Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You keep saying this and it isn't true. I use (and, crucially, only need) Design Standard. Adobe's new model means that I will pay the equivalent of full retail box price for Design Standard every two years.

Financially, this new model makes me significantly worse off.

He doesn't get it. And I'm not sure if it's a refusal to understand or a language barrier. I've repeated this several times. It also could be he only sees things from his point of view and that's all he cares about. Not sure which or what combination.

His latest post is confusing to me because he kept referring to CS as needing DVDs - I point out that you didn't need DVDs. He replied back that he preferred DVDs but now doesn't. That's lovely - but he seem to repeatedly only look at the scenario from his use case - no one elses.
 
.....The hardest complainers, also among some of my friends in the field, using Adobe products illegally and simply can't stand paying for software to start with.

I think that 'red herring' is already out of date. - Apparently it's already been cracked, so it has had no effect on the illegal users. Therefore there is nothing for them to complain about, they use the programs for free anyway. - I however am/was a paying customer, still a registered user. I do think this new business model is inequitable and could damage my financial security long term, if I bought into it. In any case, I see problems with it. I do hope, now that it has been shown not to be the anti-piracy panacea its supporters have claimed it to be, that from now on I'm not going to be branded thief or pirate for voicing my concerns.

I want to move forward not waiting years for a huge update or not that cost me hundreds of euro's. Now I'm just up to date as long I pay, and I'm very happy with that.

Well, I'm happy for you also. It's not going to cost you any more than it does now, because you update every time anyway and there is never going to be a problem with you paying the rent. Fine. - Well, I don't update every version, I like to choose which updates to purchase based on the value I perceive it to offer. I do not think it's up to the vendor to dictate terms on this. A lot of people feel the same way, I don't know how many. The number I used earlier was based on the number who have signed this petition, It wasn't meant to be a definitive number, just a ballpark figure based on a real world metric. Obviously not everyone who disagrees with this move to SaaS has signed the petition or even knows about it, (it's only been up for a few weeks). The point was that paying customers who communicate and act together can have influence. How many it would take to influence Adobe, I don't know. But there can't be many companies in the world who can just turn away the occasional $10 million plus, that could be made from a mere 35 000 customers, especially when it would come at no additional cost to the company. A digitally downloaded file is infinitely reproducible remember.
 
I think that 'red herring' is already out of date. - Apparently it's already been cracked, so it has had no effect on the illegal users.
Illegal software between users and companies has always been a cat and mouse game. To be honest, I really don't care. Personally I think it's immoral to use illegal software and then act tought behind a PC calling, in this case, Adobe this and that. These people will find themselves with a product that might suddenly stop working because a new crack is needed or, in some cases, have to deal with a nice virus due of the illegal download from a torrent site and without any doubt also often don't have to deal with any of this as well.

I take my work seriously and if I can't bring up such a small payment each month to begin with I should seriously rethink what I'm doing in first place and as long I earn good money with these products I value it with simply paying for them.

And that's that ;)
 
You are extremely arrogant. I don't care where you are in your career or where you started. To dismiss other photographers for using software that you choose to not use is simply wrong.

While I agree with you that Aperture and Lightroom aren't necessarily for amateurs, didn't you pretty much dismiss using Photoshop earlier, saying most photos don't need PS editing (apart from contrast) and that if you use it on all your photos, you're making up for a lack of photographic skill? :eek:
 
Well, I don't update every version, I like to choose which updates to purchase based on the value I perceive it to offer.

Unless I'm mistaken... I thought they said there won't be "versions" anymore.

Once you sign up for Creative Cloud... which you have to do from now on... you just get whatever updated features they come up with.

The reasoning was so they won't have to wait until the next release to add some new feature... and not having to rush to meet a deadline for an upcoming release.

Again... I may be mistaken... but I am under the impression that there won't be a Creative Cloud 2, or Creative Cloud 3 in the future.
 
Unless I'm mistaken... I thought they said there won't be "versions" anymore.

Once you sign up for Creative Cloud... which you have to do from now on... you just get whatever updated features they come up with.

The reasoning was so they won't have to wait until the next release to add some new feature... and not having to rush to meet a deadline for an upcoming release.

