Adobe Warns Customers of Potential Legal Action for Using Older Versions of Creative Cloud Apps

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

This gets to the heart of the subscriptions model, control. A lack of ownership. Eff off.

You don’t own software you buy. You own a license to use the software. Whether you subscribe or pay up front, if a third party issue arises like it does with Dolby then the problem is exactly the same.

People who complain about subscriptions are pirates or brainwashed by pirates. You have never had such powerful and cheap software as you have today. Any argument against that is absurd, especially if you are earning money from use.

 

[richpjr]

Capture one is kind of steep at $300 (of course the Cannon and Nikon versions are higher ), is there any cheaper alternatives?

It's even worse when you have to pay $150 to upgrade every time a new version comes out.

 

[outskirtsofinfinity]

If the CS2 I torrented a decade ago, which still works fine, affected by this?

 

[nwcs]

It would seem to make more sense to stick to Lightroom Classic CC + Photoshop CC for $10 per month than buying Capture One for $300.

For some that is absolutely true. I don’t have a particular issue with subscriptions exactly. My problem with the CC subscription is the lack of sufficient exit strategy. You’re left with your files and a partially functioning Lightroom (for now) and that’s it. A better exit strategy would be to (after a sufficient time being a subscriber) leave you with the last functioning version entirely and if you resubscribe then there’s a re-onboarding cost. I have seen this model in various developer tools and some other places. I’d be perfectly fine with that approach.
[doublepost=1557858144][/doublepost]

It's even worse when you have to pay $150 to upgrade every time a new version comes out.

Technically, you can opt to do it every other version and not every version. It’s an expensive choice but for some it’s worth it for the perpetual option. And in some cases it removes the need for Photoshop entirely.

 

[nerdo]

Avid costs more than CS6, as I expected. But Resolve looks well priced if video is not your main thing.

If video is not your main thing you can use the free version, it's very complete. Lightworks is another option that is also free and used in a lot of movies, like Da Vinci it has a paid pro version. If you don't want something complex, use iMovie

 

[cmwade77]

So in summary, just stop using Adobe software and go with alternatives that don't have monthly subscription fees instead.

 

[azpekt]

Problem is there aren't a lot of replacements for lightroom. And none as good. Capture One seems to be the closest but it's damn pricey.

Lots of replacements for photoshop though.

Check darktable

 

[cmwade77]

Well, Adobe came up with CC and people just went for it, increasing profits. Who do you blame?

At the time, many were left with no viable alternatives, there are now more choices on the market, many of which are free or close to it and others that at least still have the option to purchase a perpetual license.

 

[cube]

For some that is absolutely true. I don’t have a particular issue with subscriptions exactly. My problem with the CC subscription is the lack of sufficient exit strategy. You’re left with your files and a partially functioning Lightroom (for now) and that’s it. A better exit strategy would be to (after a sufficient time being a subscriber) leave you with the last functioning version entirely and if you resubscribe then there’s a re-onboarding cost. I have seen this model in various developer tools and some other places. I’d be perfectly fine with that approach.

Well, you can't be sure what would be safer: sticking with LR or switching to C1.

 

[archer75]

Check darktable

I have. And several others except capture one. All are just ok. But it's certainly an option.

 

[cube]

At the time, many were left with no viable alternatives, there are now more choices on the market, many of which are free or close to it and others that at least still have the option to purchase a perpetual license.

CS6 was still sold when they started offering CC. People chose CC.

 

[richpjr]

Technically, you can opt to do it every other version and not every version. It’s an expensive choice but for some it’s worth it for the perpetual option. And in some cases it removes the need for Photoshop entirely.

I used to upgrade every other year to Photoshop, so the $10 a month I am paying is about the same out of pocket as I was paying before. Of course, upgrading less frequently reduces the out of pocket expenses - but also doesn't get the latest features, new camera support, security fixes, etc. I personally like being up to date, so the subscription cost doesn't really bother me. Would I like free updates and new versions forever for no charge and no subscription? Sure, but that isn't really a sustainable model for most companies either as the only way they'd generate revenue is by constantly adding new clients and all markets get saturated at some point.

 

[jjhny]

You do realize you have probably never “owned” software, right? You purchase and own a license to use software; a license that is almost always revocable by the company that sold it to you.

Subscription licensing doesn’t change the legal authority of the company to revoke the license or not.

