I joined Adobe to make the tools that my friends & I wanted to use. I was a Web designer & animator who loved what I could do with Photoshop & Flash, but who hated all the barriers that got in the way. My whole mission was—and has remained—to hijack the brains of smarter people and get them building the stuff we (creators) need. My loyalty has always been to that mission.
Like most big changes, the move to Creative Cloud is both exciting & disruptive. So far some people love it while others are very upset. I’m not writing this post thinking I’ll change everyone’s hearts & minds. I just want to tell you how I personally have thought about the change, from the perspective of someone who deeply wants to help creative people thrive.
My overriding thought for months has been, “How can I take advantage of all this to do good things for customers—things we couldn’t do before?” If you’ve come to know me at all through the years, I hope you’ll know how sincerely I say that.
A few key points about the change:
- It marks a move towards a less app-centric & more solution-centric world.
- It marks a move away from “big-bang” feature updates & towards continuous refinements (“JDI“-style).
- It means more nimble development.
- It radically lowers the barrier to entry to creative tools & broadens access to them.
Part of what’s made the change feel weird (even to me when I first heard about it) was that it’s seemed a bit like taking apples (previously shrink-wrapped, unchanging apps) and selling them as oranges (constantly evolving services). We’re all so used to versions of Photoshop & CS apps shipping once & standing still.
We believe that to help creators going forward, we need to think broader. For example, is creating the next great Photoshop or Lightroom feature the only way Adobe can help photographers? No: that’s necessary but not sufficient. Photographers need services that help them do their jobs, make money, and sustain their craft. The same is true for all kinds of creators.
We need to make more oranges—and the oranges you want.
To me it’s like when we first created Lightroom. It was born of the realization that photographers didn’t just need us to go deeper & deeper with Photoshop, but to go broader in addressing workflow challenges.
Now it’s time to think broader again—not just multi-image, but multi-device, and not just individual apps but connected solutions. Photographers can see some hints of this in Tom Hogarty demoing cloud sync between Lightroom & tablets, and in Adobe adding beautiful portfolio hosting to Creative Cloud subscriptions. Designers can see this with Digital Publishing System arriving at no extra cost, giving them a new way to reach readers & serve clients. Creative Cloud is just 12 months old, and there’s so much more we can & must do.
To get there, we need to fundamentally change how we build desktop software. Here’s how things used to work:
- Teams would decide on a schedule (generally 18-24 months). So that customers wouldn’t get bombarded by constant one-off updates, we needed teams to stick to these dates (i.e. vary features or quality to fit).
- We’d work our butts off to deliver every possible improvement, but when crunch time came, we’d have two lousy choices: either rush to finish a feature & make the release, or cut it, putting it 18-36 months from customers’ hands. (And yes, there are accounting rules that make it difficult or impossible to give away new functionality (distinct from bug fixes or compatibility updates), but let’s stay out of that can of worms here.)
- We’d include “wow features” that sell upgrades. It’s easy to wag your finger here, but we’re all busy and distracted: For a new product to grab my attention, it has to really grab my attention. For better or worse, that’s put a pressure on teams to include gee-whiz functionality. Some of that’s useful day-to-day, but some ends up just being demoware.
- Fixing bugs in the shipping version often came at the expense of working on the next version’s codebase.
- Enabling services meant working across versions of the apps, sometimes with significantly different architectures, file formats, etc.
It’s not a recipe for responsiveness & polish—so let’s do something better:
- Plan more frequent, more incremental updates. That makes it much easier to respond quickly to customer feedback & changes in the market.
- Continuously evolve the codebase, rolling out new features & bug fixes together as soon as they’re ready.
- Don’t rush features or hold them for years: just ship them when they’re ready. (It’s much easier when the next train is leaving the station in just a couple of months.)
- Don’t worry so much about whizzy new features. Don’t worry, those will still happen, but we don’t need to force them in to sell upgrades.
- Integrate new services more quickly, creating systems that go way beyond static, standalone apps.
This gets much more practical when the teams focus on continuous development of one codebase. Knowing that everyone’s using the current version makes it much simpler to plug systems together.
Now, you could reasonably say, “Okay, fine, but keep rolling out perpetual versions that periodically catch up with the current one.” Unfortunately that hasn’t been great when we tried it over the past year: every time we’d add features just for subscribers, many people who bought perpetual would feel like second-class citizens. No one likes feeling diminished. It also increases drag on the product teams, splitting their attention between past & future.
As someone who’s spent a lot of years building tools I hope you’ll love, I’m convinced that continuous, incremental development helps me serve you better.
———
As I say, thanks for reading. I haven’t tried to address every concern, and I’m not sure I could if I tried. I just want you to see how things look from the perspective of someone who deeply wants to help more people create a more beautiful world. Even though I (and Adobe) often can’t keep up with all the feedback, please know that it’s extremely valuable. I am committed to keeping this conversation going.
Thanks,
J.
Just one comment: Why would “gee whiz” features be required to sell upgrades? Bug fixes were not considered important? Serious usability gaps were not considered important?
[No, that’s not it at all, but let’s be honest: All of us as consumers are busy & overloaded with info, so it’s much easier to get our attention with flashy demos. Remember the Content-Aware Fill video going viral? Show me the last time that happened with a video full of JDI improvements & bug fixes. –J.]
Judging from what I’m seeing on CC right now (the lack of integration between language families, for example), they are probably still not considered important.
In the eyes of Adobe’s marketing team, stability would not sell. Yet I bought my first upgrade only in the hope that it would be more stable. Naturally, not only was the upgrade not more stable, it was even less stable.
[I’m sorry to hear that. Which app/version? –J.]
One of the great thing that could result from that is that adobe could now concentrate more on optimisation of the code !
How could you explain that some of the most important thing like 16b saving is still a mono process task!
[Do you mean in Photoshop? You may well be right that further optimizations are possible, but it’s also possible that not all operations speed up (and some slow down) when spread across processors. –J.]
Or one could imaging cuda driven raw develloppement , is apple aware that there is more and more camera that are using raw for movies and that 10s/image dev time is far from real time!!
Ok we are the user that will follow you in your new marketing path ,
we hope that adobe will follow us
Just one last exemple : there is a bug in CS6 concerning frame rate in media encoder when loading a set of still image to make a film … this bug has been spotted and reported 18 month ago and we have no answer no correction from adobe ! All people that want to make movie from still frame with AME have still to use CS5,5 .
Is that normal from your point of view John …
[Certainly not. I’ll tell the AME PM. –J.]
Adobe will have to change seriously the way they do bug support and code optimisation if they want our support …
thx john
AME forum thread concerned.
http://forums.adobe.com/message/5075274#5075274
repported as bug too.
This a stupid, little, but really ennoying bug.
Thx John for your intervention ! Someone from Adobe magically poped up into the thread today.
This said, I really hope that CC will offer the oportunity to give Subscriber really improved bug repporting AND following tools.
This bug has been repported but none of the repporter have an idea if it has really been taken in account.
If this CC tempest encourage adobe to improve its communications tools including the bug repporting/following system this would be nice 😉
I understand the gut level reaction to the cc subscription model as expressed by the “barrier to exit” comments, but is this concern really justified? It seems to be based on the idea that one day when you’re old and grey and no longer working as a graphic design professional (and no longer a paying cc subscriber) you’ll want to look through your old ps files and pick through the layers for old times sake. Really? Let’s say Adobe never switched to the subscription model. Even if you kept that old boxed version of CS3 and 20 years later you wanted to open up some old files you probably wouldn’t be able to run it on whatever newer system you had at that point. The fact is, if you want to be able to maintain access to you work you will need to maintain both you system and your apps. That’s true even with the old shrink wrapped model.
The only gotcha that seems valid here is the one for institutions that don’t allow for renting software. For everyone else I’d love to hear your rebuttlal to what I’ve said.
@Bill Snebold–my concerns are twofold, money and control of my work.
I have been upgrading PS at a cost of about $100 a year. I have no need for cloud services. Now, I will be looking at paying $240 a year for nothing of value to me but instant upgrades. Not worth it to me. Adobe, at one fell swoop, has just increased my costs for photo software by 240%, but actually it is more, because with my present model–even if I do not upgrade–I can expect the s/w to function for at least five years before I am forced to find a solution.
So add a premium of $1200 at the end of subscription–that’s the cost of keeping a working copy of PS on my computer that I would not have to pay if I had a permanent license at my exit.
Those numbers do not look good to me. I’m 62. Let’s say I will be working with PS for another 15 years. The permanent license model would cost me $1200 (six $200 upgrades every two years, with the last one functional for five years). Subscription would cost me $3600–a full three hundred percent increase for Photoshop. Capisce?
It gets better (or worse) for me personally, since I am an expat, and Adobe prices in USD in Asia are 25% higher. I have been getting boxed upgrades from the US, so no extortionate premium, but subscription now ends up costing me $4500, as compared to $1200 for software boxes.
Are you understanding my gut reaction any better now?
Then there is the issue of control. I may at some point decide to stop buying upgrades sooner, and use what I have for as long as it lasts. Could be five years, or even more. I get to decide when and if I want to get back in, or even keep a legacy machine in order to run an obsolete version in order to edit old files. Not anymore. The minute I stop paying, I am dead in the water.
One final point. My primary work is as a cameraman/video editor for a large European network. Our production net is completely sterile, and allows no connection to the Internet at all. We are not the only house with such a policy.
Any rebuttal to my rebuttal?
Well said.
I’ve read a lot of comments from people that are hating the change, but I’ve had nothing but positive experience with the subscription model so far (I just finished my first year—and yes I went into it with a lot of hesitation). I wouldn’t go back, it was a silly model.
What I’ve come to realize is that both are really subscription models, just the old one has less frequent updates, and required a huge chunk of money when they came.
The subscription model is a fraction of my cell phone bill, and a much better value.
Thanks
Skyler wrote:
“What I’ve come to realize is that both are really subscription models, just the old one has less frequent updates, and required a huge chunk of money when they came.”
This is a great observation for longtime/loyal/repeat customers. In essence, it’s being committed to the product line and upgrading your toolset with the latest capabilities either way.
With CC, we’re seeing some folks concerned or fearful over what Adobe would do with the future price. Along the lines of, “they’re going to get us all hooked on the Cloud and then jack up the price, and we’ll be stuck.”
This is happening despite the fact that Adobe’s subscription prices have only come down each year since their initial pilot introduction in Australia with CS3… and that seems poised to continue as the adoption base continues to increase.
So not sure if it’s possible to reassure, but it would be really helpful if the company addressed this straight up. Something like, “we pledge we will not increase the standard pricing of Creative Cloud for the next 5 years” – or at least no greater than the rate of inflation (if that).
While I’m sure that your post is an honest presentation of how you feel and not just a PR push for Adobe, and while you are “convinced that continuous, incremental development helps me serve you better.”, I am equally convinced that I do not want to rent my software.
[Out of curiosity, do you pay for any services (Dropbox, Evernote, Web site hosting, etc.)? I’m trying to make the point that the conversation is now broader than just desktop tools. –J.]
John, I do indeed pay for some services monthly, however, most of those don’t pose the potential problems associated with my lifetime archive of images that the subscription scheme for Photoshop could. I have used PS for some twenty years from PS2 to CS6 and have upgraded to every version. I trusted Adobe enough to keep most of my images in PSD format so I could use the non-destructive adjustments that Adobe pushed so hard and indeed work so well. I had assumed, wrongly I guess, that there would be some continuity into the future with the Adobe business model and never anticipated that it would reach the point where if I find I can’t make a monthly payment, then I will be in a world of hurt to be able to access my archives fully.
So is the issue not so much with a subscription model, but rather concerns about what happens once your are no longer a member of Creative Cloud?
Just trying to make sure I understand the concern.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
That is exactly the problem. A subscription model inevitably leads to a point where the software I need to fully access my life’s work ends. When I can’t pay, I can’t fully access.
And Mike, if you haven’t understood the concern we have by now, I doubt if you ever will.
Im just clarifying what the original commenter’s primary concern was.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
John– Realize that there are alternatives to Dropbox, Evernote, and any given web host. Adobe products are so good there are no real alternatives. If Adobe says “jump” we pretty much have to say “how high?”
John
> “do you pay for any services (Dropbox, Evernote, Web site hosting)”
There’s a difference. Those companies’ models depend on being on the cloud. Adobe’s products didn’t. To a degree they now do, but in my opinion, it still largely a product. Even though that product is tied into some sevices as well. Those services haven’t been very convincing, so far.
To re-iterate:
Dropbox without cloud is _nothing_.
A web host that’s not online is _useless_.
Photoshop without internet is, well, photoshop. At the very least 99% of photoshop.
Also, Dropbox and “the web host” have expenses that come out of this necessity. As long as i rent a web host, that company has to provice energy and bandwidth to some server. This is, what i pay them for.
With traditional software, there is no such thing. You’re selling me photoshop 6? Fine. I can use it forever and it doesn’t cost Adobe a dime. Adobe chose to make maintenance costly when it introduced software activation with CS2. It now choses to go expand on those ongoing costs by tying it into even more services. That’s adobe’s decision. We don’t have to like it.
(i intentionally skipped over evernote, because they used to be an offline desktop application back-in-the-day. I stopped using them, when they required me to put all of my notes in their hands.)
True, the Dropbox, Evernote, Web site hosting models are not the same as software. Software does not need the cloud to work. It never had for many many years.
—
There’s a difference. Those companies’ models depend on being on the cloud. Adobe’s products didn’t. To a degree they now do, but in my opinion, it still largely a product. Even though that product is tied into some sevices as well. Those services haven’t been very convincing, so far.
—
Reposting my comment from a similar thread the other day:
Ah, this is actually a really important point, and something that has been lost in the conversation this week. It is increasingly not just software.
Adobe is making a fundamental shift in what it builds and sells. For the past couple of decades, we have primarily built and sold desktop software, that would then be bought and used on the desktop. This is changing. We are shifting to creating and selling a more expansive creative process and workflow, of which the apps are only one part.
You can read more on this (and the why) at:
http://www.adobe.com/go/creativevision
You can find a really good diagram showing what the parts that make of the Creative Cloud at:
http://imgur.com/NsiEVev
We also went into a lot of detail on this in the MAX Keynote this week. You can see the relevant section at:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2013/a-creative-evolution-the-creative-process/
This shows some of the initial integration we have done between the apps and cloud, as well as some of the mobile apps and services we are working on.
Now, I understand that a lot of people may not be interested in all of the Cloud stuff, and may say, do both. However, that presents problems, particularly over the long term.
First, we strongly believe that building a more expansive, and connected creative process is the right path for both us, and the larger creative community. But to get there requires a lot of work, and we want to focus on that path (and not split our efforts across multiple paths).
However, more practically, over time more and more functionality in the desktop app will be based on, and or require access to services made available via Creative Cloud. Right now that includes things like sync settings, colors, fonts, etc… but eventually could include advanced image manipulating algorithms, or other image apis (in the case of photoshop). You would still use your desktop apps, but the core processing and work could happen in the cloud via open apis.
Why have that functionality in the cloud? Well, there are a number of advantages, including being able to do much more CPU intensive work (since we can take advantage of hardware farms in the cloud), and making the functionality open and available to other applications (including desktop, mobile, web and non-Adobe applications).