Again... I may be mistaken... but I am under the impression that there won't be a Creative Cloud 2, or Creative Cloud 3 in the future.



True.
 
You can simply use your programs you've bought. You're not (!) forced to go buy a CC account. The latest bought versions of Adobe will still be updated, Adobe has promised to so. Only after a year or so when CC is so much progressed they will stop updating the versions you've bought. But still then you can use Lightroom you've bought as long you like.

I don't find the excuse that things going bad economically a solid one. If things go bad economically wise then you can't spend hundreds of dollars as well for buying a program that at some point will have payed updates as well. It's about having money or not. As for my own company I've saved up reserves for paying expenses like software to begin with. Because I want to be up to date I save money up to hundreds of euro's (in my case euro's) each year so I know that I always will be able to buy update. Instead of paying everything in one single payment I pay a small percentage each month which basically is the same as when I would pay up front.

I can also subtract the payments I make from taxes, so the actual prizes are in reality even way lower then you see on the Adobe website because because I'm paying Adobe I can pay less taxes each year. For education it's even better, schools, in Holland that is, can even subtract WAY more then I can do each year being a commercial company....


If your company, or any to be precise, don't have the budget to pay a monthly prize then you can still use the old software. You couldn't update your old software in the old system as well because that would cost you money as well...

You can only argue that at some point you might have just enough money for updating one software program and despite being broke then you can use it for a while further on. But there is a thin line between able to buy updates, a CC account and the argument of not having enough money. In short, you can't blame Adobe for your financial issues if any.




You would need to make priorities as any company does. Like you need to save financial reserves for basic things you need like electricity, payments for the people cleaning your school/company, salary for the teachers and the money for renting the license of software your students are working with.

If money is short, then you can decide to work on old versions you have now, or you could decide to cut finances on other fronts to get more money for CC accounts. It's about priorities.

New software cost money, either using CC or not CC to begin with. Updates cost money. A good organized school would have a list of priorities and a good overview of the cost. Based on that you make decisions. But you can't, again, blame Adobe, that they're not giving the software for free. I know you don't but most of the negative responses I read here are all on the same thing: it cost money and I dare to state that many among the reactions are using illegal software and feel suddenly very much restricted which I can imagine.

For those who actually pay for their software, I'm among them, just know that the cost are not that much higher then it would be when buying the new software on disk. On top of that you get more updates, free to use hundreds of commercial fonts worth $25.000, online space to share you work with others and clients a much much better workflow because everything, like settings, are being synced on all your devises, etc. The list of benefits is long.

And once again, if you're using bought software, I've got CS6 Master Collection, you can still use that and for the coming year it will be still be update but only concerning bugs. I decided to switch to CC anyway because I like the workflow and the extra's it offers. I'm not a billionaire, just a graphical and an interaction designer myself but luckily with a company that's financial healthy and like most companies do I also save up money for the cost to come.

Meanwhile, I get access to all of Adobe's products and because I earn money with it I find it nothing more then reasonable to spend some money each month on the company so they can provide me with even better software.



Under the old system as well as long you don't decide to update.



Yes and no. Yes, most of the old materials will work on CC versions yes. You might aspect issues the other way around. But that was also the case in the "old" model where C6 materials would sometimes cause issues when using it on a CS3 version. But you can, like in the old model, still save materials within CC as a CS5 document in order to be able to load it on an older version. That's what I've been told by Adobe themselves.



There are several ways to "create" money in order to get those licenses. It's not up for me to decide which ways you should take. But materials, machines, software cost money, weather you're buying a license or when you need to rent it. Each school and firm need to understand that. There is no such thing as running an office without having any expenses to make.

I understand your points and for myself have switched to CC. my post was more about how universities in the US (at least mine) work in terms of budgets. My unit can't build up a reserve. It is actually illegal. We are given an equipment budget (sometimes 0 dollars) and for anything that exceeds it have to apply for. So every couple of years we put in a proposal to update one of our classrooms to more recent equipment. Which often means upgrading software as week as old versions stop being able to run. This isn't unusual in that we have classrooms that haven't been upgraded in 5 years. So we have situations where we have computers that can only run LR2 while newer rooms use LR 3 since we couldn't get licenses for 2 anymore. This makes it hard for students as they now need to move between classrooms and land with two catalogs rather than one. The situation I was referring to is analogous in that we could find ourselves in a situation where we might not be able to run software do to budget and need to install old versions. If we can't we will have serious issues.

