Goodbye Photoshop

[manaheim]

This is what all software vendors WANT.

It gives them more control over their software and it gets them out of the perpetual "have to create new features to sell software" cycle, which is particularly challenging when the existing software is PLENTY good, giving users no compelling need to transition. (Windows 7 anyone? Hell, Windows XP was damn near close to fine...)

The vendors will say "oh it lowers support costs because it's all in the cloud!" (as if justification for all this), but it's really all kinda just what that one guy said... a money grab.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The Cloud is the future of computing, the high end machines and the software that runs "on" them are the past.

Adobe may up or lower their price depending on market demands, but in the not to distant future any "half decent" software at all (whether on the cheap or free), will be in the cloud too. Pick up some Cloud stocks on the cheap, thank me later

 

[SCraig]

My professors tell me cloud computing is our future. This very well could be an early model of how we purchase any software in the future.

Yeah, or it could go over as well as Microsoft WebTV, New Coke, or the Edsel. All of which were touted as being the wave of the future.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Well, if it's so fundamental and "common", I'll be happy to read your examples of businesses the size of Adobe which have thrived after deciding not to care about whether or not they did.

I mean, you can provide examples of that, right?

www.google.com

^ enormous, successful, well-liked, doesn't throw customers under the bus repeatedly.

 

[texkam]

Perhaps everyone should consider making a donation to Open Source projects.

 

[bentcountershaft]

My professors tell me cloud computing is our future. This very well could be an early model of how we purchase any software in the future.

Yeah, or it could go over as well as Microsoft WebTV, New Coke, or the Edsel. All of which were touted as being the wave of the future.

What happens is definitely anyone's guess. All I know is that it's being pushed. CompTIA has a cloud certification available now. Time will tell. For now I'm glad I keep it simple and just use DPP for editing.

 

[bhop]

I'm still on the fence if I like it or not..

this Facebook comment kinda resonates with me:
"But you NEVER get a hard copy of the product with all the money you paid! You just keep paying! And once your subscription is over. You have no access to the software you shoveled hundreds if not thousands of dollars for. This is a SERVICE, not a product."

Thing is.. I have CS4. It still works fine for me, just as it did when I got it. I haven't felt the need to upgrade, so once it was paid for, that's it. I can use it as long as it works. Now, with the new model, i'd have to continue paying monthly without the option of just keeping on using my 'old but works' software.

It's like my car.. I paid it off and it was awesome driving it not having car payments. Some people like to lease a car and always have the newest stuff.. I don't care about that. I'd rather have the money in my pocket.

 

[KmH]

If you want to keep track of how Adobe stockholders and the financial community feel about the policy change, just follow the stock price.

Here is Adobe Systems stock price for the last 3 months, but you can change the time interval - Adobe Systems Incorporated Stock Chart | ADBE Interactive Chart - Yahoo! Finance

 

[Buckster]

For giggles, pull up NetFlix's stock for the 3 months prior to their foray into corporate greed based price restructuring while you're at it.

 

[Steve5D]

It's great to get a warm fuzzy by winning customers over by giving them everything they want, but warm fuzzies don't pay the bills. In this case, Adobe has determined that subscriptions will pay the bills...

Customers pay the bills, so it's usually in the company's best interest to keep them happy.

I always get a kick out of people who believe that big companies have some obligation to bend over backwards for customers.

Because they don't.

I don't know what Adobe's bottom line was last year, and I'd be willing to wager that you don't, either. "Happy customers" doesn't always translate into dollars. Hell, I'm a happy Adobe customer, and they haven't gotten a dime of my money in over a year and a half, and I don't see them getting any of my money in the foreseeable future.

But, boy, I sure am happy, and that should be enough to keep Adobe in the black, right?

You equate "happy customers" with "customers who regularly spend money with a particular company", and you're just wrong. They are not one in the same.

Having worked for a large manufacturer, I've seen the kinds of things that go on before a major shift in how business is done, or even how a product is manufacteured. None of it is undertaken lightly, or with the cavalier attitude many customers suspect is present.

Again, I would love to see an example of a large company choosing to not care about its own health and financial well being just to keep the customer happy...

 

[ZimPhoto]

gosh darnitt!!!!did't get in on this thread. I use ligtroom and PSE11. Would have liked to upgrade to CS6 some day. Looks like I can't and can only subrscribe.

 

[Steve5D]

Well, if it's so fundamental and "common", I'll be happy to read your examples of businesses the size of Adobe which have thrived after deciding not to care about whether or not they did.

I mean, you can provide examples of that, right?

www.google.com

^ enormous, successful, well-liked, doesn't throw customers under the bus repeatedly.

So you're saying that Google didn't care if they were successful or not? They didn't care if they made money or not? When was the last time you made a check out to Google to purchase their product or their service? I've been using Google for years, and I've never given them a dime.

But, just to play along using your poor example: I'm not talking about enormous companies that are successful, well-liked, and who don't throw customers under the bus. I'm talking about huge companies that decided their bottom line was not something they chose to be concerned about.

Google is not an example of such a company...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Well considering that i'm already subscribed, that means I get new updates and more features! Woohoo!

As someone who makes about half their total income off photography and photo related services, the creative cloud has been a no-brainer addition to my workflow.

-Offsite backup of files
-Two licenses which can be used simultaneously (workstation PC / Tech MBP)
-Guaranteed latest versions
-Use of just about all their software
-Better support
-$24 cheaper than Photoshop by itself (as of 5/6/2013 on Amazon.com)
-PLUS, it's a tax write-off!


The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.

 

[Tailgunner]

The only people b*tching about this are the folks who don't make money in photography.

Yes, this is an unwanted expense to the average hobbyist.

As mentioned above, it forces people who get by on running older versions to have to sign up for a monthly service. Its like having to pay for monthly Windows updates instead of just sticking with Windows Vista or Windows 7. You can't keep using the same license as you did in the past...no monthly payment, no access.

 

[Steve5D]

Is it supposed to be just on CS, or on all Adobe products?