It is this last point that I am particularly excited about. Because access to the APIs would require a Creative Cloud account, it would be in Adobe’s interest to allow anyone to use and build on top of those APIs (even traditional competitor’s to Adobe apps). This is a model good for Adobe (more Creative Cloud members), good for non-Adobe app creators (get access world class Adobe technology for their apps) and to users (have a wider range of apps and solutions). This is a huge change in incentives around Adobe technologies, as before, our incentive was to keep it as closed as possible so competitors don’t use it and eat into sales of individual products.
Now, of course, you may say, “I don’t care about all of that stuff”, and that is completely fine. However, we do care. This is something that we think can completely change how people create, share and discover, and it is a vision that we are passionate about.
So, in summary, it is not just desktop software anymore.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
I read that post, but my statement stands. I don’t make that statement lightly, either. I’ve been thinking very hard about this thing for the past two weeks.
Take away “apps” from that diagram. You have a combination of features, most of which can be found in other places, often for free.
Take away everything *but* the apps, and you still have something compelling.
So, i argue, Photoshop and all the other programs are *still* largely a product, not a service. They certainly are the cornerstone of everything you built.
Yes, but over the coming months and years, that balance is going to continue to shift, and at a much quicker pace than it has thus far.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike–
What you say may well be true; the whole s/w paradigm is certainly evolving. But that is somewhat beside the point. I and many others, I believe, would like to hear why the maintenance model was rejected by Adobe. This is the proverbial elephant in the room that y’all are pretending not to notice.
In any case, you have made your decision and we will all (Adobe included) have to find a way to live with that. I for one am lucky. I am simply an “artist”. I get exhibited and sell some photos. While I do use quite a number of Photoshop features, my needs are relatively simple compared to those doing graphic design for the bread and butter. I don’t want or need the cloud and I will find a way around using Adobe products with little skin off my nose and even littler off yours. Others are left holding a much larger bag.
“Out of curiosity, do you pay for any services (Dropbox, Evernote, Web site hosting, etc.)?”
This has to be one of the most dishonest lines of questioning in the world. I’m pretty sure that there’s no right answer to it; every time I come across a variant of this question, the possible responses seem to be:
1) you don’t? Well, then you’re out of touch and we can ignore you.
2) you do? Well, you’re a hypocrite and should just shut up.
Heads we win, tails you lose.
I agree with you. I do not want to rent PS or other Adobe software. I refuse to subscribe to the cloud because it will cost more money. If I am forced to move to the cloud, I will switch to Corel software or other companies. Again, CC is a big no-no for me.
Lucien
Frankly said I’m kind of shocked about this post. Complete ignorance of all the hundreds of posts, no new arguments, just repeating the marketing stuff we hear since two weeks. This seriously diminishes your credibility.
[I’m sorry to hear that. I thought you’d appreciate some insight into Adobe’s software development process & how it’s changing for the better. –J.]
Which part of “I don’t rent” is so hard to understand?
And to come back to your can of worms: Apple managed it to release 8 upgrades for FCPX which significantly enhanced it’s functionality WITHOUT charging anything. Maybe your accountants should have a chat with the guys from Apple on how to handle things professionally.
While i don’t know if John read all of the posts on the other Post, i still think this is valueable information. It illustrates some of the less obvious reasons to switch over to subscription for good.
I, too, would love to see the other elephants in the room addressed directly by someone from Adobe. Those are:
– cost (overall, on average, it’s _way_ more expensive for many of us)
– complete shutdown after termination of subscription (lack of proper access to own work)
– asymmetry of power (Adobe’s power to terminate a license, a user’s inability to really do anything about it. Short of piracy.)
I can totally understand how incremental upgrades are better from a development standpoint. I sincerely hope Adobe also understands how the current CC terms don’t seem so appealing to many.
Oh my GOD! SHUT UP all of you whining idiots. This is the best thing to happen to Adobe’s out of date software. In the last year I have seen better progress with Adobe’s software than ever before. I will be sticking with the CHEAP Creative Cloud model happily, and anyone who values their wallet and work should too. Anyone who loves slow updates and huge individual payments needs to get with the real world. Adobe ain’t changing. CC is it’s flagship product now and just because the Internet gives you whining children a platform to argue and shout doesn’t mean you should. I expect most of you go on forums to argue over Apple vs Microsoft too. It is what it is. Now get over it and enjoy the continuous upgrades, superb new features and stupidly low price point. And btw, if you can’t afford to pay monthly on this low rate, you sure as hell can’t afford to pay for the old price point. And shouldn’t be using a professional level product to do your family photos. Get Pixelmator instead.
Yeah, that kind attitude will change a lot of minds. Please stop posting. If you’re happy with CC, good for you.
Let him post that it works for him. That’s perfectly alright and might even provide some insight for those of us that don’t find the offer appealing.
But his tone (“shut up…”) really is not helping anyone. Then again, it’s not helping him or adobe either. He just looks like some poor troll craving attention. Don’t feed the trolls.
LOL
He needs to get a life and stop being such a BABY.
Dave,
Why don’t you SHUT UP!!!
Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion. Just because you like something or it works for you, it doesn’t mean that everyone needs to say nothing and just go with it. Who the hell are you to control people’s likes and needs?
If you don’t like what we are saying about the nonsense creative cloud forced paid subscriptions, stay away and get a life. But respect everyone else’s opinion.
Stop whining. You lot are boring me now. And believe me, my post is one, but you lot are posting futile posts about the issue as if anyone cares. CC is coming and staying and people like you are just becaomkng boring now. Me trolling? YOU lot are trolling! You people with your stupid over the top belly aching about how you now have to rent the software. You didn’t own the damn software before anyway! You owned a CD and a box. Get over your antiquated ways and move with the times. It’s attitudes like these that WANT top stop progress. You don’t like how I express my opinion, but I said it once. You lot have repeated yourselves hundreds of times. Time to get over it. Go and buy Pixelmator ($14) or use The Gimp. Just for the love of all things sane, stop moaning on like a bunch of backward thinkers. Look at the positive to this. It’s so much more flexible. I don’t see why people can’t see this basic fact.
LOL, this gig is just too funny!
Thanks for making me laugh… LOL
Much more flexible? You didn’t read did you. Facts do not speak to you? Awesome.
You just proved who is the troll here.
Dear Adobe:
This new business model is simply a very cleverly disguised DRM (Digital Rights Management) system. You are well on your way to making customers pay for every new feature and upgrade even if they work no better than previous incarnations. Remember PSCS2 and cutting people out of the background? This was in many ways superior to doing it in PSCS5. For more about DRM and other broken business models watch Cory Doctorow:
http://youtu.be/uWqx_1tDyqE
We simply cannot afford to rent software for our creative endeavours. Would a painter rent is brushes or the canvas he used to create his art? Only the artist knows when to use one tool or another. Why force us all to constantly re-learn how to do common / comfortable tasks?
The major fallacy being expounded is that Adobe products will continue to get better. Software will instead get pushed out to users who pay the company for the privilege of being software testers .. when Adobe should be paying the clients for alerting them to problems in their software development cycle.
I really hope this smoke screen of excuses from Adobe clears up soon.
I don’t think it makes sense to compare traditional artist tools to digital tools. The digital landscape by nature is constantly changing. A few years ago there was no such thing as an iPad or responsive design. What will the future bring? Whatever happens it’s likely that Adobe will adapt the tools to suit those new mediums. Of course there is no guarantee they will succeed, at which point a competitor will come in and offer a better set of tools. Either Adobe will step up to meet the challenge or not.
I guess I’m betting Adobe will remain viable for the foreseeable future and so I’ve bought into the whole Creative Cloud model. I tend to use a good portion of the tools they offer, so the price seems quite reasonable. For others who only use one or two apps they will tend to pay a bit more, but when you think about it, it’s not a lot of money for some very sophisticated software.
It’s not about the money. It’s about giving customers OPTIONS not forcing them into a system they want no part of.
I do think that the artist tool analogy is a valid one. We use tools to create. Digital and/or not digital.
Untl now, we did not have to rent digital tools from Adobe. That fact that they are digital tools has nothing to do with anything. They are tools. Why should we rent them now? We never had to and we shouldn’t have to.
Oh bit it is all about the Benjamins (pentiums, Weird Al)
@Steffi Volken: sounds like my little daughter, “I dont eat my soup” without ever having tried. “I dont rent software!” Ok, then dont. Use Gimp.
In fact, since when have we ever, ever, *owned* software. If we’ve all read our EULAs it’s pretty clear we’ve been ‘renting’ all along.
A buy-out option that credits monies paid against the valuation of the s/w plus upgrades puts the onus on Adobe to continuously add value to the s/w, something they are clearly trying to avoid.
Maybe, but NO FORCED MONTHLY PAYMENTS.
@Dennis,
It seems to me like you are the one that sounds like a child.
Lets get back to intelligent talks.
Do you work for Corel?
Nope
@Ambrose: It sounds like you have been a user for a while, so you know that each release comes with dozens of new features. We are all human, and are increasingly seeing our attention divided. It is natural that there is some pressure to find features that rise above the din and grab customer’s attention. All businesses face that marketing challenge.
I would hope that you have also noticed the hundreds of bug fixes that go into every release as well. As someone who has worked on projects dating back to PageMaker, I can tell you one of the most difficult moments in every cycle is when teams need to start wrapping up the release in order to get it out the door. Some of the most passionate debates I have seen in my time at Adobe have come in those bug review meetings where people are literally pounding the table demanding that a fix gets included, and much of the time, they do. But never all of them.
I can also tell you that we debate quite a bit about workflow “features” or fixes versus new features. They are honestly hard to market. We serve an astoundingly broad market of creative people that get their work done in countless ways. A workflow fix for one may even cause a problem for another. That does not mean we turn away from any opportunity to help you work more efficiently. CS4 was chock full of those types of changes. Of course, the economy tanked as we released that, so not as many people saw those. Creative Cloud gives product teams the license to operate more independently and focus on what leads to customer success more than grabbing customer attention. It’s a passion we all have. I realize your immediate question would be, “why haven’t you always been focused on customer success?” To that I would say that it is never black and white, all or nothing.
Even as we shift more toward solving for customer success, we still will need to grab your attention from time-to-time. We still will need to inspire you to do things you may not have thought you were capable of. We hope to have the chance to walk that path together, and to earn your business and trust with each new update, new product and new service.
To that end, now would be a great time to dust off those workflow requests that you believe fell on deaf ears and post them on the appropriate user forums on Adobe.com. We are listening.
That’s the upgrade from CS to CS2 from way back. I regretted doing the upgrade; gee whiz features are of no use if you can’t keep the system stable.
In any case, I am a CC subscriber, but I never intended to make a permanent switch. I have always viewed CC as a temporary measure, despite its apparent advantages (which would be language switching—typekit, maybe, but behance I really don’t want to tie to my Adobe ID). Now all this planning was moot.
And for the same reason I am highly critical of any subscriber numbers at this point in time—how can you be sure these are not people who are just like me, never to permanently switch to CC?
John, I appreciate your perspective and it helps me to better understand the overall Adobe vision for this change (beyond securing long term revenue and profits).
But… I just can’t go there with Adobe. I can’t pay a monthly or yearly subscription for a service/product that is the lifeblood of my employment and end up with files that I can no longer open or use on my own terms when I stop paying.
My employer, which runs on grants, can not get its funders to pay a yearly subscription fee because the way these grants are written preclude long-term third-party subscriptions. The funders expect us to buy the tools once and use them forever (or until we win the next grant and ask to upgrade).
I can’t even use any cloud-based support services because of the security restrictions we have here at work due to the nature of our work.
If you can solve these issues, then I’ll be able to continue my creative journey with Adobe tools. Otherwise, this is the end of the line, regretfully, for myself and my employer.
I think a lot of these issues could be addressed by providing a 2 or 3 year subscription license, that, once completed, could be converted to a “permanent” license, locked at whatever version the the CreativeCloud is at at that point in time. Or some other solution that provides a security blanket and the flexibility your customers need to work within their world constraints.
[Thanks for the perspective, Ben. As I say, this is an ongoing conversation. –J.]
John, thanks for the insights. Hope something along Ben’s proposed solution can be implemented by the time Perspective Warp is added. His idea wouldn’t seem to detract from any of the benefits you pointed out, right?
John, thanks for this thoughtful post. With a subscription model that locks users into paying for access to their own work, what incentive does Adobe have to innovate? Adobe gets paid anyway.
[It’s a good question. A) As I said last week, you should never lose access to your work, period. Holding your intellectual property hostage cannot—and will not—be Adobe’s business model. B) Adobe’s belief is that we’ll have to keep delivering better & better connected solutions (for which you’ll want to subscribe), or we’ll lose your business to someone who delivers those better. –J.]
John, thanks for this reply. I really believe in your honesty and your spirit. But that doesn’t extend to all of Adobe, which is still a business.
What you describe (combined with the ruleset Adobe imposes on us), sounds a little like a benevolent dictatorship. But those have a tendency to turn against their people someday. Right now, i can’t really see anything we might hold against Adobe if it ever decides to “go bad”.
I’ll certainly not fly to America to fight you in some court. Which, right now, wouldn’t even be useful because you’d be well within your (questionable) EULAs.
Adobe needs to make a (few) step(s) forward, in my opinion. Towards their users, that is.
Over a year ago when I heard of the subscription model I had just about every negative thought I’ve heard expressed out there. I did not understand anything about how it actually worked, I just thought “I’m not going to be tied to the internet, borrowing software that I have to “pay” for every month” Well along came the killer promo deal that made it far cheaper for me (I’m a long time production suite consumer) to buy into this brave new world, and I said… jump!
Best decision ever! Everything John said is happening, and I agree with the comment that either purchase model was really a subscription.
People pay more to post inane comments via texting, than the CC costs. On demand bug fixes, feature changes and additional creative services… good stuff. I wouldn’t go back.
P.S. this also jacks up the piracy folks, good riddance.
Kevin
> P.S. this also jacks up the piracy folks, good riddance.
Do you honestly believe that those “piracy folks” are marooned on CS6? They will have the best of both worlds. All the benefits (regular upgrades) with none of the drawbacks (regular re-activation, limitations from eula-terms).
We live in a world, where the paying customer is also often the one with the worse product. I’d suggest looking up the last incarnation of Sim City. The game is said to be great, but their online-activated copy protection ruined lots of it. Of course, this only applied to the poor souls that actually paid for the game, not to the pirates.
I’m not advocating piracy in any way. But this is happening. All. The. Time. I whish adobe would scratch all that manpower going into licensing servers, software-keys and similar things, and put those people on actual features that make software great. Because, in the end the usual 14-year old has more spare time than money. And so far, they figured out every mechanism they came up with.
Agreed. Piracy can be slowed at best. New means to prevent piracy just inspires new approaches to defeat it.
Though I though piracy wasn’t so much the issue when compared to the pain of maintaining parallel code bases. As a software developer, I can’t help but to empathize with that ( the developers, not the marketers 😉
@Ben Could you expand a bit on your situation in terms of payment limitations? You propose a solution that includes a subscription for a few years that could be converted. Can you help me understand why that solves your problem?
Thanks.
Certainly – the funders expect a one-time payment for the tool, which we should then have available perpetually to use on their projects. A lot of it is a mindset issue, and maybe it will change over time, but I’d expect a vociferous argument from funders if we try to bill them multiple times over a project lifetime for these tools. It’s not like our funders get a gold-plated SLA with this… 🙂
Anyway, that’s the funding issue in a nutshell. And I won’t delve into the “not winning the grant” budget issues which can make these re-occuring payments even trickier.