This is not adobe's issue. More the issue is with budgetary processes that never accounts for the needs of a digital environment and one that is decided by the legislature not the ingress having to make decisions. Hopefully this will fit us to revise those processes.
 
You keep saying this and it isn't true. I use (and, crucially, only need) Design Standard. Adobe's new model means that I will pay the equivalent of full retail box price for Design Standard every two years.

Financially, this new model makes me significantly worse off.
It is true. You and others are choosing to compare the full suite costs to your current costs instead of what you claim you actually need.

Design Standard costs just under $1700 dollars US currently but CC only charges $60 dollars per month for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. At that rate it'd take you nearly three years before the new model made you "significantly worse off." Also, many of you claim that CS6 suffices your needs (or even all the way back to CS2/3/4) so you could easily pay the $19.99 for the one program that you needed to be the most up-to-date...or even a one time fee of $19.99-$120 or anywhere in between of your choosing for a project that called for the newest Adobe features...and then go back to CS6 (or earlier) for the rest of the year if necessity didn't dictate otherwise.

I understand your points and for myself have switched to CC. my post was more about how universities in the US (at least mine) work in terms of budgets. My unit can't build up a reserve. It is actually illegal. We are given an equipment budget (sometimes 0 dollars) and for anything that exceeds it have to apply for. So every couple of years we put in a proposal to update one of our classrooms to more recent equipment. Which often means upgrading software as week as old versions stop being able to run. This isn't unusual in that we have classrooms that haven't been upgraded in 5 years. So we have situations where we have computers that can only run LR2 while newer rooms use LR 3 since we couldn't get licenses for 2 anymore. This makes it hard for students as they now need to move between classrooms and land with two catalogs rather than one. The situation I was referring to is analogous in that we could find ourselves in a situation where we might not be able to run software do to budget and need to install old versions. If we can't we will have serious issues.
This move by Adobe actually helps in the scenario you're describing because recurring license fees are handled differently than equipment upgrades.

For example, the reason your labs are running XP (if they still are) is due to the IT's department decision to do so and not due to budget constraints. Site licenses costs the same regardless of Windows version. Other software companies operate the same way, too, and the university you're referring to that seems to be treating software iterations as equipment upgrades (along with buying software at single license, end-user retail pricing schemes) is rare. Either that or you're talking as a student and not someone in on the actual budgeting of software/equipment at the education site.
 
It is true. You and others are choosing to compare the full suite costs to your current costs instead of what you claim you actually need.

Design Standard costs just under $1700 dollars US currently but CC only charges $60 dollars per month for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. At that rate it'd take you nearly three years before the new model made you "significantly worse off." Also, many of you claim that CS6 suffices your needs (or even all the way back to CS2/3/4) so you could easily pay the $19.99 for the one program that you needed to be the most up-to-date...or even a one time fee of $19.99-$120 or anywhere in between of your choosing for a project that called for the newest Adobe features...and then go back to CS6 (or earlier) for the rest of the year if necessity didn't dictate otherwise.


This move by Adobe actually helps in the scenario you're describing because recurring license fees are handled differently than equipment upgrades.

For example, the reason your labs are running XP (if they still are) is due to the IT's department decision to do so and not due to budget constraints. Site licenses costs the same regardless of Windows version. Other software companies operate the same way, too, and the university you're referring to that seems to be treating software iterations as equipment upgrades (along with buying software at single license, end-user retail pricing schemes) is rare. Either that or you're talking as a student and not someone in on the actual budgeting of software/equipment at the education site.

Because our classrooms/labs aren't used by other departments (we're the photography area and have specialized equipment IT isn't willing to support so we have to have our own labs and ITs upgrade cycles and Mac support wee horrible in the past making using their classrooms difficult for software and unworkable for many other aspects of what we teach) we have our own labs and classrooms and our department has to buy the licenses from IT (at a the rates they negotiated from adobe). This necessitates making the purchase from tech fees since we can't use lab/class fees to buy computers or software. Tech fees are not apportioned back to the area based on enrollments, but are applied for with no gaurauntee we will get anything. So we would apply and upgrade a classroom or lab at a time (when funded).