Yes, most any half intelligent person knows that. But when you 'buy it' - the software won't turn off on you if you stop paying. You pay once and can run it almost forever (barring an update to the system that would 'break' it). Some people like subscriptions, but many of us do not. Not everyone is the same.

 

[cube]

Yes, most any half intelligent person knows that. But when you 'buy it' - the software won't turn off on you if you stop paying. You pay once and can run it almost forever (barring an update to the system that would 'break' it). Some people like subscriptions, but many of us do not. Not everyone is the same.

I think the people who chose CC instead of CS6 did not think that important features could be removed.

 

[brewcitywi]

Ok, so, is this where we are?

1. Adobe CC upgrades are theoretically free. And, we don't ever really "own" software, even if we buy it outright.
2. If you have an older iMac or OS, upgrading Adobe CC apps can literally bring your computer to a halt.
3. A company can "turn off" my subscription, blocking me from getting my work done?
4. Threatening a lawsuit, to a user, is very odd. I would think that some parts of that have to be unconstitutional.
5. I'm assuming that Adobe means that 3rd party plug-ins in previous versions of Adobe CC, that were discontinued by Adobe or the 3rd party in newer versions, could get THEM in trouble, because Adobe's usage license has expired. I would understand that much better. But, why phrase it in a way that literally accuses the user of stealing? Maybe someone is translating their messages from another language, and the true message is being garbled!
6. Overall, it's not about the money, even if Adobe profits from the arrangement.
7. The huge problem is that, from Adobe's point-of-view, THEY are 10,000,000 times more important than YOU, the lowly, individual "user." From a marketing standpoint, Wow. That somehow, WE work for THEM. We are their employees, and, they dictate rules like an employer would.
8. If that's true, then we should have right like "Hostile Work Environment," or "Defective Products." If they can sue to remove our license, then, we can sue because our designs didn't make the revenue they promised. Instead of "requesting" new features, why can't we legally "demand" them? If that's where we're going, then those counter-arguments seem just as viable.

 

[richpjr]

Ok, so, is this where we are?
1. Adobe CC upgrades are theoretically free. And, we don't ever really "own" software, even if we buy it outright.

Not theoretically free, are free. No, you don't own the software you own a license to use it as all companies do.

2. If you have an older iMac or OS, upgrading Adobe CC apps can literally bring your computer to a halt.

Quite possibly, even likely at some point.

3. A company can "turn off" my subscription, blocking me from getting my work done?

Depends on what you agreed to when you accepted the license. Nowhere anywhere in the article did Adobe ever say they'd "turn off" your subscription.

4. Threatening a lawsuit, to a user, is very odd. I would think that some parts of that have to be unconstitutional.

Adobe never threatened to sue anybody and you should read the constitution again if you think in any way, shape or form this has anything to do with your constitutional rights.

5. I'm assuming that Adobe means that 3rd party plug-ins in previous versions of Adobe CC, that were discontinued by Adobe or the 3rd party in newer versions, could get THEM in trouble, because Adobe's usage license has expired. I would understand that much better. But, why phrase it in a way that literally accuses the user of stealing? Maybe someone is translating their messages from another language, and the true message is being garbled!

No, they mean you do not have the right to use something you do not have a license to and a third party (Dolby) could sue you for it. Where did anything in that article accuse any user of stealing anything?

6. Overall, it's not about the money, even if Adobe profits from the arrangement.

Don't know what this even means, but since it applies to users with the CC subscription, they are getting your money whether you upgrade or not.

7. The huge problem is that, from Adobe's point-of-view, THEY are 10,000,000 times more important than YOU, the lowly, individual "user." From a marketing standpoint, Wow. That somehow, WE work for THEM. We are their employees, and, they dictate rules like an employer would.

Wow. Read the article again. It is a PSA warning users that they don't have a license to use software. How you extrapolate that into this is a stretch.

8. If that's true, then we should have right like "Hostile Work Environment," or "Defective Products." If they can sue to remove our license, then, we can sue because our designs didn't make the revenue they promised. Instead of "requesting" new features, why can't we legally "demand" them? If that's where we're going, then those counter-arguments seem just as viable.

Your understanding of labor laws and consumer protection appears to be about the same as your understanding of the constitution.

Really, this hyperbole over Adobe is beyond ridiculous.

 

[cube]

Ok, so, is this where we are?