Finally, I’d like to echo the concern I have for an exit strategy from the Creative Cloud. Eventually people will reach the point where they can’t pay for the services anymore (retirement, significant life events, recession, funding problems, etc.) – and Adobe should have a way of letting them off the services train with something to show for the ride besides unusable (or limited use) proprietary file formats.
This is a significant change and right now, it just doesn’t fit in with my orgs worldview or how it does business.
Sorry I should also include why a multi-year subscription would work well for our organization and its funders. As noted we basically need to be able to pay for our tools up-front per our funders expectations that the tool will still be available for use if a project gets refunded the next year (or for multiple years if we’re lucky).
A multiple-year subscription, that could be funded up-front, would make it easier for us to get the funders on-board with a subscription service for our tools.
All that being said though, at the end of a subscription, I think our funders would expect us to have the same tools available as what we started the project with (or purchased to accomplish the project). A multiple-year subscription, front-loaded (paid for at the beginning), could help accomplish this,as well as the ability to have a frozen snap-shot of the tools we “purchased” at the end of the subscription (even if we can no longer utilize all of the on-line features of the creative cloud).
Anyway I think that answers the question.
Reading through some of the comments – I think the biggest issue is the perception (real or otherwise) that no-one gets anything concrete from this subscription. You stop paying and the tool stops working (and I think right now the majority view these applications as tools and not services). So I guess that’s what Adobe needs to figure out – how to provide a security blanket for folks that don’t want their tools to disappear, how to provide different and meaningful options to subscribe to the Creative Cloud (multiple-year subscriptions, front-end loading a subscription) so it works for different organizations business needs, and then make amazingly awesome services so that people will start to realize the value of subscribing. And, very importantly, make sure the services offered are always (or significantly always) available. If we have to go back to a client and tell them we can’t make that fix right now since the service is down…yeah, that won’t go over very well.
Hypothetical question – would that allow our clients the right to sue Adobe over failure to maintain a service for a critical business need? And is there an SLA with the subscription? If not, many business’ will be a bit hesitant to subscribe to a service that can be changed at any time and does not come with a guaranteed up-time. Sorry that was a bit off-tangent… but I know that’s something business’ will look for.
great conversation, but i won’t be subscribing. i doubt i will be alone. wish i could love adobe again. hint: ditch flash pro, not fireworks.
John,
This is lucid, genuine account of your perspective, of which I appreciate.
That being said…
From day 1 of the CC subscription-only model announcement, I’ve head a lot of “Adobe is listening”, but nothing in terms of “We’ve heard you, and…”. Forgive me if I’ve missed that, but I’ve been waiting for such an announcement. What I do see are further clarifications and perspectives of “why we did this” and “here’s more information in case you’re confused about anything.” Both of those are appreciated, but not addressing a very widely expressed fundamental concern.
You make a good point about reducing the barrier to entry. I believe many people are more concerned about the barrier to exit.
You speak of perpetual licenses making people feel like second-class citizens. I people many people feel like second-class citizens because their choice to buy up-front or subscribe has been removed.
I believe that Adobe will continue to face opposition to the subscription-only CC model until answers questions and concerns directly instead of attempting to re-evangelize a discouraged customer base. Otherwise, the “Adobe is listening…” claim bears no weight, and will further detract from Adobe’s credibility and appeal.
I love Adobe projects. I want to continue loving Adobe products. Will the company please collaborate with loyal customers to regain their trust? If not, my hands are up in the air and I welcome any market adjustments that take place as a consequence.
“You make a good point about reducing the barrier to entry. I believe many people are more concerned about the barrier to exit.”
Well said.
Yes. That is an area where we are exploring solutions (as indicated by John’s post on the same topic from a couple of days ago).
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Frankly, I have been wondering if this CC decision was rushed trough at the last minute, since you haven’t considered something as basic as the barrier to exit (thanks for the excellent explanation, Eric!). Especially since I (and numerous others) raised these very same issues a year ago, back when Creative Cloud was first announced. It was (and remains) the only reason I didn’t sign up for Creative Cloud.
You have had over a year to clarify this, and you haven’t done a single thing. So please, let’s stop the “Adobe is listening” posts and let’s get some answers.
[Is it that things have been unclear, or that you haven’t liked the answers? I’ve said that Adobe is listening, and that’s true. It sounds like what you’re after is immediate changes, which I can’t provide. –J.]
“[Is it that things have been unclear, or that you haven’t liked the answers? I’ve said that Adobe is listening, and that’s true. It sounds like what you’re after is immediate changes, which I can’t provide. –J.]”
John, if all of Adobe engaged with customers as you do, I doubt we’d be having this conversation at all. So, thank you for taking the time to actually read all these comments and respond to them.
I’m not after immediate changes – that is rarely possible in such a big company. But – these issues are not new, the exact same issues were raised a year ago. Hence I think it would not have been unreasonable to expect an answer by now – especially now that CC is the only option going forward. As long as the perpetual licenses were there as well, Adobe could ignore these problems with CC (which they did), but now they have to be addressed. And much of this mess would have been avoided if these things had been decided on *before* announcing this change. The exit barrier is such an obvious issue that I find it hard to believe that it hasn’t been thought through, but that is certainly how it appears.
As previously said, I’d love to join Creative Cloud (even at the outrageous European prices) – but I cannot commit to a lifetime of paying Adobe $80 a month. If that problem were to be eliminated, I’d join in an instant, but given the current economic outlook, it is simply not an option.
My preferred solution would be that after 2-3 years of having been subscribed, you have the option of ending the subscription and then paying a year’s subscription in advance (or another suitable amount). You then get to keep whatever version you currently have (fully functional) – no further fixes or updates, and all the online services will of course stop working. And you will of course have the option to reinstall this version in the future, should the need arise.
I hope I’ll never have to use such an option – but it needs to be there, if I suddenly cannot afford to pay Adobe $80 a month.
Nice explanation. Clear, to the point, and intelligent.
Thanks for the post.
To be frank, the reduced barrier to enter has been something I have been choking on since CC was announced. After my personal 20+ years of supporting the continual development of the brand with my upgrade dollars, to arrive at this point where anyone who can afford the $50 per month can get the whole batch of programs, while those who may be approaching our retirement years will have no program to retire with if we jump into the cloud, angers me to no end!
Wow…that is gratitude for ya!
I agree with another poster…we are almost two weeks post announcement and we have yet to hear anything from Adobe regarding addressing our concerns. There is no way I will move to the cloud without a change of the model so I can exit the cloud with a program that continues to function with no further upgrades.
I do not know how much clearer this message can get.
No to mention that most people DON’T NEED a bunch of programs. They need what they are really going to use.
The FORCED subscription Cloud is not a good model. It only makes customers go somewhere else. I guess that’s what Adobe wants. They don’t care. Why should we care.
This is the first post that highlights my personal problem with CC. I have been a user of Photoshop since 1989, making my living with Adobe products. I have upgraded most of the time since. Missing only the occasional upgrade. I will most likely continue with Creative Cloud.
I, too, am approaching my retirement years and would like to see some kind of “buyout” program that I could take advantage of when the time comes. Having thousands of files, spanning almost 25 years, my main concern will be the ability to access any and all of those files.
Maybe Adobe could have some kind of buyout program that one could qualify for, say after 2-4 years of CC subscription. At least that would take the anxiety out of the unknown…
Ok John
Thanks for this post.
Again if you find solution for us to keep the access to our work (including access to the layers and mask), then i think your speak very encouraging.
Just also think of the transparancy of the validation process and subscription time left for people to know EXACTLY how long they can stay ofline with their laptop
Then I agree with you that the renting model can be a win/win deal.
I am sure you understand our fear and do the changes need to reassure us.
I am sure people will understand that adobe has to secure his bussiness model so as to ensure a long term service to its customer.
Thanks for listening you too 😉
The oranges we want and need is CHOICE. Not forced subscriptions.
This is an easy fix if Adobe wanted it. Have the customer make the choice. Give them all the options. Don’t take away, but ADD.
Simple!
Also, treat every customer with the same importance. Adobe should not give priority or favor cloud subscription customers, just because this is more convenient for them. Customers want to feel respected and taken cared off.
If Adobe is not loyal and fair to customers, how are the customers going to be loyal to Adobe. They will go elsewhere.
—
The oranges we want and need is CHOICE. Not forced subscriptions.
This is an easy fix if Adobe wanted it. Have the customer make the choice. Give them all the options. Don’t take away, but ADD.
Simple!
—
We could do 50 million things, but each additional thing we do, takes away from our ability to execute on the path which we believe is the right one to pursue.
To quote from the open letter from the Creative Cloud team:
—
We believe that Creative Cloud will have a larger impact on the creative world than anything else we’ve done over the past three decades. It is our single highest priority to enable deep integration between our tools and services.
In order to accelerate the rate at which we deliver new features and services, and to ensure that we do so with the highest level of quality, we are focusing all of our efforts on Creative Cloud.
—
Now, I understand that not everyone may agree with this choice, or share our enthusiasm for it, but I wanted to address why we are not trying to go down two paths (perpetual and Creative Cloud).
We want to focus on what we see is the right path for the future.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Too bad, I would think that the right path for the future is to keep customers, not lose them. That’s what’s going to happen. It already is. Too bad, its time to move on to other software.
Yes, we understand that not everyone may be interested in the new direction we are taking. That is why we are working to address some of the concerns (particularly about accessing your files once your membership ends), and is why we are continuing to sell and support CS6.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike,
I appreciate that, but the support and sale of CS6 doesn’t sound like it’s going to last long. When will you stop selling CS6 boxes?
To me is just a way for Adobe to get us to stick with Adobe software and not go somewhere else, while still wanting to force the creative cloud on us as time goes by.
Customers deserve to have access to all future versions of the software they use, not just CS6. That is, if they are going to be taken seriously as valued customers and decide to stay as a customer.
This is covered in the CS6 FAQ:
http://www.adobe.com/products/cs6/faq.html
We plan to keep selling CS6 indefinitely. i.e. we have no plans to stop selling it.
We have also committed to updating CS6 to support the next releases of Windows and Mac.
Btw, we stopped selling physical boxed copies a couple of months ago. You can still buy CS6 via electronic download from Adobe.com.
Hope that helps…
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Can you guarantee CS6 support for at least 5 to 10 years with newer operating systems and computers?
If not, we are wasting our time by sticking around using CS6 if Adobe will not upgrade it in the future. Its best to look elsewhere.
No developer in their right mind will give you that kind of guarantee. What would fall in this guarantee anyway? If we had been given that promise 6 years back, would we have insisted that iOS – introduced as the mobile OSX – would run vanilla Photoshop? That’s just not viable, yet it might fall under your requested promise.
Look how Microsoft struggled with XP and how glad they are to get off the hook next year.
Mike, as I see it (and certainly as far as I am personally concerned) one of the main problems is the ‘exit’ from CC. Why not allow those who have contributed for ‘say’ 1, 2 or 3 years or more, be allowed to retain the software they have purchased via subscription, up to the time they cease their subscription? The customer will then be able to continue using the product as normal up until the time they wish to commence subscription again and possibly catch up. If there had been significant changes to the software during the time the customer was NOT subscribing there could always be a ‘Catch-Up’ fee depending upon how long the said customer had been off line.
I certainly would be happier with this type of arrangement. What concerns me is not being able to continue using the product if for some reason I am no longer able to subscribe. I have not read many complaints about the actual price of the contribution, I don’t think this is that big a concern for most serious users. Meanwhile I guess I shall continue to work my CS6 to death!
Regards
Mike,
Have you tried to actually find the CS software that you say you support on your website? I looked for thirty minutes, clicked every option in sight, and always got led back to CC and CC only. I finally had to google “CS6 upgrade” to find a direct link posted in a forum.
Hiding CS certainly does not inspire confidence in your support of this software. In fact it looks weak and desperate.
adobe.com – Products – Creative Suite
(it is the second item on the products menu under creative cloud)
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Then the Products menu (in the bottom of the screen) needs to be fixed.
In 2013, it is probably good to assume that at least some people will be avoiding hover effects if it looks like they have a way to avoid them.
OK, thank you, I finally found it. Just FYI, I am not able to purchase it online. I live in Japan and am always routed to the Japanese store, with Japanese-only s/w. I was told that I should purchase English s/w (at a 30% markup on the US price) at the Hong Kong store, but clicking on CS there automatically leads me back to Japan. Two chats with Adobe got me nothing but a link back to Japanese sales support. Luckily I read enough Japanese to have found the page for HK sales. Clicked on that and was told the page is not working. One hour lost trying to buy an upgrade. Normally I can buy s/w online in two minutes. This only further convinces me that I cannot trust Adobe to handle my needs online.
Sorry you had a crappy experience (it sounds like you ran into a (multiple) bugs.
If you email me directly with your info: mesh@adobe.com I can be sure that someone takes care of your issues.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
“We believe that Creative Cloud will have a larger impact on the creative world than anything else we’ve done over the past three decades. ”
I think it’s already having an effect, and it may not be the positive one Adobe anticipated, at least for them.
“We believe that…”
Marks, Lenin and Stalin BELIEVED, that to make happy working class, that have to destroy other classes.
Keep believes in religion, ideology and in casinos. Come back from clouds to reality.
And reality is, that this plan is bad in so many aspects.
Now Adobe tries to found solution for “exit” strategy ? Now they are surprised about all the noise ? Where do they live ?
I “believe” – in clouds.
I think that for every grumbler and whiner over this CC paradigm shift that there will be TEN or more enthusiastic “switcher”/new customer to enjoy the fruits of CC.
I, for one, am an Adobe “old timer”, having purchased my first license to Illustrator 1.02 in April 1987. I have been a fulltime freelancer since then and have kept pretty much up to date on new Adobe major app releases over the years.
We jumped at the chance to try CC last year, and have not been sorry. Quite the contrary: It’s been a big relief and pleasure to be able to simply download any app.
Being on relatively new Apple iMacs (including one brand new, “thin-edged” fully tricked-out iMac with 32 GB or RAM and the latest 10.8.3 OS, everything runs very nicely.
I’m also looking forward to the announced updates! Isn’t that today, Jun 17th? As of this typing, I don’t see any update notices.
Anyway, John, you’ve made me even more excited about CC’s future and potential as a SYSTEM of solutions for us subscribers. Thank you and the whole Adobe team for this “renaissance” which is palpable amongst you employees!
With respect, I think you’re missing the point. I don’t think anyone doubts your sincerity or your desire to make good tools for your customers. I certainly don’t. My beef, and almost all the others I’ve read, is about price, jeopardizing my intellectual property, renting (and I don’t mean the narrow semantics of leasing/owning) etc. I think everyone acknowledges the preeminence of Adobe’s software.
Whether I stay with Adobe’s tools is a business decision. And unless Adobe comes up with something better than CC as it stands now, I’ll have to switch to perhaps inferior tools for the sake of my business. No other reason.
While the barrier to entry has been lowered and it’s much easier for new users to start using Adobe products, the users who have invested in suite licenses over the years are getting the shaft. The 1-year discount doesn’t come close to making up for what current license holders are losing in value.
If the the subscription model does change development and updates for the better, I’d be quite happy. I’m already a CC customer. I’ve yet to see any of benefits you’ve outlined and mostly my CC experience has meant extra hassle with random, baffling account login requirements and with the poorly implemented Application Manager.