If our IT department work out a licensing deal with adobe for CC, we will have to figure out a way to let the rest of the university use our labs and classrooms (which have our classes scheduled in then 8-8 m-s and often have waiting lines 4-5 deep in the lab if we want them to install and maintain this licenses. Or we will need to convince our department to budget our area (1 of 8) half of all the tech fees for our departments. Since we might not be able to use one time surpluses or appropriations as we have been able to do in the past.

This isn't an anti Adobe rant, but just trying to figure out how we are going to manage our facilities in light of the change. Turns out we are not alone judging by my conversions with other faculty at other institutions.
 
This move by Adobe actually helps in the scenario you're describing because recurring license fees are handled differently than equipment upgrades.

For example, the reason your labs are running XP (if they still are) is due to the IT's department decision to do so and not due to budget constraints. Site licenses costs the same regardless of Windows version. Other software companies operate the same way, too, and the university you're referring to that seems to be treating software iterations as equipment upgrades (along with buying software at single license, end-user retail pricing schemes) is rare. Either that or you're talking as a student and not someone in on the actual budgeting of software/equipment at the education site.

That's a good point.

Also... Adobe is a very mature company who has been working with businesses and universities for years.

Surely Adobe has some idea of the way a university operates... with budgetary spending and such.

I, personally, don't have that information... but I would assume Adobe has a whole department that deals with education licensing.
 
This isn't an anti Adobe rant, but just trying to figure out how we are going to manage our facilities in light of the change. Turns out we are not alone judging by my conversions with other faculty at other institutions.
Don't get me wrong...from your description it sounds like you're facing a valid concern. But it also seems more like a unique case scenario rather than representative of university budgets in general. I'm only going off my own experience with my departments budgets but I've also only taught at large state universities.
 
It is true. You and others are choosing to compare the full suite costs to your current costs instead of what you claim you actually need.

I'm not sure why you need to say "claim you actually need" as if I'm distorting the facts to support my point. I don't "claim" anything: I work in print; I have nothing to do with web content, video or audio, so Dreamweaver, Premier, After Effects (in fact, everything except AI, ID and PS) are entirely superfluous to my requirements.

Design Standard costs just under $1700 dollars US currently but CC only charges $60 dollars per month for Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign. At that rate it'd take you nearly three years before the new model made you "significantly worse off."

In the UK, Design Standard CS6 was ~£1200 and a CC subscription is £47/mth. That's 26 months on CC to pay the same as the boxed version, notwithstanding the discounted rate for the first year, which is a negligible incentive compared to paying nearly £600/yr in perpetuity.
 
I understand your points and for myself have switched to CC. my post was more about how universities in the US (at least mine) work in terms of budgets. My unit can't build up a reserve. It is actually illegal. We are given an equipment budget (sometimes 0 dollars) and for anything that exceeds it have to apply for. So every couple of years we put in a proposal to update one of our classrooms to more recent equipment. Which often means upgrading software as week as old versions stop being able to run. This isn't unusual in that we have classrooms that haven't been upgraded in 5 years. So we have situations where we have computers that can only run LR2 while newer rooms use LR 3 since we couldn't get licenses for 2 anymore. This makes it hard for students as they now need to move between classrooms and land with two catalogs rather than one. The situation I was referring to is analogous in that we could find ourselves in a situation where we might not be able to run software do to budget and need to install old versions. If we can't we will have serious issues.

This is not adobe's issue. More the issue is with budgetary processes that never accounts for the needs of a digital environment and one that is decided by the legislature not the ingress having to make decisions. Hopefully this will fit us to revise those processes.

I understand. I sure hope that your University can come up with a solution, and to make myself clear I do think Adobe should be more "friendly" regarding to the contracts they offer towards students, universities and schools in general.
All though I do think Adobe has the right to choose whatever payment system they like since they make themselves the software I do think it's the responsibility of each company when they find themselves in a situation where they are practically controlling the market because they own that specific segment of the market. Meaning, there is no real candidate next to Adobe. Yes, you can use expensive third party software for video editing purposes and Corel Draw for I care when you need to design stuff but it's pretty clear that Adobe has the advantage to deliver the most wanted products and with good reason because Adobe's products do kick ass so to speak....

