about upgrade pricing only applying to the immediately prior version; upgraded to 5.5 in the CS6 pre-release window so qualified for a free upgrade from 5.5 to 6.
The bulk of my work is done in Illustrator CS6 which is so full of unpatched bugs that I wish I'd stayed with CS3. Of course, because CC keeps the software up to date, I'd never have the option of rolling back from a buggy release…
Perhaps a language barrier - because you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
Under the current model - you can't buy (rent) the latest photoshop for as long as you want for example. You're renting it. If you stop paying - you have no access. And if you don't subscribed - your PSD files are not quite as valuable anymore - until you start paying again. I wasn't referring to the cloud storage at all.
Yes - it's a big deal for companies and educational institutions who now have to pay for many subscriptions.
And I know plenty of people still using CS3 or CS4.
I never owned CS4. or 5.5. I went from CS3 to to CS5 and only recently to CS6. And truth be told - I could have easily skipped CS5.
That makes my total cost of ownership over time less than what I will (now) pay if I choose to go the CC route.
Another quote from Mike Chambers from Adobe:
I can access the CS6 files from my Creative Cloud downloads page.
Attachments
Last edited:
That, at least, is mildly reassuring. Of course, Adobe could just try not releasing software that's a buggy piece of cr*p to start with, given the price point
Fair enough, I'm dutch, so I'm not 'that' familiar with the English language.
True.
Yes and no. Yes, you loose access using the apps, but as for files you still gain access to your files on the cloud. And whit the payed photoshop version you have those files will be still useful for editing purposes. You just can't edit those files once you don't pay with the latest app.
Yes, but if you stop paying you can still use your old CS6 photoshop for instance. So the files are still valuable. In some years from now that will chance, I agree. Because it might be difficult to open CS16 (as example) files in CS6. But again, is that what people want? CS5 versus CS6 ok, but CS6 versus CS9 is a world of difference when you look at the possibilities the versions that had many updates in years from now.
I doubt that. First of all, educational prizes are way lower as they where when you bought the program's. The only point you've in this context would be that schools have to keep paying to being able to use these apps. In previous model schools could choose not to pay for an update for more then 2 years because that's about the time a bought update would come to the market in the old model. But I've been to an art school and they where constantly updating the software as well and with reason, they wanted the students to get along with the newest techniques out there. It's only a problem when a school decides not to update a two years old program.
As a high school Multimedia teacher with 32 iMacs in a lab, I can tell you that this fee structure is completely unworkable. Pay for the same software every year? Ha! My computers are 6 years old and I can't remember the last time we bought software.
Fair enough... but if you were in charge of business at Adobe, how would you address the problem then? I can't think of any alternatives that are better. A lot of bad apples (pirates) spoiled it for the rest.
I have to say, I completely disagree with you. When you receive your wedding photos or open up the newest issue of National Geographic, I assure you that the majority of the photos you see have been Photoshopped. IMO, Photoshop is today's equivalent of a darkroom and using it shouldn't be looked up as a crutch. It may not be able to polish a turd, but it can definitely be used to make good photographs great, especially if you take the time to edit carefully (ie edit photos individually as opposed to running batch actions). To suggest that using Photoshop for everything means you lack skills or effort in the field is simply wrong and uninformed.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that naturally existing genes cannot be patented...
If a company makes a product, it's their right to choose whatever payment system for those who like to make use of their products. You're still free not to agree with that and choose some other program to use.
A company doesn't "own" it's consumers, they "own" the right to choose how to distribute there own products at what cost. That's a totally different fact in the reality of today. You're talking about it as if Adobe is some kind of government that is stripping away some kind of "rights" you claim to have. As if Adobe should go in the way 'you' tell them to go. You don't like it? Fair enough, simply don't pay anything. Nobody will condemn you doing so ^^
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me to be honest.