If we do get bug fixes along with occasional feature bumps, give us easy access to details of what’s being rolled out. Give Application Manager push notification capability (and give the damn thing the ability to initiate uninstallation so that it’s really a “manager”). Application Manager could also be a conduit to submit bug reports and feature requests. It’s as close as Adobe has to a “face” of the Creative Cloud, yet the app feels like an afterthought.
BJ, I think you will raise some good points about the application manager, and will be pleasantly surprised when the updated version is released. You can see some of the new features it will offer in the Day 1 MAX keynote video on tv.adobe.com.
Here is the direct link to the video (around 3 mins in):
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2013/a-creative-evolution-the-creative-process/
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
I have used Photoshop in particular since V2.5 and have upgraded with each version. It’s not the money that concerns me (I can easily make up for a year’s subscription with just 1-2 small jobs). It’s also not the money that seems to concern the authors of most of the posts that I read on the boards. It’s fear of the unknown, fear of what the future may hold. The new policy feels (at least to me) as a work in progress that has not been completely thought out.
I use the tools that Adobe provides to support my family. I like the idea of “owning” a license after subscribing for 2-3 years. What happens 10 years down the road if something happens to Adobe as a corporation? I will by then have thousands of addition files that I may not be able to open.
I realize that if “the big one” hits San Jose, you will have greater concerns than if I can still use Photoshop, but this is life…stuff happens. An exit strategy that leaves users with a working tool would go a long way towards appeasing the angry mob at Adobe’s door.
How about making the PSD format open source? Seems that would calm a lot of fears about being able to open the format should Adobe bite the big one or if one is no longer able to pay the monthly subscription. If Adobe truly stands by the quality of its tools – what’s it got to lose if other tools are freely capable of opening and editing the PSD format?
We publish the PSD file specification at:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml/
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
“How about making the PSD format open source?”
It already is
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/05/can-you-open-a-photoshop-cc-file-in-cs6.html
[It’s not open source per se, but it is publicly documented. –J.]
I’m asking because I really don’t know – not being a smart ass – can other programs legally open and edit and save PSD files with layers, layer styles, layer masks, adjustment layers, etc.? If so, then brilliant! Why all the complaints about not being able to open their files should Adobe vanish or if they can’t pay the subscription?
P.S. I’m a CC member. It works for me, but I can understand other people’s fears about losing the ability to edit their files.
> can other programs legally open and edit and save PSD files with layers, layer styles, layer masks, adjustment layers, etc.?
Legally as in “are they allowed” – yes! And there’s actually a bunch of software that can (at least partially do so.
> If so, then brilliant! Why all the complaints about not being able to open their files should Adobe vanish or if they can’t pay the subscription?
Support for new functions very much is a mixed bag. And it’s also not just about Photoshop for me.
The PSD spec isn’t open source per se, but it is publicly documented.
Sorry, yes – reading between the lines to mean, “published and freely available.”
What about InDesign documents, Lightroom catalogs or Illustrator files? Are there alternative, non-Adobe ways to access those? (non-editable opening does not count). No? Oh.
Naturally, people around here are very Photoshop-Centric (i know I am). But there’s probably a hundred file formats across all of the CS / CC Applications.
PSD is sets a great example, but I’m not only concerned with that.
@Claudius –
Not a hundred file formats, many fewer actually.
XnView (free) will read and write Photoshop .PSD files, also opens Adobe Illustrator .AI files.
ADOView ($10) will read and display any InDesign or InCopy file, also reads Illustrator files.
Adobe PDF is another open and published spec, and various programs both read and write those files.
Yes, there are good options out there. We should start a List somewhere online where we can list ALL non-Adobe software alternatives for all operating systems and creative areas as of 2013. This can help a lot of people.
Here are some good ones for PDF.
PDF Studio Pro
Corel PDF Fusion
NitroPDFf
PDFsam Enhanced
Hmmmm….
http://www.itassetmanagement.net/2013/03/14/72-asset-managers-adobe-vendor-relationship/
Exactly how our Adobe Application manager feels
if i include all of the “smaller” filetypes as well, i can’t imagine this number being much smaller than 50.
Photoshop alone comes (besides PSD/PSB) with a bunch of filetypes for color swatches, brush presets, actions and so on.
Anyway: thanks for the suggestions for software!
Thanks for your thoughtful post, John. Your sincerity and personal commitment to improving Adobe’s products are evident.
It may be that for many professionals, Adobe’s CC offers good value and a host of features they need and want. For many of us advanced amateurs, the value proposition is quite different–high monthly costs, giving us access to features and apps we don’t need or want, and the requirement that we lock ourselves into those monthly costs or lose our ability to edit our existing projects.
Putting aside the issue of having induced people to purchase software with the implied (admittedly, only implied) commitment to continue to offer upgrades to that software, Adobe’s decision to tailor its offerings to professionals rather than advanced amateurs may be smart business. I presume the marketing studies have demonstrated that it helps the bottom line. And it’s not as if Adobe is depriving us of one of life’s necessities; we’ll survive.
I hope, however, that the change in business plan turns out as well for you and other committed software developers as you believe. If Adobe is able to have a large captive customer base committed to paying a monthly fee, will it still have the incentive to improve and further develop its products? Or will it decide that economies can be achieved by trimming back on product development staff and salaries? That would not be an irrational choice, and businesses generally act in rational, profit-maximizing ways.
Back when Ma Bell enjoyed a near monopoly in telephone services and devices, technological innovation suffered. Yes, it still funded Bell Labs, and it didn’t stop innovating altogether. But it wasn’t until competition was forced on AT&T by the Carterfone decision that the technological revolution came to telephone devices. Will the bad old days at Western Electric become the template for the future at Adobe? For the sake of you and your devoted colleagues, and for the customers who have little choice but to go along for the ride, I hope not.
I have very mixed feelings about it. I understand the explanations, but I don’t work in a big team. I function as a one-man show for a lighting electronics manufacturer. I create something, show it to my boss and/or the product manager, and I publish. That’s for print or online. So the whole “connected” emphasis is wasted for me.
I see the CC as a way for Adobe to separate the pros from the amateurs – correct me if I’m wrong.
They are keeping LR around as a license (also b/c it has direct competition unlike most of the other products)
If this is the case – I hope there is a more direct and transparent feature request system along with a bug tracker. This might convince me to subscribe – if we can get away for the demoware features of the past (Puppet Warp!) and really concentrate on polishing features and workflows we need in the working world. But w/o having a transparent way of getting involved in this – I wouldn’t be too confident in subscribing.
The CC as a way for Adobe to separate the pros from the amateurs??? Are you serious???
I run a successful graphics, web, and Illustration business and the Pros that work here are not here because of the CC. This is an insult to the creative industry.
What separates the pros from the amateurs is the TALENT, HARD WORK, and EXPERIENCE.
No software company can be the sole controller of anyone’s business or career. There are plenty of good tools out there to get the job done well.
Willie – I see I used the word “pros” – people get upset by that. I didn’t mean so and so isn’t qualified to use it so we don’t want them to use it. First off – I don’t like the CC idea at all. I hope it goes away. But I am trying to look at it from a different point of view. John mentioned a few times things like demoware features, how their marketers don’t think JDI’s are marketable to the average customer, etc. I do dislike demoware features, and I do like JDI’s – very much – so if its possible this might lead to a better, leaner, more focused Photoshop (for example) – I might be on board. But I do not like the pricing – I feel it is at the upper limit of what could be charged – and we know there will be inevitable increases. As it is now – I can successfully do my job with CS6 if it came to staying with it.
Sadly, Willie, they don’t understand our connection with our communities and all that we’ve endured to provide damn good service. We got to where we are through giving our customers choices. This Adobe rental scheme is the ONLY choice. It’s just bad business. Folks nowadays don’t appreciate it. It’s all about ME, MY CONVENIENCE and MY PROFITS. Toss in some Kool-Aid and everyone’s happy and complaining about the people that don’t like not having the freedom to choose. One day—-after they ruin us and themselves–history will show this was their worst mistake.
Thanks for the kind post Eric.
While I have as strong an opinion about the new CC model as others, I have stayed out of commenting because everyone else has managed to cover the points which needed to be made.
But possibly I can word this so the primary problem with the CC model is made clearer to you. (I am quite familiar with the inhouse marketing pressures that drive software development now.)
I have not upgraded to Photoshop CS6 yet largely due to the runup on those sparkly CS5 features which I hoped, but did not assist me as advertised. In testing, I was further disturbed by the changes to the CS6 crop tool. So I easily felt that I do not need a CS6 upgrade until it works better (not worse) for me, despite the upgrade’s economic pressure applied by Adobe to do so. And I should mention the short sighted vision inherent in what Adobe did to the x86 version of Bridge that ships with InDesign CS6 and Camera Raw CS6 functionality. And of course there is that Application Manager which doesn’t actually manage MY purchased applications. I can’t see how Adobe’s subscription model already in place last year has solved those concerns for me. Or how this new model can.
Removing our purchasing choice to upgrade or not, and use the software or not is the primary issue here that all the other complaints, the effects of which you that have already heard take into account.
For instance, liking the changes in Lightroom, I have been merging LR4 into my workflow. And I was looking forward to LR5. But after the recent CC announcements, no longer.
I cannot allow myself to be trapped by a software’s economic model that *MAY* in the future require continued funding to work. So I will also have to drop my use of LR.
Fortunately I can say for my own image workflow needs there is other software available, and in many cases I have come to prefer those over your offerings because I get to the results I want more quickly.
Removing my ability in having a choice to purchase your over priced software model or not, wanting to use it or not, along with your arbitrary licensing conditions has gone way beyond any bottom line I might have had. And so unfortunately after 20 years of using and purchasing your products, it appears the forced upgrade to Photoshop CS6 will be my last donation to the factory of dreams.
I will start with citation from above article: “…every time we’d add features just for subscribers, many people who bought perpetual would feel like second-class citizens.”
Very twisted argument. How many complains Adobe got it about it ? I am sure much, much less then now, but Adobe does not care about millions who will be abandoned with this CC plan. Double standards. If they are second-class citizens, then we are third-class ones. It is like Adobe said: to make customer X happy, we have to kick out customer Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This article has 2 parts.
Fist one is about how the move to CC will benefit customers, and second part is about benefits for Adobe. They are dramatically in contrast.
First part is full of empty words about fruits, lack of detail, strange terms(solution-centric,nimble development,connected solutions).
On other hand we have a lot of details how CC benefits Adobe. This is very symptomatic…Adobe knows about advantage for itself, but advantages for customers are still in …clouds.
I have specific question. I am a one-man-shop with photography for all family events. My business in in good shape but of courses I always search for more and better.
My question is: when I move from PS 6 and Lightroom to CC how this help me with :
better creativity
saving more time and money
better communications with customers
How it will help me to gain more business and spread info about it ?
How I will be more competitive compare to someone who does not have CC subscription ?
I think answers will be very interesting for hundreds of thousands people who have business like me, and whom Adobe should not ignore.
Now that Adobe has decided on the Creative Cloud model, can they stop cross-polluting their software with features better handled in another piece of software? If everyone gets Premiere, why add video features to Photoshop? It serves no purpose and adds to the bloat.
And Adobe, can you please decide on one user interface and implement it in all programs? Floating menus, print dialogue boxes, etc should be the same. Do your teams not work together?
Last request – please consider adding project management software to the mix. It’s the one glaring omission IMO. Something along the lines of BaseCamp from 37Signals, but designed to handle the types of workflows that various creatives and creative departments need. Schedules, brainstorming, comps, critiques, revisions, approvals, etc.
Great info. I have a couple questions that I can’t seem to find the answer to that I’m hoping you or someone else can tackle:
1. Compatibility issues. Will you be able to open files created in Adobe CC in CS6? For instance, I may subscribe before the company I work for decides to and I’m nervous about file compatibility. Assuming you can export as InDesign Interchange, for example, you would be covered, but the extra step to “save down” is a pain to remember.
2. What happens if you sign up for CC and have to cancel due to something like lose of a job? Will your libraries (Lightroom) be upgraded and thus no longer able to be opened in the previous version of CS you owned (CS6)?
3. Number of installs. If you work for a company that signs up for CC, will you be able to install a copy on multiple computers (work and home) under the agreement as long as they are not being used simultaneously, and provided your company approves? This may be useful for someone who occasionally takes work home, but not often enough to have their own CC subscription.
4. Are student prices limited to the first year? I’m lucky enough to be able to get student rates because my wife works for a college. So that means I’m used to buying the CS Design bundle for $399 instead of $1,299. So obviously, the math has been in my favor thus far. Looks like Adobe is only offering the $19.99/mo rate for 1 year. Wondering about real students, in addition to myself, being able to pay the full rate after the first year.
5. Does Adobe plan to offer multi-seat discounts to corporations? I’m going to need some ammo to change the way IT is used to buying software. As one of only a handful of Mac users in a much larger company, I’m used to taking care of everything myself. IT doesn’t like change (otherwise, everyone would be using Macs), and I’m hoping that Adobe’s new strategy doesn’t end up having a negative impact on the end users as a result.
I look forward to any insight you can provide.
Student/teacher memberahips are set at $29.99 a year. Intro price of 19.99 does lapse after first year.
I won’t discuss the other prices but the student price is just crazy 29$ … I am curious how many sub from student you will get .
I know a lot of student that have no more than 100$-150$ left a month to live with ! some have 2$ per lunch… you asking 1$ per day… half a lunch…
Take exemple on Autocad
Student can have the subscribtion for FREE !
That’s a good way of having future good customers.
That ‘s not the way you have it set for now but have a think about that.
Oliver, you make good points about student pricing. That is part of the reason we have the initial discount and the reason we are working with educational institutions to have them provide CC accounts to their students.
But the other half of this story is not focusing on what price students can absorb but how students actually value what we offer. Students are beset with costs, tuition, housing, books, and other education materials. The also have cell phone bills, Xbox Live accounts, Spotify accounts, bar bills, and countless other expenses. We are putting ourself on the list of contenders for students to choose. We’ll have to ensure that we put enough into CC that they’ll choose to value it.
Do you realize that students in some countries are under the legal age to enter into a contract to join the cloud? His do you address that issue…other than forcing their parents to accept the responsibility?
In this country (Canada ) persona under the age of 18 are not permitted to sign the contract for a cell phone contract. My daughter entered university at 17.
@Kim, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m researching the legal answer to your question
But how do minors in Canada deal with other issues like this that come up: mobile phones, student loans, etc?
Terry, cell phone contracts must be co-signed by a parent who will guarantee payment of all charges incurred. I am not sure about student loans but they may be different because repayment is differed until six months following the completion of school. Also minors have difficulty getting a credit card (unless guaranteed by a parent), so monthly payment would even be a problem.
This resource may help. I am not a lawyer either.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/domesticRelations/FamilyRelationships/Contracts.asp
Sorry you missed some points…
Because you have an america centric point of view !! I really encourage you to think different because in other countries things don’t work like in yours and your market is worldwide and not only US…
Students here don’t pay a lot for their studies.
300 $/year for university in france
300 $/year for medical insurance
And if your parent are poor you pay 80$/year for both…
You don’t need to be rich to make high level studies here in europe and you will be amazed to hear that most of the student here don’t have to pay for spotify to because they have a special offer with deezer…
They don’t have an xbox account because they spend most of they time working, because studies are hard and they often need a job to support their living as well.