If I had a saying in all of this I would give Adobe the advise to "stretch" the deadline opportunity for it's users to choose when to move over to CC or not. Microsoft is doing the same with it's Office online. You can still buy Microsoft Office as a stand alone software package. But at some given time Microsoft's Office will be online available using the cloud, but by that time people, and especially Universities had enough time to adept by reorganizing finances.
 
One thing i noticed is that Photoshop CC is faster than Photoshop CS6 (v14 vs. v13). Not only application startup time, but also almost all operations. When saving files for example i see big improvements.
 
The whole owning the software doesn't really appeals to me that much. I got programs from the last century and those are worthless now. Any program will be at some given time, i don't know anyone who is seriously making money witch CS1 as example.

I had never thought of this. The copy of CS3 that I have (along with PS 5.5) sitting on my shelf is nothing more than just filler for the bookshelf.

I do think Adobe should offer a few more options. As several have pointed out, an option to own or rent would be nice, and just make the rent option very attractive. I also think they should offer different packages like they have previously with the CS. Make a CC Design for print designers, CC Web, CC Production, etc. Currently, if you only use two programs (say PS & ID), you're better off to go ahead and get all of CC instead of the two programs separately.

For me, the more I look at this model, the more it makes sense for me. Most of my work is print based design (PS, Illy, ID used extensively), but the new web apps seem to be geared more towards us print designers than previously, so there is another service I can offer to my clients. Also, I've been doing small video projects here and there, so the video products can be used.

One other thing to think about for professionals who are complaining. If this cracks down on piracy and keeps people who are non-professionals from downloading the apps, this could result in more work for pros. I've lost work to people who have a cousin or a friend's kid who have cracked versions of Illustrator & Photoshop. When they hear my prices, they gasp and say that they can get their buddy to do it for them. True, I realize that clients pay for my expertise, but the cheap option for them makes it more difficult for me to get the job.
 
One other thing to think about for professionals who are complaining. If this cracks down on piracy and keeps people who are non-professionals from downloading the apps, this could result in more work for pros. I've lost work to people who have a cousin or a friend's kid who have cracked versions of Illustrator & Photoshop. When they hear my prices, they gasp and say that they can get their buddy to do it for them. True, I realize that clients pay for my expertise, but the cheap option for them makes it more difficult for me to get the job.

I think illegal software will always be there, but I agree with you that's it is quite annoying that among the complainers about this new payment system are many (!!!) that are using illegal software while professionals like you and me are actually paying for the software because we 'are' professional.

Oh yeah, and I also agree with the rest of your post :)

----------

One thing i noticed is that Photoshop CC is faster than Photoshop CS6 (v14 vs. v13). Not only application startup time, but also almost all operations. When saving files for example i see big improvements.

I had notice this myself as well :)
 
...One other thing to think about for professionals who are complaining. If this cracks down on piracy and keeps people who are non-professionals from downloading the apps, this could result in more work for pros. I've lost work to people who have a cousin or a friend's kid who have cracked versions of Illustrator & Photoshop. When they hear my prices, they gasp and say that they can get their buddy to do it for them. True, I realize that clients pay for my expertise, but the cheap option for them makes it more difficult for me to get the job.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that a professional designer has much to fear from a kid who downloads software for free. Just having a copy of PS or AI doesn't mean you can do anything with them. Apart from acquiring fundamental design skills, usually 2 to 4 years in formal education, (art school), these programs are complex. It takes at least a couple of years to become proficient enough in their use to be competitive. - Honestly, I wouldn't regard someones kid or mate who's downloaded a collection of high end software from pirate bay as my competition, if I were you. Look instead at the talent you have to compete with and concentrate on honing your skills.