5. I'm assuming that Adobe means that 3rd party plug-ins in previous versions of Adobe CC, that were discontinued by Adobe or the 3rd party in newer versions, could get THEM in trouble, because Adobe's usage license has expired. I would understand that much better. But, why phrase it in a way that literally accuses the user of stealing? Maybe someone is translating their messages from another language, and the true message is being garbled!

I don't think the code is in plugins, but in the program itself, so the feature was removed in later versions.

 

[tallscot]

What good video software can you use that works both on Mac and Windows?

Davinci Resolve

 

[InuNacho]

People who complain about subscriptions are pirates or brainwashed by pirates.

Uhh, what?
Adobe's quality control has tanked since they went subscription only. Its cool if you like paying XX amount of dollars a month for garbage software, but I'd rather pay upfront for actual quality software and be done with it.

 

[Eric5h5]

People who complain about subscriptions are pirates or brainwashed by pirates.

That's an incredibly ignorant thing to say, considering that pirates don't care about subscriptions, they just pirate the software and have it free permanently. You didn't really think that subscriptions somehow stop piracy, did you? I don't normally do this, but: LOL (really!). If you can run it locally, you can pirate it. The only feasible way to stop it is to literally run everything in the cloud, where your computer is basically just a dumb display terminal that doesn't run any code.

Anyway 100% of my software is paid, 0% is subscription. It does not work for me at all. Stop thinking that you're the center of the universe, and that what works for you works for everyone.

--Eric

 

[DisraeliGears]

Interesting but unsurprising. I think Adobe’s entire business model over the last 20 years is “We were here first, you gotta deal with it”. That was the way they operated Flash, even with it rife with exploits and security breaches. While we might like to laud Apple for giving Flash the boot, it was upgrades to HTML that finally finished it off.

I like aspects of Adobe Suite. PDF is a decent file format, and certainly they set the bar for design programs for years. In my experience they’ve been resting on their laurels for years tho, and their whole suite is so pointlessly, needlessly complex in order to milk users for licenses and later subscriptions.

An old job had enough licenses for me to learn real design on PS, so I naturally inclined in that direction when I got my iPad Pro. After installing 4 or 5 programs for what two (pixel and vector) should handle, I found out that none of them could natively incorporate text and I’d have to do a bunch of workarounds to create a simple logo. That’s when I paid Pixelmator $10 and got 95% of the functionality (and then some) for a one time fee a fraction of what Adobe would charge.

Adobe is in Vista territory at the moment. They’ll never go away, but their market dominance is fragmenting and I for one couldn’t be happier about that.

 

[Journojulz]

Affinity or Pixelmator? Pros and cons please.

Was getting ready to look at replacements for my 32-bit CS6 anyway.

But replacing Indesign at work will be more of a bind.

Any alternatives that will edit .indd?

 

[subjonas]

You do realize you have probably never “owned” software, right? You purchase and own a license to use software; a license that is almost always revocable by the company that sold it to you.

Subscription licensing doesn’t change the legal authority of the company to revoke the license or not.

I don’t think that’s true. I can use pretty much all of my purchased software offline which means there’d be no way for companies to revoke them.

 

[papacuppa]

Seems short-sighted and greedy to me. I thought the idea was always that Adobe software requires years of practice and commitment to make it pay the bills, so you let people use it for 'free', until their economic position justifies active investment. This seemed wise and sustainable to me, allowing new prospects to nurture themselves into paying customers eventually.

Adobe recently reduced the legitimate free trial from 30 days to 7. What are they selling now? A todo list app?! Short-termism, folks. I imagine top management recently got some 'smart' marketing type who puts across a good short-term impression. Gotta make those shareholders happy, right! Adobe, look at Boeing. Please.

 

[cube]

Seems short-sighted and greedy to me. I thought the idea was always that Adobe software requires years of practice and commitment to make it pay the bills, so you let people use it for 'free', until their economic position justifies active investment. This seemed wise and sustainable to me, allowing new prospects to nurture themselves into paying customers eventually.

Adobe recently reduced the legitimate free trial from 30 days to 7. What are they selling now? A todo list app?! Short-termism, folks. I imagine top management recently got some 'smart' marketing type who puts across a good short-term impression. Gotta make those shareholders happy, right! Adobe, look at Boeing. Please.

This has nothing to do with the issue at hand.