Most of them don’t get drunk in bars every weekend because they can’t just afford it, so they buy some (cheap but good) wine and drink it with friends…
And they can have a phone for 3$ a month… (yes 2 EURO including taxes !!!)
Another point : do you know the salary of a university professor in Russia ( less 1000$ a month for some ). Do you think they are as business and money centered as you are ? They do that job because they think they have a mission … Give them the tools to fullfill it.
Don’t forget student are the future, our future and adobe’s future…
That’s said you have your point and politics.
Autodesk has another.
They think world wide, and future.
You seems to think immediat small profit and US only…
I totally completely desagree with your (US) vision of school and education process and system.
What is relevant to education should be provide for free to students.
(Xbox and drinking is not part of the education sorry )
Who’s right , future will tell, I hope so .
Really after your answer if there were alternatives to your product I would teach them to our student because I cant ask them to pay more for your product than they pay for their university !!!
Do you realized that ?? …. would you agree in US to have your student “special price” raised to the level of the university tution fees !! Even to you it would look unfair ! No?
But for the moment there is no alternative.
Lucky are you. Hope for you that it will last because such a attitude you show won’t bring you lot of sympathy from new user (future clients).
I totally agree that students should be encourage to pay for your products because if it’s free why should it stays free after !
So what about a 20$/year (and 15 euro … not 25 euros with actual crazy adobe exchange rate !!)
And your 20$/month 3 years after they finish school to encourage their new bussiness.
After that we can consider they can make their living with your product and could afford the cost of a full license …
What do you think of that?
What are your share holders looking for? small imediate profits or long term strong base of fidel happy new customers ?
I am really desapointed by your narrow view, because your signature enforce that it’s adobe narrow point of view…
I kind of regret the support I am giving to your subscription model arround me !
That makes me kind sick because I spent lots of my time demonstrating how wonderfull your product are to my student.
Lot’s of people express the fact that they are not opposed to Adobe, they love and use the tools, they just feel misstreated by Adobe actual “bad” communication.
Now I feel like that too…
Really have you had a look a the world wide situation of students when deciding your student licensing or have you only taken the US situation as a reference ? Honestly ? Were you aware of the figure I told you ? It’s never to late to realise that one have been mistaken.
We are not US and if you want to sell world wide you have to take in account our non US specificity ( and student lifes to my concern) … that’s just my 2 cent but again I am not a successfull bussiness man or marketing advisor, just a passionnate artist and professor commited to his art and students (… future clients of you most of them …)
Thanks for letting me see another point of view.
I hadn’t seen it as you presented it and must admit you raise some valid points.
Since I only use Photoshop and Lightroom (for personal use)I am concerned that the monthly costs could become prohibitive. I understand there is a
$10.00 per month initial cost for existing P/S users but what will that be after that?
I imagine that the subscription cost to a business isn’t the same as to me but I hope the personal use user doesn’t get squeezed out.
From my perspective, here are my concerns:
Yes, your intention is to support CS6 through another OS revision. What if Apple makes a severe change like they did which caused you to delay 64bit from CS5 to CS6? It’s unrealistic to expect Adobe to expend serious resources on a past version. And at best, it’s one more OS revision so how can a user leave the cloud when there might not be CS6 to go back to? Time marches on and your CC apps will require more powerful computers which could break CS6 as well. How many people will find it practical to dedicate a current computer to CS6 and hope nothing breaks?
Also, if the user only needs a few apps, why are they being required to subscribe to all of them? It’s one app or all apps with nothing in-between. Why can’t it be $600/yr (which is a significant increase compared to the perpetual license costs in many cases) divided by how many apps and services to determine cost per app/service per year? Allow the user to subscribe by the app(s)/service(s) according to their needs. People never had to license the Master Suite to get the apps in Design Standard and you were fine with that. What changed?
Thank you!
As a leader of an Adobe photography user group, I will apologize for our whiny members, still fighting the last war, without the imagination to see where Creative Cloud is going.
– Daniel Sofer
LA Digital Imaging Group
Daniel, I am not whiny, nor am i a member of your “user” group. I am a twenty plus year user of Photoshop and I don’t want to rent software.
Part of the problem I think Adobe is having is that they are trying to spin things with their marketing and PR to a group of folks, many of whom work in the marketing and PR field and can recognize bad marketing and bulls**t when they see it.
Daniel Sofer,
speak for yourself. Who gave you the authority to speak for everyone else, or anyone else for that matter.
It sounds like you are the whiner.
You can keep whining and that still doesn’t change the fact that the Adobe forced subscription is a terrible model and that a lot of people are not AND WILL NEVER BE fine with it.
A good leader would have represented the consensus of his group…not apologize for them and advance his own personal agenda.
Hi Daniel Sofer,
Really?!?! Just in case you’re oblivious to how you’re coming off, go to an online dictionary and look up “condescending.”
If you’re intentionally making a fool out of yourself, then I don’t care what backside you think you’re kissing. Just please stop trolling the community.
Danke!
Eric
Fine with the idea of incremental development. But that model is possible adopting the model that most large software companies use to market professional-grade software. That model is the “maintenance” model, under which the user pays an annual fee and, in exchange, they get technical support and continuous updates, as many as the developer wants to provide, and as often as he wants. If the user stops paying, all it happens is that the software freezes in that last state, you stop getting those two benefits, but the software doesn´t go dead.
This model gives Adobe all the benefits you describe in your post about incremental updates, and it gives the user (us) all the things we want, and that we don´t get with the “subscription” model that gets us very upset. If Adobe had adopted the “maintenance” model at a reasonable cost, most of this horrendous user feedback you are now seeing wouldn´t have ever happened, in my humble opinion.
I think this is the smartest solution I’ve heard so far. It pretty much ends the discussion.
I’ve been looking in to the features of CC and it’s pretty amazing. Frankly I think it’s a good value for all you’re getting. However, I just don’t have the $50 per month.
I completely agree. I posted that today(just found your post). The maintenance model is a far fairer model that allows the customer more of a voice without losing the software they purchased and allows adobe a fairly constant revenue stream.
John
All the reasons you cite are all very good and I’m sure many people agree with them and it makes sense for them to rent your software.
I don’t want to rent your software. It’s a product not a service. Even though you’re points are trying to persuade me it’s a service. This is not cable or a cell phone. After all I still get to own the cell phone and the Apps I choose to put on it.
You keep touting the advantages of continuous improvements and not having to wait 18 months for the next version. What’s so hard about Adobe declaring 18 months from now on X date they will release a version for those of us who want to own it?
AutoDESK has managed (so far) to approach the same idea in a better less offensive manner: They do have a subscription which is not amonthly one and If I as the client decide to drop it, I may.
Everything you said is right but I do not see any contradiction between making Photoshop a non-stop evolving product and allowing us a perpetual license. Charge us once a year and let us use it eternally if we decide to stop. You get the income . If this is not the case – that means that all the CC slogans are only intended to charge more money for the same thing.
As I mentioned in a comment earlier, it is about focus.
Yes, we could continue to do multiple things, but we want to focus our energies and resources in the path which we think is the future.
Of course, not everyone agrees with our view on what the future of the creative process may be, but we strongly believe in it, and want to focus our efforts.
Also, the further in the future we go, the more features in the desktop apps that will require access to the Creative Cloud. Right now, that includes things like preference syncing, sharing, syncing colors and fonts, but I can imagine where core features and functionality are implemented in the cloud (imagine some insane image processing algorithm that can leverage server farms in the cloud).
Btw, one of the things im personally most excited about is being able to open up that functionality via open APIs that anyone can use. This is possible because now anything that adds value to the creative cloud is good for Adobe (and members), even if that value is being added by individuals or other companies.
This last point was touched on in the day one keynote at MAX a couple of weeks ago.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike,
Appreciate the insight. I’m not on the same page with the strategy, but I like hearing insight about what drives these types of decisions. I really like the idea of open APIs for Adobe apps.
I know you may not be able to answer the following, but I’d love also to hear how customer feedback is driving Adobe decisions as well. “We’re listening” has been said a lot, and I’m sure people at Adobe are. I’d just like to hear more of a response from Adobe regarding the feedback (if I missed anything big, someone please point it out). I think that’s always good for customer loyalty and company credibility.
Best,
Eric
As I stated above, we know some people won’t be interested in the direction we have chosen. We know it is a big change, and ultimately, we think it is the right direction. But some people won’t agree. We get that.
Having said that, we are exploring solutions to the concerns around what happens to access to your files if you end your creative cloud membership (John posted about this the other day). I don’t have any specifics to share right now, but will say the conversations around this have been useful.
As far as other concerns, I don’t have any info to share right now. We understand the concerns, and see all of the conversations (and try to participate in as many as we physically can).
But, just to reemphasize, we have made a fundamental shift in our business, and what it is we create. We know that this is a change that some people are not comfortable with, but we strongly feel this is the right direction. We think it is necessary if we are to remain relevant in the creative space for another 2+ decades.
Hope that helps provide some insight…
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Thanks, Mike! Didn’t see the other posts. Really appreciate the info! That’s very reassuring.
Best,
Eric
“but I can imagine where core features and functionality are implemented in the cloud”
Um, Mike Chambers…? I think this kind of speculation may not exactly help win over any of the people who are skeptical of Adobe’s new direction.
Try Googling “simcity core features cloud” – is that really the direction you meant to suggest Adobe is heading in?
On the other hand, thank you for confirming that my decision to NOT to buy into CC was the correct one.
Sim City didn’t really do anything in the cloud. That was marketing BS to sell you a customer-hating copy-protection.
This became pretty apparent once the first cracked versions were availeble (ca. 2 days after launch). Which worked just fine.
What does that have to do with anything in the comment you quoted?
The comment mentions sim city as an example where they put functionality and processing into the cloud. Except they in fact didn’t. It was just marketing gibberish they used to justify that horrible always-on thing.
This is, what i believe, the previous poster tried to express. I was just trying to provide some background (the _not_actually_ processing part).
I believe Adobe would actually do something in the cloud if they claim so.
“…imagine some insane image processing algorithm that can leverage server farms in the cloud.”
Adobe had 1 year to convince customers to voluntary move to CC by offering some “insane” things.
They choose a stick instead of a carrot.
Yes, and it has been very successful over that year. One of the key reasons we are accelerating our efforts around the Creative Cloud, and shifting resources to focus on it.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
maybe…but the option to return to the perpetual license model (and not get stuck at CS6) was still an option at that point. It isn’t any longer.
to add to the previous comment….change the criteria and you also change the outcome
Same answer: Are you sure?
Are you sure there aren’t many like me, who signed up ONLY because it’s an affordable way to test the offering while the introductory rate is in effect, planning to only reevaluate a year later and maybe move back to CS6.5? How did you get to the conclusion that everyone who signed up planned to switch for good?
—
How did you get to the conclusion that everyone who signed up planned to switch for good?
—
I don’t believe I made that statement or assumption.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
But if that’s not the assumption why is Adobe so sure that it’s really a success?
Well, I have been a video editor for major TV stations for 20+ years. I presently work for the largest TV network in Europe. We would never go with the cloud for production: much, much too risky. And let’s speak about connectivity for a minute. We are Avid-based. Though it is buggy software and always has been, it excels in server-based connectivity. But guess what? The exact same s/w works perfectly on an isolated workstation.
So your words do not ring true to me, because I know that it is possible to integrate services in a product that also functions as a standalone.
If you were smart, you would be developing services as an adjunct to the product, and not arsy-versy: developing the product as an adjunct to the services.
No, there are others ways to deal with the issues and visions you raise. One always has to look behind the words and ask, “Cui bono?”
The answer to that is clear: Adobe. Yes, some customers benefit, but as you can clearly see, many do not. Adobe has made a pure business decision, and the chips will fall where they may.
I do hope that this strengthens the competition, so that the monopoly is broken and Adobe is cut down to size. Just a few years ago, Avid Media Composer s/w was going for $5000. FCP forced that down to $1500, and guess what? Avid still manages to improve their product and remain an industry standard. Nor is Adobe immune to competition. There is a single Polish fellow who has developed HDR tonemapping s/w that puts Adobe’s implementation to shame. Things will start coming together in the wake of Adobe’s scorched-earth decision, to pick up those they abandoned.
I love Photoshop and I think it is a brilliant piece of work, but now that investors see a chink in the armor, it won’t be long before Photoshop is no longer the only game in town. You did this to yourself.
Does Adobe have plans for something to ensure users will always be able to export their files to a form they could potentially use elsewhere? VMWare does this with their Player app that lets you use – but not edit or change – virtual machines created by their paid-for product.
If Adobe announced a file exporter or transcoder along with CC, much of the “holding my data for ransom” and data format longevity arguments would be answered. Even more, truly and fully publicly documenting file formats and how they should be interpreted so anyone could create a file exporter would go a huge way towards showing through action Adobe wants user’s creations to be their own.
The thing that would have really drove the advantages of this model home would have been to have the new features available immediately after the announcement.
People don’t like change – change is scary. I was hesitant to jump into the cloud. So far, my experience has been quite positive. I do have some big concerns though – like – happens when Adobe releases that whiz bang feature that I download and it kills my Photoshop install and I can no longer work until it is fixed? (and come on, we all know that it is just a matter of time before that happens). How do I back peddle to a previous version? Back in the day it was pop in the CD and start fresh. Adobe should provide version downloads in case we need to step back for whatever reason.
I agree with much of what has been stated regarding ‘what happens when I’m no longer part of the cloud’. Though, realistically, when I’m no longer part of the cloud I’m probably no longer going to be a graphic designer and thus not have an economic need to buy/use into what is very expensive, industry grade software.
It feels to me that the concerns are split down the line of hobbyists vs industry people (queue the flames).
Lets face it, we can all whine as much as we like, but really, the industry is on the Adobe train and no one is getting off anytime soon. You can jump to the Gimp or whatever flavour of competitor, but when every agency and printer are using the same tools – you are going to go with the flow. If you are in the industry, paying $600 a year for the tool which most (if not all) of your revenue is generated from, isn’t really that much of a sacrifice – and if it is, then you’re probably in the wrong industry.
That said, I feel like $50 a month is a reasonable price for what used to be the Master Suite. But come on – how many people REALLY used the Master Suite? For the most part, people are either print designers, web designers, photographers or video based. I might dabble in a AE because it’s cool (and lets face it, we all wish we knew AE right?) – but after 15 years of using Photoshop/Illustrator daily, I’m still learning new things all the time, I don’t have time to try to master another industries set of tools on the side.
I’d like to see a reduced price model where you pick which fence you want to be behind and have access to those tools alone (like the old box model). $30/mo for print, $30 for a web and $30 for a video model – $50+ if you want it all, that to me would be a much more appealing solution.
What happens when I’m no longer ‘in the industry’ or when I downgrade to being a part-time designer? Well, I guess that’s where things get sticky. Can I justify the monthly cost if I’m only doing a few small projects on the side a month? I guess time will tell.
“the industry is on the Adobe train and no one is getting off anytime soon”
I don’t think the train has left the station yet, and there’s no assurance it won’t derail as soon as it tries to move. From the thousands (yes, thousands) of negative comments I’ve read in the last two weeks, there are doubts if Adobe can stay on it’s rails.
Or you can just start using other software now and not rely on Adobe. Much better!