The real worry for me, is that one of the justifications used to get a great many people to sign up to this money grubbing scheme, was the touted anti-piracy measures inherent in the model. Well it cracked on day one, the first day of release. Are you telling me that Adobe with all the resources, Phd computer scientists and programmers at it's disposal couldn't do better than that? No, I think Adobe cares far less about piracy than some of the posters on these forums. Piracy is nothing more than a marketing tool that allows companies like Adobe, to brainwash fools into parting with more money than they need.

My atitude to prated software is this: I don't do it myself but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that it goes on. I don't want hundreds of applications cluttering up my hard drive. Acquiring a piece of software is only the beginning of an often difficult learning curve. There's only about five applications that really matter to my workflow. Adobe Photoshop is one and Pixologic ZBrush is another. Just compare the two companies in their approach to customers. ZBrush, you pay once and all future upgrades are free. Over the years the features that have been added are mind blowing. And they have one of the best user forums on the internet showing some of the most breath taking digital art anywhere. All created with software you only ever have to pay for once. How the hell can they do that?
 
I think illegal software will always be there, but I agree with you that's it is quite annoying that among the complainers about this new payment system are many (!!!) that are using illegal software while professionals like you and me are actually paying for the software because we 'are' professional.

This is another thing you keep trotting out that isn't true. The people complaining aren't pirates: the pirates don't care. The DRM on CC has already been cracked, meaning that the people who weren't paying for the software before will continue to not pay for the software in the future.

Meanwhile, professionals like me are going to get absolutely gouged on price if they sign up for this. Yes, I can stay on CS6, but given that Adobe haven't fixed any of the Illustrator bugs I've reported up until now I have no hope that they'll fix them in the future, now that they're focussed on CC. I was going to upgrade to CS7 solely in hope that some of the bugs would be fixed, but now I just have to slog on in the face of:

Window behaviour broken - have two documents open as floating windows; CMD-TAB to a different application then CMD-TAB back and the wrong window will be in the foreground.

With three windows (1, 2, 3 stacked in that order) Window 2 will be in FG instead of Window 1. Use CMD-~ to cycle through them to get back to Window 1 and the cycle order will not go 2, 3, 1, but 2, 3, 2, 1.

Type: Change Case: Sentence Case - strips the initial letter from every paragraph

Actions invoked by F-Key play twice

Make a multiple selection with mixed overprint settings. Click on 'Overprint Fill' sometimes the option will check, applying to all, sometimes uncheck, un-applying to all. This occurs randomly.

Recent Font contextual menu is inconsistent. Myriad Pro will frequently jump to the top, causing the wrong font to be applied.

Exported TIFFs exhibit white hairlines for no apparent reason. Copy and paste the entire contents of the document to a new document and an identical export will usually but not always export correctly.

Selecting the Color Profile option in exported TIFFs does not actually embed the selected profile.

Why should I have to pay a penny extra to get these reported bugs fixed?
 
Yes, I can stay on CS6, but given that Adobe haven't fixed any of the Illustrator bugs I've reported up until now I have no hope that they'll fix them in the future, now that they're focussed on CC. I was going to upgrade to CS7 solely in hope that some of the bugs would be fixed
[...]
Why should I have to pay a penny extra to get these reported bugs fixed?
By your own reasoning you were already prepared to upgrade to CS7 due to bugs in CS6 but then you end your post with a rhetorical question about paying for bug fixes.

If you're experiencing unresolvable issues with Illustrator but everything else is working for you then you only have to pay $19.99 per month. How is that more expensive than buying CS7?
 
This is another thing you keep trotting out that isn't true. The people complaining aren't pirates: the pirates don't care. The DRM on CC has already been cracked, meaning that the people who weren't paying for the software before will continue to not pay for the software in the future.

Read Jim, I wrote "among them" and "many" not "all".

Meanwhile, professionals like me are going to get absolutely gouged on price if they sign up for this. Yes, I can stay on CS6, but given that Adobe haven't fixed any of the Illustrator bugs I've reported up until now I have no hope that they'll fix them in the future, now that they're focussed on CC. I was going to upgrade to CS7 solely in hope that some of the bugs would be fixed, but now I just have to slog on in the face of:

Window behaviour broken - have two documents open as floating windows; CMD-TAB to a different application then CMD-TAB back and the wrong window will be in the foreground.