Such as? The infrastructure of the design industry is built on the back of Adobe products. Do you honestly think that collectively the industry is going to decide to switch gears and move to Corel or some other solution? Seems unlikely regardless of the “thousands of negative comments”.
How many Microsoft products are generally loathed or tolerated at best and yet they still have the market share? It isn’t unthinkable that Adobe could be unthroned, but that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
No reason for not trying to create change, but lets face reality here. Adobe is the big kid on the block and they are making the rules, and for the foreseeable future, that isn’t going to change. All you people threatening to move to “The Gimp” – do you really think Abobe sees that as a threat?
A few points:
1. I can remain competitive with a CS6 license (even CS5) for the foreseeable future. That gives competitors plenty of time to innovate.
2. If one person, Jon Skinner, could write an IDE (Sublime Text) that has replaced Dreamweaver’s for myself, I have confidence that small, nimble. smart companies can create competitive products. Don’t underestimate the power of a competitive market.
4. Microsoft? Between Vista and Windows 8, they made a Mac user out of me. 🙂
The way I see it…it is irrelevant who we move to, or whether we ride our last CS version until it dies…the point is we won’t be joining the cloud and that will eventually be a threat.
I costs much less to retain customers than it does to acquire new ones.
Gimp is not the only other software out there to compete with photoshop. Which by the way, its a nice piece of software for being free. Not bad at all.
We don’t care if Adobe cares or not about their competition or see them as a threat, what we care about is that we have other choices. Other products we can use. Free and/or commercial. Just because you don’t like other software, it doesn’t make them bad.
> GIMP
*crickets*
sorry, but workflow matters. Last time i checked out GIMP, it sucked on a massive scale when it came to workflow. It was also not able to process anything but 8bit layers, though they mentioned they were working on that.
GIMP doesn’t seem to work well for large files either.
Wonder how large the intersection of users is that are frustrated with Photoshop CC’s current terms and would be in a position to contribute to GIMP’s development…
This has impacts well beyond the print design world. Thankfully Adobe doesn’t have such a monopoly in the video world. I will be hopping off the Adobe train. Many competitors to chose from, Avid, FCP, Vegas to name 3 other video editors and Motion can do a lot of what AE can, and I’m actually better in Motion than AE. In the video world everyone already is fragmented into camps of ‘Avid’ or ‘Apple/FCP’ (which are the other two Big A’s in the video world). So there is no ‘industry standard’ that you MUST use to ‘get along’ with everyone else. I have to say, I feel sorry for the print design guys as it appears it will be much harder for them to get off the crazy train.
this is a big joke, isn’t it?
offering a option to rent the software was nice… but taking away the possibility to own the software, is like saying that you aren’t any longer able to buy and own your BMW, because they just decided to stop selling… but hey, they still offer you to rent it for a sh*t load of money…
you screwed it… after 20 years of working with adobe, spending thousends of euros to your company… I finaly started to look for an alternative for all the workspaces at our company… we will not resign to the modern slavery of adobe!
John,
I’ve been following your blog for more years than I can remember and am grateful for your creative references, insights and updates. This is the first time I’ve been spurred to post a comment. I’m not sure what has incensed me more – that you’ve written or repeated this marketing drivel, that you believe it or that you are tying to get others to believe it.
Clearly, you don’t see how far removed from reality your post is:
Your world: good things for customers, less app-centric, more solution centric, continuous refinement, radically lowers barrier to entry, need to think broader, more frequent, more incremental, helps me serve you better…….
My world: feeding my young child. I am a design standard user, I own a small digital media company. I pay approximately £286 (my last invoice) every other cycle (36 months I think has been typical) to get get new features and maintain compatibility with OS. My world now requires me to pay £1692 every 36 months. That’s my world. That’s my reality. I don’t need to worry about the principles of the change, the joys of perpetual licensing or what Adobe may do with pricing in the future – it is already obscenely beyond my budget. I keep looking for the misunderstanding that I have made, but can’t find it. Yesterday I paid £7.94 per month for the tools I need; tomorrow I have to pay £46.88 per month for the same tools. Except I won’t – I can’t. I know I’m OK until OSX 10.9 passes, but beyond that I don’t know what to do. Maybe I’ll be able to increase my fees by 500% if I tell my customers that my services are now more solution centric and subject to continuous refinement?
I understand the benefits for release purposes. It seemed obvious you’d have exactly the problems you describe when products were bundled together for CS instead of the old separate releases.
What you still fail to address is the customer’s exit strategy from monthly payments — even if the payments have gone on for years. It fundamentally changes the balance of power between Adobe and us. If we want to keep working we must continue to pay, whether or not the updates have any perceived value. That is why we are up in arms.
Exactly. It seems to me this is a solution to a problem of Adobe’s own making. Prior to CS, individual products largely shipped when it made sense to do so, not to some arbitrary schedule. There was also the reasonable chance of bug fixes instead of having to pay for them in the next version because everybody on the team was too busy trying to meet the next version’s deadline.
I don’t think anybody here is saying that Adobe shouldn’t be rewarded for its efforts, it’s just the lock-in nature of the whole thing that puts people offside. I’m going to sit this out to see if this message gets across. Wait six months and I’ll be ahead financially as well.
I think the key clarifying statement that John makes here is that Adobe no longer wants to do what every other software company does: provide free bug fixes. More than renting versus perpetual licensing, this appears to be the biggest fundamental business change delivered with the CC model. Simply put, in order to get bug fixes, you now need to pay a monthly fee. (Yes, I know CS6 users will get bug fixes for a while. I’m talking conceptually, here — once Adobe has transitioned all its customers to CC as John says they want to do.) It’s certainly a lot less work for Adobe to couple bugs and features, but that doesn’t make it great for the customer. Apple, Microsoft and even Mozilla seem to be able to manage bug fixes and security updates on separate versions of products, but Adobe either cannot or no longer wants to do so.
I commented in another thread that having features in the CC version that are not in the perpetual version is a kind of “carrot” to encourage adoption of Adobe’s world view rather than creating “second class citizens” as John suggests. I think if Adobe set up clear choices, especially after this CC debacle, people would make their choice and be contented with it. I don’t see Microsoft’s customers railing against Office 365, for example, because they still have the choice to maintain their perpetual licensing scheme.
John, I have used every LR release since LR1 beta, and every PS release since PS7. As a non-professional photographer (not designer nor illustrator) I am a LR4/5beta (85%) and PS CS6(15%) user. I currently can stand pat, upgrade to LR5 come the day, and/or upgrade to PS CC for $10 for the first year. I will not decide until I know whether there will be a LR/PS CC bundle. Yes, my budget will be constrained by going to CC. Yes. I would love to have the camera blur fix. But for the rental cost I can do without it also.
Adobe needs to realize for the non-professional money out of my pocket goes for equipment, printing, plug-ins, and Kelby Media along with roof and food. Subscriptions were not planned for nor 2nd year rates budget forecasted. The only other Adobe product that I ever wanted to purchase was Muse, but that was not going to be an option either. Since the customer is always right, Adobe has to show me that they want my business else “stand pat” will be my only option as “all in” would never be possible.
John,
Thank you for your letter, I like most people here am an Adobe diehard. I have been use to purchasing Photoshop updates for many years, each year the improvements are outstanding and in reality, Photoshop, in particular has become one of the most innovative and ground breaking packages of all time. The excitement I feel every time a new version is released is like getting a new car, discovering what the geniuses at Adobe have come up with.
That being said I have been saddened to see this CC venture be something that I am going to be forced in to using, my choice taken away if I want to have some of the new features. You hint at the fact that it is easier for the developers to release update rather than rush out the updates at crunch time, I don’t mind is update and fixes come out later in the releases cycle, again this can be an exciting add-on.
The subscription thought does cause an issue for me, my work and income is based on customers giving me contracts, sometimes I might not get retouching work for two or three months therefore i have to save for a rainy day and budget accordingly. I know that I can have an on again off agin subscription although the price goes up in your pricing model and something i have to consider on top of everything else.
Also I, every now an then, have to use Illustrator and Premier, this is where it gets expensive.
The other issue is I am not always connected to the internet, especially in Australia where the internet is a hit an miss proposal because of crap service over here. What happens in this situation. If I have Photoshop CC and I have no connection for two weeks do I still have the ability to use the product?
Saying that pushing out updates and fixes is a problem with the current model is not viable, is this any harder than pushing out updates for CC.
My biggest concern however is the potential for locked in price rises, $A20 now, but how long is it going to be before that becomes $A100 pm then $A150 pm. At least when I buy CS it is a one off payment that usually lasts me 18months and I can factor that in, as tough as it is, the thought of money being syphoned from my account every month along with everything else I have to pay is an issue for me.
I know that my choices will be limited from now on if I want to stay competitive in my market and I am sorry that Adobe have not really considered the long term impact to people like me and the others here that truly love your products. It is like being abandoned by your child that just want you when it needs money.
> I don’t mind is update and fixes come out later in the releases cycle, again this can be an exciting add-on.
Working software as an exciting add-on? Back in the day we had warranties that protected us from faulty products. Not with software, apparently.
One more creative suggestion i haven’t seen here, yet. And i’m only partly joking.
http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/17m4v6mjty7lppng.png (sorry for hotlinking. I found no other source)
If people are serious about finding alternatives to CC, check out some of the latest info on the Corel web site. They’re offering upgrade pricing to CS users. Some of their software is Windoze only and I don’t think it’s as full featured as Adobe but if you’re truly opposed to CC, it may be the most comprehensive set of tools you’ll find. They offer multiple methods of purchase and allow the customer to choose what’s best for them.
I’m a very long term Adobe customer, back to Photoshop v 2. I’ve given you lots of upgrade $$ over the years. My big problem with this move is trust. If I had a lot of reason to trust Adobe, I’d be onboard right now. But I have more reasons to distrust Adobe than to trust, around this CC shift. I should say that I have loved many Adobe products. I have felt trust and enthusiasm for Adobe in the past, but I have felt a turn away from a sense that I, the customer, am cared about. Many shifts in the corporate culture have moved me from enthusiastic to cynical over recent years. An example is the Adobe website. In the late 90s your site was a model of good design, clarity, and usefulness. Now it’s a marketing morass. Just look on any of the forums where this is being discussed, and people are trying to find CS6 to buy by navigating the web site. They can’t. They assume it’s not available. Lack of printed manuals and other helpful goodies are another shift. There are many. It used to feel like Adobe was really on my side. For a while it hasn’t so much.
Trust issues:
Adobe is a publicly traded company, and arguably its primary responsibility is to feed the infinite voracity of shareholders. I’m sorry to be cynical, but look what corporations do in this world, in this country. Anything for profit. Feeding the corporate beast is easier than ever to do with CC, given a near monopoly in this market. Customers locked in to payments will provide steady income, and we remain locked in no matter what — whether Adobe delivers enhanced value or less value than before. Adobe could go a long way in reassuring us by giving some kind of price guarantees, as others above have suggested. But there is nothing of the kind. It’s clear that Adobe can raise the price any way it wants to, next year or the year after. If you quadruple the price and lose the bottom half of your customers, you still come out far ahead. Then Adobe software is only for super-deluxe pros. The rest of us are losers. You can do that. Why won’t you? It’s clear why we customers are like nervous cattle. A price guarantee would help. Without it, it feels like a sucker deal.
Why aren’t the software engineers nervous as well? They could easily become superfluous, as we remain on the hook,whether there is real improvement done or not. There are nice PR statements about the continual fantastic improvements, but is there something in a contract? How can you promise that, when all economic incentives are the other way for you? And you don’t exactly promise it, as in spell it out somehow in a contract. It’s PR and only PR. Before you HAD to come up with improvements, or we wouldn’t upgrade. Now, not so much, even if you say you are into it. Even if the engineers believe it, do the suits? Some kind of contract outlining Adobe’s obligations and roadmap would be reassuring, and it would make it feel like there was some balance in the agreement if we sign on to CC.
OK, monopoly; the nature of modern corporations; a model that is easy to enter and difficult to escape (whether we depend on it for livelihood, as I do, or whether art is our passion and hooks us to it). Why else would I be cynical? While Adobe has done some magically wonderful things (your team, John!), there have been some real failures. I bought the promise of Dreamweaver a couple of times. This was a few years ago; I haven’t moved beyond DW CS5. I looked hard at everything I could find about DW CS6 and it seemed clear it was still the same code base, the same UI essentially. A few things tacked on. For a few versions the PR was all about, “Now we really get CSS.” And “Now Dreamweaver is the easy way to work on designing your WordPress site.” Oh man. Version after version, it was bloated, clunky, buggy, and generally horrible. With TextMate and CSSEdit (or Coda or Espresso) I can do better work much faster. In short, it was a couple of big broken promises, every time I upgraded. It’s certainly hard for me to trust that Adobe is going to really get it about the web after DW, and yet nifty web stuff seems to be a lot of the promise of CC. Maybe so. I have to admit I’m tempted by that, if it were really true. But I have my experience of Dreamweaver to not exactly trust Adobe with this. I’m not sure what you can do about that. I guess there will always be some clunkers. But what if the Dreamweaver team starts working on Photoshop and ruins it? With CC there’s no going back. It’s just use the current state of it, whatever that is. We can’t keep the version we like.
Adobe kills things we may rely on. Right now Fireworks users are hurting, with FW killed. They’re not hurting as badly as if it were all in the cloud, and it would be literally yanked away. They can at least keep using their licensed version. GoLive, Freehand — dead. Back when you killed those programs, people who relied on them for their workflow were at least able to keep using them while transitioning. How does that work with the cloud exactly, when you decide to kill something? What reassurance can you give us that a product we rely on won’t just disappear? In the EULA it says that anything can be discontinued at any time.
There is Flash and Acrobat Reader security, and other security problems. An ongoing mess. I’m glad now I can keep that at bay. If the CC is much more integrated, will these egregious ongoing security fumbles have tentacles throughout my work environment? Will zero-days auto update into my work environment before I’ve had a chance to research their impact and adopt a little late, cautiously? Terrifying, from a security perspective. From the EULA it sounds like you can install what you want when you want, without telling me. Too terrifying. Can I control my computing environment with CC?
Value: under CC, if I use more than one program, I’m in for the whole nine yards. I probably won’t use Premier. Unless Dreamweaver improves, not likely. Flash? No way. Never again. I have my own web hosting; I don’t need yours. So I pay for more than I use, with a limited palette of applications and not using the cloud services. Can we have a package that is tailored to the value we use?
There is the authentication server to trust. I’m sorry, but I just don’t, not yet. There are too many bad stories out there. Every pro working in the field knows somebody who has had an Adobe authentication nightmare. What happens working a deadline when there is an authentication glitch, and the only person to talk to is in Bangalore? Will CC be worse than the old way in this regard? It seems likely.
Then I have to trust in the nature of my own fate. It’s fickle. I could afford a CC subscription right now, but not long ago I might have had to let it lapse for some time (at the cost of my work). I’ve seen my own fortune change throughout my adulthood. Fortune can turn on a dime, with a divorce, illness, crisis, or economic downturn. But the point is that what is a nice steady income for Adobe could easily become on over-the-edge expense in a very bad time for us, whether we are an individual shop or a small company. All of us, even if we’re earning well above median income, could be in dramatically different circumstance next year. It can happen; it does all the time in this culture. I’ve experienced the roller coaster myself. The old model provided buffer. If things get bad, we can keep working with the old version. We don’t lose our livelihood.