With three windows (1, 2, 3 stacked in that order) Window 2 will be in FG instead of Window 1. Use CMD-~ to cycle through them to get back to Window 1 and the cycle order will not go 2, 3, 1, but 2, 3, 2, 1.

Type: Change Case: Sentence Case - strips the initial letter from every paragraph

Actions invoked by F-Key play twice

Make a multiple selection with mixed overprint settings. Click on 'Overprint Fill' sometimes the option will check, applying to all, sometimes uncheck, un-applying to all. This occurs randomly.

Recent Font contextual menu is inconsistent. Myriad Pro will frequently jump to the top, causing the wrong font to be applied.

Exported TIFFs exhibit white hairlines for no apparent reason. Copy and paste the entire contents of the document to a new document and an identical export will usually but not always export correctly.

Selecting the Color Profile option in exported TIFFs does not actually embed the selected profile.

Why should I have to pay a penny extra to get these reported bugs fixed?

You don't, Adobe promised it will go on fixing box of the old CS6 programs. The industry is so large and not everyone will jump over to CC directly. So IF Adobe really like to loose lot's of users they should simply abandon fixing these issues as you described. But they won't, at least, they promised over and over that they won't. Time will tell.

And by the time these bugs have been repaired you can always decide if stepping over that enables new features for you would be beneficial for you or not. CS6 is still good enough to work with it for a year or 2 in my humble opinion. You're absolutely right when saying: hey! i've payed for this stuff, make it work proper without bugs before I decide to move over. But as BL4zD above my posting said, a small payment a month and you'll jump on board of a system that comes along with much frequently more updates, including ones that fixing bugs. You can imagine, like online gaming, when you have a paying community a company feel much more obligated to deal with bugs as soon as possible because people paying each month for using the programs instead of concentrating on one each year releases.

In that context becoming member of CC is a win-win for you in my point of view.
 
While I agree with you that Aperture and Lightroom aren't necessarily for amateurs, didn't you pretty much dismiss using Photoshop earlier, saying most photos don't need PS editing (apart from contrast) and that if you use it on all your photos, you're making up for a lack of photographic skill? :eek:

No. And if that's the message that others took from my post then I apologise. I meant that for me the general reason for using ps was luminosity masks and blending exposures. There are other great reasons to use it.
 
I do not think it's up to the vendor to dictate terms on this. A lot of people feel the same way, I don't know how many. The number I used earlier was based on the number who have signed this petition, It wasn't meant to be a definitive number, just a ballpark figure based on a real world metric. Obviously not everyone who disagrees with this move to SaaS has signed the petition or even knows about it, (it's only been up for a few weeks). The point was that paying customers who communicate and act together can have influence. How many it would take to influence Adobe, I don't know. But there can't be many companies in the world who can just turn away the occasional $10 million plus, that could be made from a mere 35 000 customers, especially when it would come at no additional cost to the company. A digitally downloaded file is infinitely reproducible remember.
Microsoft just had to do a U-turn on it's crappy new X-Box scheme, and they're a lot bigger than Adobe.
If customers vote with their wallets and also put public pressure on companies, they will be forced to listen.
It's obvious that this move was strictly in Adobe's financial interest rather than to benefit its customers so they should not be surprised that customers are rebelling. Their increased profits can only come at our expense, after all.

The reality is that their products are reaching a level of maturity where more and more useful features are hard to add and their sales have slowed down.
I remember how eager I was for the next upgrades back in the early days of software from Adobe and MS.
In the past few years, it was more of a nuisance to see new versions come out every year just for marketing strategy more than for real innovation, and I had no desire to upgrade to each new version, but at least I knew that once bought, I had the product for as long as I chose to keep using it.
I have not upgraded Office in years because it does everything I want, and the CS suites are pretty much the same, although I tended to upgrade every other version or two, more out of curiosity than need.
But the new renting model is a step too far and I am not falling for it.
Adobe are in for a shock, and their greed will also promote increased piracy in the long run.
One compromise might be to do the subscription model but let users keep the latest version that they paid for if they opt to stop subscribing.
The cloud part is irrelevant, since you can copy your personal stuff on to a hard drive and then stop using the cloud.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.