This is a long response, but I think I covered a lot of my concerns. Of course you can’t assure me of my fate and ability to keep earning enough to pay CC, which is of course a fundamental objection many of us have. Can you address the other concerns above? If so, I will subscribe (while keeping my CS6 and keeping a wary eye on the door). If not, I will simply keep my CS6 as long as I can and still keep a wary eye on the door.
Thanks for posting everything I have been thinking.
Yes, this is an excellent comment and also reflects my thinking, as do many of the other comments.
It appears Adobe has a real critical problem on their hands that they’re having a tough time swallowing or admitting fault to after the CC announcement. Rather, they’re coming back at us with all these arrogant replies and trying to convince us why the CC option will be better. You can’t fool the “old and loyal” users Adobe. It’s just not working. Fess up and clean up and stop thinking that your minimal number in decision makers and what the CEO “thinks” is the better solution. You’re being outnumbered by the real users who know the real deal and it’s really not working out that well for you Adobe. We can see through your smoke.
I’m noticing alot of really lengthy, impassioned, (mostly) thought out and civil posts here expressing serious misgivings about CC and how Adobe is spinning it – I hope the marketers and executives are paying attention.
I also have been waiting for a more official reply to the backlash – but I think they are just going to ignore it, I think that’s what big companies tend to do.
As a s/w beta tester, I completely understand the developers’ dilemma with upgrade deadlines. But that is not the point at all. I have no problem with subscription per se, but this model is noxious for the user–it’s like subscribing to a book-of-the-month club, and then having all the books I received taken away when I quit. Don’t you people get it? I’m pretty sure you do, because it is obvious. NONE of this antipathy would exist if you made provision to keep the program ‘in perpetuity’ at the state it existed at the time the subscription was cancelled. What about the “rent-to-own” model do your MBAs not understand?
Simple stuff: set a valuation on the software and the incremental upgrades, and if a user opts to keep the s/w functional after canceling a subscription, s/he could be offered the option to pay the balance, if there was a balance due. Further, if a user wished to resubscribe down the road, at least some credit could be given for the installed s/w.
I have yet to see one honest post from Adobe regarding the viability of this oft-suggested model or one of its variants.This is the elephant in the room, and all your defense of CC simply does not touch it. Your weakness is showing. Good luck to you.
I would have joined the CC model in a New York minute.
I have no problems with the price at all.
HOWEVER… The fact that the longer you invest in to it, the more you are prone to loose access to your work should I retire or should Adobe “retire” and leave me with no access to my images. That is unless I save everything as a flattened image, which completely defeats the purpose of creating editable images with smart filters the very purpose of photoshop!!!
I have been a user since PS2.5 I have had up to three licenses, (2 for PS & one for CS6).
Unless ADOBE changes their terms of use I will stick with CS6 and look for alternatives. I will cancel my subscription to NAPP when it’s next due and not upgrade Lightroom 4 to 5.
ADOBE needs to understand that a subscription model with no end-game is not on.
I would be very interested in knowing the renewal rate for CC subscriptions, now that the one-year reduced cost for first year rates are beginning to expire for the early adopters. How about it, Adobe?
CC subscriptions can only go up and they will.
The lower intro marketing prices are just to get us in. Once we are in, Adobe can and will do as they please.
There are no guaranties. There are no exit strategies that are in favor of the customer. It’s a one way situation that only benefits Adobe.
Why put up with the worries and hassles of owning your own farm when you can sharecrop? As a sharecropper, you will have the guarantee of never paying off the farm, so you won’t have to worry about the responsibility of ownership. You will have a guaranteed job for life, and as an added benefit, will be able to shop with scrip at the company store.
If by sharecropper you mean being part of the forced cloud subscriptions, it does even compare. The only one we will be feeding is Adobe’s shareholders pockets. As an owner of a farm, you can make intelligent decisions that help you and your business and you are not left with nothing at the end.
As a “sharecropper” of the forced creative cloud you are completely at the mercy of Adobe and whatever they decide to do and charge. You become a slave of the CC system.
Not good.
Thanks for your post.
Adobe is simply closing out people (freelance photographers, designers, artists) not able to afford constant payment. Saving money, buying a suite and use it until you can afford an update is impossible now.
So if your business is facing hard times you are loosing the rights to use the software, loosing all your basics to survive… Adobe is a pusher now, showing no empathy for the ones struggling…
Despite all the high sounding platitudes, rhetoric and marketing babble, what Adobe is doing may be good for Adobe but bad for me.
Adobe have broken a trust. I have no choice now but treat Adobe as a hostile supplier.
What do you do with a hostile supplier.
You live with them as long as you must, cut all investment and find alternatives as quickly as possible.
I do not want all of the Cloud Features all of the time, but I want more than just Photoshop. The current pricing model (forget the intro pricing) for me is already too expensive. I am not going to be a victim of ongoing uncontrolled price increases and have the real world threat of my accumulated digital assets become a slave to Adobe licensing polices should I be unable to afford their prices in the future.
I have made my decision. I am not going to be a CC customer, so all the guaranteed upgrade money Adobe garnered from me to-date is stopping right now. Lost revenue and a lost customer.
It will cost money to Adobe to win me back, because they are going to have to make their products in the future really pricing attractive for me to re-consider, because I have already been so seriously wounded by this experience.
Thanks for the opportunity to present my case.
Goodbye.
yep.. well said.. I just hope Adobe realizes their mistake and tries to fix the issue. I am sure competitors are going to be working hard to fill this void, it’s just a shame that they have a ways to go to have the functionality of the CS. Adobe has just opened the door for funding competitors to come into the market by upsetting so many of their current “paying” customers.
My feelings exactly. I feel violated. It is not much different than if MS decided that I could only rent my OS and my computer would only boot as long as I paid my monthly fee.
Violated is a very good description! There is always a tipping point…..and this is it.
Someone pointed out that the comparison to subscribing to other services for a monthly charge — say dropbox or web servers — is not the same as CC, because of competition in those markets. I’ll also point out that some of my services billed monthly are highly regulated — for good reasons. It’s not like those regulations just came to be out of the blue. It’s important. If my electric company wants to raise the rate on a unit of electricity, it has to deal with regulatory issues. Even phone companies, which have competition in their market space, have some regulation on their billing practice.
Good for your stockholders, but Adobe’s billing rate for service will never fall under regulatory scrutiny. And Adobe has a total monopoly. While this (often excellent) software is as important for some of us as the electricity that runs it, we are a tiny group of the population. (And perhaps likely to get smaller). Your monopoly will go unchallenged by regulators, because this is not a universal need for the general population.
To compensate for this power imbalance, we need a contract assuring us of something like “rights” or at least solid expectations as we are locked into the service. As it is, there is no contract giving us longer term rights or solid assurances, only the EULA, pulling any rug out from beneath our feet.
– Adobe has gone down the road where they give less and less choice to the customer and to themselves
– Started with individual licenses of products had to change it to Creative Suites bundles (less choice for customer more money for Adobe).
– Now CC one program $20 or all programs $50
– Remember QuarkXPress was a monopoly who gave no choice to the customer and treated them like a milk cow
My solution:
– Get back to the humble ways of Warnock and Gerschke with a true interest helping the creative community
– Get back to individual perpetual product licenses which the customer chooses on his own depending on his job and needs, which also would benefit Adobe to put a more realistic individual product development cycle in place
– Stop talking your PR speak I am not trusting it
– Get back trust
– Be realistic ( Flash disaster ) again PR speak
– Face the reality of the cloud which still has to mature
– Get back you are on the wrong path
@Mike Chambers
Clearly there are a lot of unhappy people about this move Mike. Can you explain to me why the CC couldn’t support both a subscription and traditional cloud based ‘box model’?
Everyone is forced into the cloud delivery system – but I can choose to have ongoing updates and improvements or I can pay a larger one time price and be stuck with the version that is out at this moment.
The application manager would then have to fork features and bug fixes – features only being available for those who are on the subscription model. End user could then make their own decision when enough features are available to justify a wholesale new purchase. People still own their version of Photoshop CC v xxxx.xxx for as long as their OS will support it.
I found this post very useful for explaining some of thought process behind the new direction.Its one of the better rationalizations that I’ve seen to be honest.
Thanks John.
Darren … a regular reader.
Adobe has had enough of a chance to make this right.
Lets think about this for a second.
Adobe has been following all the comments on this forum and others. They know what the problems are with their new forced creative cloud monthly payment model. At lot of us have made it very clear. It’s not just one or two people against it. It’s a lot of people!
That being said, Adobe has been very resistant to listen to our concerns. They are sticking to their guns on what THEY want to do, not WHAT WE NEED as consumers.
So, what makes us think that they will listen to us in the future?
Adobe is going to do what is best for them and their shareholders. They will ALWAYS do that.
I don’t know about you, but WHY would I want to continue to do business with a company that doesn’t listen to their customers?
Why would we want to put ourselves in a situation where Adobe controls our career and businesses, if we stay addicted or dependent on their software?
It’s time to fire Adobe and move on to other software!
Now is the perfect time to do it. It’s very clear that they don’t want our business. They just want to do what they want to do.
Lets give the business to other good software companies with good products that care and listen to their customers. These companies do exist, with great products, right now and they have the tools for us to get the job done and take care of our customers.
It’s time to take control of our careers and businesses. It’s time to send Adobe a message. “We don’t need you, if you don’t care!”
Pssst…CC=Captive Client
(Past it on)
@Willie, I completely agree. Well said!! Adobe is the heroin drug right now if they continue this disaster plan. Once they get suckers addicted to their drug those suckers will be robbing banks and killing people to get their monthly fix just to keep the supply flowing. Pathetic Adobe, simply pathetic.
John,
I think you see the advantages from the company side, but the problem is the consumer is losing their voice to make sure the product is improving for their needs. Adobe might still be developing to our needs, but we have little say in it one way or the other without the ability to have a real vote(i.e. cash to say no, without losing everything by saying so)..
I can tell you are passionate about the product you produce, I think you are trying to understand what is making people so upset with this decision. Adobe is basically making their honest customers(i.e. those who do not pirate your software) pay to access what they wish they could buy. If they choose not to they are going to have to be pirates. I don’t want to be a pirate, I write software for a living and see the need to be paid. My kids like to eat too.
I think there are better subscription models available, the problem with CC is it is all or nothing for the consumer. The user will lose everything if they don’t continue to subscribe, and that can be alot of work.
The model I prefer would be to buy the product, maybe a reduced price (compared to CS), and then have an option for an annual maintenance(@10-20% of the product cost, I dislike the monthly tick as well, I prefer to set money aside on an annual basis), if you subscribe to maintenance you get upgrades and true “cloud” features, if you don’t, you are stuck with what you bought. If users allow the maintenance agreement to lapse, just charge the 40-60% of the standard cost.. That way people are still encouraged to subscribe to maintenance, but if they have a short year/month, they can still keep access, with the realization it may be more slightly more painful to rejoin, but the incentive is still there in the future. The users still sees the benefit of a subscription, but without such a harsh penalty(i.e. loss of the product they can’t buy) if they can’t keep a monthly payment going. This model is not very complicated, and people can see the advantage of paying a yearly subscription.(I really dislike the monthly draw.. ugg)
I’m sure you could rework the numbers to be fair here, and you are much less likely to upset your user base, they still get the option, and Adobe still get’s a predictable cash flow. I think you will find more users and hence a more positive flow if you just lower the base cost, at least for non commercial users (I’m sure commercial users would love a lower cost too) A side benefit of having a wider base of non commercial users, will provide a wider talent base for the commercial users to hire from. If you want, you could also look to create a commercial tier that is based on the data saved by the account.
Just some ideas from a disgruntled CC user…
Bob
p.s.. my apologies if this has been suggested before, the threads are getting long, I only hope you have the time to read it, and hopefully act on it.
“the consumer is losing their voice to make sure the product is improving for their needs. Adobe might still be developing to our needs, but we have little say in it one way or the other without the ability to have a real vote(i.e. cash to say no, without losing everything by saying so)..”
Well said.
This accountabillity is crucial for Adobe, too, not just the consumer.
John, I posted this on a Kelby blog but it shows how the Adobe way isn’t necessarily good for everyone:
The Grid comment stream had a good analogy: The Nikon D4 CC is now available for $500 / month, but for your loyalty for the first year its only $450 / month. When the D5 CC comes out (soon) we will take back your D4 CC (not your older D4) and provide you with the D5 CC. You don’t need to know the specs of the D5 CC because Nikon is an industry leader. If you don’t think you need a D5 CC we will sell you a D4 when the units (fully tested in the field) become available (see above). However, for $1000 / month you can get s D5 CC, the Coolpix 8200 CC, the 50mm CC lens, and the Kelby CC book of your choice. If you decide to cancel your subscription the proprietary battery in all cameras will cease to work. At least once a month your battery charger will need to be plugged in. If you cancel all images will still be on the memory card but the charger will cease to charge the battery. The subscription is aimed at all working professional photographers.
BOY… THE CUSTOMERS TELL YO WHAT RHEY WANT.
no need to stress you little brain…..
I am customer of CC from day one and I must say I cannot understand most of the complaints posted here. The costs of around 50 Dollar (or 50€) is absolutely fair, compared to what I get. I spend more when going out one night, so will most of you. And what the ownership of the software concerns, nothing is more outdated then old software and lets be honest: who of you is using software older than 4 years? So ownership expires anyway. I think that this discussion will sound very weird in a couple of years and we will laugh about ever having bought boxes with software to install every 18 month instead of just downloads the newest version like we do with any browser. I mean, this software is an essential part of my income like my car or the office I rent. I dont believe a single one of you changing the tools or not changing to CC. Its like saying not to rent a house and sleeping outside from now on.
I red the Corel Blog yesterday and all I noticed was the crappy website. Thats no alternative…
If this is the mentality of the “future adobe customer”, we may as well find alternate software solutions now.
You, sir, are one corporate downsizing away from living on the street if you think that renting your house, car, and tools to earn your living, is the way to go. One bounced rent payment…eviction, one or two missed car payment….welcome the repo man and say hello to the bus, two missed payments on the cloud…so long tools of the trade.
There are definite benefits to ownership. So it may be a few steps behind…beats having nothing at all!
(It’s not 50€ in europe. It’s 61,49€ if you subscribe for 12 months. Converted to US$, this is 79,10$ right now. Why? I don’t know. This angers me as well, however it’s a topic for a different day. It has been way more expensive in germany for as long as i can remember.)
The pricing in many countries is absurd and does not have any relation to the normal exchange rate fluctuation. Here in Japan, at least before the latest yen drop, PSCS6 cost well over 1000 USD equivalent. And in HK the price of the identical English language version of CS5, when I bought my copy, was IIRC 899 USD compared to 699 USD in North America. Actually, Adobe has been screwing us for a long time, which is one of the reasons for the present anger. There is a very real perception of lack of fairness on their part, a callous disregard of at least some customers.
“CC: $49.99 vs. 61,49€”
Well, a significant part of the price difference between the US and international is due to taxes.
What people often seem to forget is the quoting conventions are different… In the US, prices are always quoted before sales taxes, which add another 8-10% extra on top. In Europe/UK, prices are quoted with substantial (20+%) VAT already built into the number you see.
So while that doesn’t account for all of it, it makes the headline figures look more different than they actually are.
I just spoke with 3 Adobe representatives about it.
My question was: how much tax I have to pay on CC $49.99 plan. I spent over 20 minutes on chat and only answer I got was: You will see it at check out.
Unless you are an Exempt organization (with proof), the tax you’ll pay on top of the $49.99 in the US is whatever your state & local sales tax rates are…
Typically this runs around 8-9% addt’l in larger states like NY, CA, etc.
In UK/France/Germany by contrast, the VAT is around 20% and that’s built into the quoted figure already.
I brought this up in a few cases in the past, even in comment sections on this very blog. Nobody has ever answered it as concisely and clearly as these two paragraphs.
So, thanks for that! This, indeed, explains a large part of that discrepancy.
Sure Claudius, glad to help.
We’re actually thinking of writing a new post covering that and some other reasons for the regional price differences, because so many people understandably have the same question as you.
http://m.afr.com/p/technology/adobe_cuts_australian_prices_after_BgBXyFaCrXRGNIrS1M2fNN
You can believe it or not, but I for one will not be paying for CC. A better analogy would be saying that I refuse to rent a big hotel suite (that has way more than I need). But instead of ‘sleeping outside’ as you put it, I will be buying a small, modest home (FCP X, Motion, Compressor). It might not be as fancy as the hotel suite I could rent, but it will be just fine for me and I won’t be paying rent like you, giving me more flexibility and less expenses during the unescapable ‘down’ months. Works for me.
Good point. No need to overbuy, even at a so called temporary good deal. Just get what you need to get the job done. There are plenty of good products out there.
I am an amateur photographer and I only upgrade when necessary which means not every version. I am VERY happy with CS6. It does everything that I need that Lightroom can’t do as easily or at all (like content aware fill). I also am a student so the student price is not very appealing at the moment. If you get it right in the camera in the first place then you don’t have to do a lot of image editing. I will just wait until Adobe gets the message. I figure about 1 year (maybe 2).
CS6 is great. Mother only problem with that, is that Adobe eventually will try to find a way to get you off CS6, especially when they see how much business they are losing in the next 6 months or couple of years. I don’t trust the CS6 dependence.
It’s best to start learning and using other non-Adobe products, so that if this happens, your business doesn’t suffer. You can learn and start using other software while you still use CS6 if you already invested in CS6.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Prepare for the future!
“- Remember QuarkXPress was a monopoly who gave no choice to the customer and treated them like a milk cow”
Oh yeah. I was a very early InDesign adopter/evangelist. I had a friend on the InDesign team, which helped. But the main thing was that I was not happy with Quark, the company, even while Quark, the software, seemed good enough at the time. I was really happy to switch away from the company, which had no interest in promoting any good will.
What happens to artists — the people’s who’s photo-manipulations you sometimes see in galleries and museums? Artists aren’t exactly known for financial stability. For them, if they cannot manage their monthly fee, they lose their ability to create art, and ironically, the ability to create art that could get them financially solvent again so that they could afford the monthly fee once again. This is a potential problem for any person who’s income is dependent on their ability to create using Adobe’s high-end products. If you can’t make the monthly fee, you lose your ability to create and accordingly your ability to generate an income from your creations — and therefore your ability to afford the monthly fee. I also wonder how many customers, like me, that Adobe gained because they saw amazing works of art and became inspired to buy Photoshop, learn how to use it, and create their own artwork. Of those, how many would no longer do so knowing that at any time, if they can’t make the monthly payment, then Adobe will revoke their ability to create art, and all the knowledge and learning they have gained up to that point will be for naught. For me, I just can’t get excited about the new things this change enables at Adobe when the price for that is to give Adobe the ability to terminate my ability to create at any time.
“radically lowers the barrier to entry to creative tools & broadens access to them.”
Dude, I hope you’re buying that lunch you’re out to.
I’d have to replace every stitch of hardware and software I own to go on this perpetual rental plan.
Remember when the phone company rented you a telephone and it was illegal to own one?
Now you get to decide when my software stops working and what version I have to use, ergo when I have to upgrade everything else.
Get over it, Adobe. Not all of us are your rich corporate clients with 100 seats of everything Adobe makes.
—
I’d have to replace every stitch of hardware and software I own to go on this perpetual rental plan.
—
Can you elaborate on this?
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike,
I hadn’t even thought about this part, but “n” is right.
I’m currently still on Photoshop CS5.
It runs pretty well on my old computer, but I thought I would not be able to run CS6 (or at least CS7) on that one.
So I first started saving money for a new PC, before I would upgrade.
I built the new PC earlier this year and have it now up and running. Since I don’t (yet) make a living out of image editting, I couldn’t justify buying the highest end processor etc.
But because I’m running Windows 8 (64bit), I also had to replace my old (but perfectly fine) Wacom Intuos 2.
And while I was still saving money to upgrade to Photoshop CS6, my employer went bankrupt and I’m now without a job (so not able to put away some extra money for computer/software/etc.)
If I would be on CC now and hadn’t upgraded my computer just yet, I might be in trouble when you implement some of the new features because they might require a certain processor/OS/whatever.
And again, if that means I can’t afford it at that point and decide (or am being forced) to stop my subscription, I’m left with nothing to at least continue to do some stuff with my photo’s.
So yes. With this plan Adobe not only decides what we pay at what moment in time to use their software, but in a way also dictates what hardware we will have to buy to keep using their stuff. Once you’re in, you can’t say: “I’ll wait a little while and spend money on software AND hardware when I am ready for it.”
Good point, “n”
You chose when / if to apply updates.
Thus, if your computer couldnt run the updated software, don’t apply the update.
Its exactly the same whether you are on a perpetual license, or Creative Cloud.
If you dont want to / cant apply an update, you don’t have to.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
OK, so nothing changes????
If that’s true, then it wouldn’t be so hard to also let us keep running the NOT UPDATED Adobe Software if at a certain point (and after having paid some form of compensation, either by having been on the subscription-programm long enough or by paying a “fine”) we decide to (or are forced to) end our subscription.
I was always very happy to set some money aside to buy (rather then “steal”) Adobe products.
I ussually upgraded every other version. But you already changed your upgrading policy, forcing me to buy CS5 in order to be able to upgrade to CS6. (That policy was later adjusted a little bit, after all the complaints you got about it. I know).
And the first year price for the whole suite is great. I would love to have a go at Illustrator and inDesign. But after that first year? Everything can happen and most of us here are not willing to hope that things don’t get out of hand.
It seems we all want to keep using your products and are willing to pay for it, but we don’t like what’s going on and you might lose a lot of customers over it. Maybe not right away, because the professionals can’t make the switch so soon. But they too will start looking for alternatives.
Mike, read the CC EULA. It clearly states that Adobe can push updates/upgrades at will on its own schedule, and can deactivate the customer’s CC installation likewise at will.
IOW, Adobe decides what I run and when.
I’d rather you constrict the number of versions that qualify for upgrades than deprive me of the ability to buy a perpetual license for a version I want to keep running on my terms.
Look, I realize that nothing I say will change Adobe’s mind about this SaaS policy. You’ve decided that this is the way to go, and it’s going to happen regardless of whether it’s the best idea. I just wish the marketing spin surrounding it weren’t so hypocritical. You keep trying to make this sound like it’s going to make life better, heal the sick, and raise up the downtrodden. It’s a business decision, it’s bottom-line driven, and your customers’ well being has nothing to do with it. I’d have more respect for the company if you’d just admit that the decision = $$$.
Yes, we reserve the right to update the apps. This is in there for things like the connection manager, or in the case of some major security exploit.
However, if you read the FAQ, you will see that our general policy is that you have the choice of whether to install updates. Indeed, we make archives available of past releases, so you can install and run the old releases if you like.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
How do you figure out what updates to install?
Seriously. Application Manger does not know what is dependent on what and what overwrites what if you guys even tried testing switching between language families. I don’t trust Application Manager. Is it being fixed to prevent such updates disabling InDesign and requiring me to spend a day to reinstall everything?
Creative Cloud is suffering from two major problems. The product selection and the pricing. Let me expand on pricing first with some actual real world customer scenarios. Jack, you say you are about the content. So let’s talk about the impact to content producers.
NYC Artist Studio – Adobe Customer for over 15 years
This is a small studio with a 4 seat CS 5 Production Premium license. They primarily use Final Cut X, Cinema 4D, PS, and AE. These tools are vital to their operation and the content they create. Ingrained to the point that I was just restoring .PSB files from 2005 that are 25 – 35 GB each! I can hardly imaging the pain. But I digress in my passion.
This studio has no need for the traditional print production tools (Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat) and has no need for wed/interactive tools (Flash, Dreamweaver). So we face the problem of what to purchase and what to pay. Lets look at the options.
Option 1: Buy the perpetual license for CS6 Production Premium and realize that we are buying a dead end product. 4 seats @ $749 each is a one time fee of $2,996. This gets the studio the tools they use, not more, not less. But it also ensures that they get nothing more.
Option 2: Subscribe to the Creative Cloud for Teams. This is 4 subscriptions @ $39.99/month * 12 months for a first year total of $1,919.52. This is a ~$1000 savings over the perpetual license and will provide a “consistent” stream of updates. Ah, but it is year two and three that are painful. This is were those 4 units will now cost $3,359.52 per year to continue operation. This is a three year cost of $8,638.56 to be part of CC and get all the things they will never use. 100GB of cloud storage? What is that, 2 minutes of 4K red? Or 4 of those PSBs from 2005? Useless for this workflow.
Option 3: Now here is where is gets strange. Let’s forget about the history this customer has with Adobe. Scrap that decade and a half customer relationship and let’s assume each of the artists in the studio signed up for CC for individuals. This means no upgrade price. This means no first year discount. This is the straight $49.99 individual, new customer price. 4 systems @ $49.99 for 12 months is $2,399.52 for the first year. Still less than perpetual license upgrade and about $400 more than CC for Teams. But here is were it gets odd. The three year cost is $7,198.56!!!! This is $1,440 CHEAPER than the Teams subscription which is supposedly rewarding me for being an existing customer!?! What kind of message is this sending?
Fortune 100 Financial Services Corporation’s Internal Marketing Department – Adobe Customer for at least 10 years
Once again, a relatively small deployment. This is a 12 seat marketing department that handles 1000s of print jobs every year. From brochures, to prospectuses, to posters and promotional materials. This is a high volume department that lives in InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, and Acrobat. Print is not dead. And for this business’s aging clientele, print will remain alive and well for another 20 years (ah, the insurance and investment business – so cutting edge). I should point out that this environment has some rather tight security. This includes a proxy server, the Cisco CCA agent, port restrictions, social media lockdown, and more. To drive home this point, we are unable to use the InDesign welcome screen because InDesign will hang on launch as it fails to display the ad in the bottom right corner. Yes, the environment is restrictive. No cloud services here. No data living outside the network. But aside from the technical, once again, let’s look at the numbers. They have a 12 seat CS 5.5 Design Premium volume license at present.
Option 1: Buy the perpetual license for CS6 Design Premium and realize that we are buying a dead end product. 12 seats @ $375 each is a one time fee of $4,000. This gets the team the tools they need, nothing more. Plus, it settles the procurement department down because they understand “purchase” not “subscription” (wow, you should have seen the steam coming out of his ears). And what will CC bring this group? Innovation in print is kind of an oxymoron. Print is print and it is not changing.
Option 2: Subscribe to the Creative Cloud for Teams. This is 12 subscriptions @ $39.99/month * 12 months for a first year total of $5,758.56. This is ~$1700 MORE than the perpetual license in the first year alone! Ah, but it is year two and three that are painful. This is were those 12 units will now cost $10,078.56 per year to continue operation. This is a three year cost of $25,915.68 to be part of CC and get all the things they will never use. This is a HUGE increase in cost over historical purchases. Even if there was an update a year, we would be looking at $12,000 over three years assuming the upgrade price is in line with the 5.5 to 6.0 upgrade. Too great a cost for tools they can never use.
Now, this is just 2 examples. I am spending my days running analysis for each customer and I am finding that there is no one right answer. And this is because the choice provided by CC is too narrow, meaning one size does not fit all. And this one size model puts the cost out of line with what customers have been paying. Maybe over at the Adobe offices everyone is a jack of all trades. But in the real world I support, there is usually a concentration on one wing of the Adobe triumvirate. Print shops use print tools, not web and video tools. Video shops use video tools, not print and web. And interactive designers use the web tools, not print and video. While there is occasional overlap into 2 areas, it is the exception, not the norm. And having one user competent in all three segments is an extreme rarity.
I get the idea of trying to reduce the number of SKUs. But going from your old model to effectively having 1 is just too aggressive and doesn’t properly reflect the way your customers use your product. The old designation of Design Standard (print), Design Premium (print and web), Production Premium (video), and Master Collection (everything) fit your customer model very nicely. It is this model that you should have adapted to the Cloud. If you did a pricing model of $30 for Standard, $40 for Premium, $50 for Production, and $60 for Master collection, I feel you would have provided a much better offering and a product line that better matches the needs of your customers. For a print production shop, this equates to an annual subscription of $360 (three year cost of $1080). For a video shop this is $600 a year (three year cost of $1800). Heck, I would even go as far as suggesting that you decouple the “cloud” pieces of CC and make this an add on. So many departments I support are within larger corporations and the “greater cloud features” are just off limits. Heck, I support a major retailing with a 52 seat license of CS6 in which about 15 users do not have Internet access. This is causing havoc with the license checkin alone. Forget about subscription checkin.
Bottom line is that your pricing is too high for most departments and the selling point of “you get everything” is really not a selling point when 2/3 of the products offered will do nothing but collect dust. Diversify the cloud offerings. Choice is good.
Do I believe that your change in direction is a good one? Yes. Apple’s AppStore and Microsoft 365 are leading the way in breaking the two decade old model of software sales and distribution. This coupled with the web and our insatiable desire for faster and faster, means that Adobe is on the right track. But they are pulling all the wrong cars for many of there existing customers. The question remains for those stuck in the traditional print model… What feature enhancement (other than stability and speed) can you offer me? As far as I can see, there is no budding revolution in print. You can add all the eBook features you want, but I can not print an href. And for video, there is always another camera to support, a new codec to pursue. But if you are a corporate media department, you are shooting talking heads and wrapping some slides and graphs around data points. Tedious work but it pays the bills. You don’t get multi-cam opportunities or even creative transitions. The bulk of Adobe’s customers are not the alphas that use every tool in the box. They are the specialist that trudges along creating the content our our world, from the mundane package of Kraft Mac-n-Cheese to the brochure on roofing shingles.
I too have been supporting and a contributor to this community for more years than I can count. I am passionate about the work I do and about the work that I enable my customers to achieve. The Adobe tools play a critical part in this and I can not imaging a world without them. But the feeling now is that Adobe, like Quark of the past, has so much hubris that they are ignoring their customer. Now, maybe my view is different than the corporate view of who using Adobe products. But I still support small design agencies, large ad agencies, publishers, corporate departments, artists, scientists, lawyers, illustrators, and artists. These groups have specific needs, not a generic blanket of everything at a price that hurts. Run the numbers. See for yourself. These prices and the all or nothing approach is not the way to the future.
Awesome examples. I have been doing my own calculation, and i have read a lot of examples like these for various scenarios. There’s a few in here, a few in the other post on John’s Blog, and theres a few in Scott Kelby’s blogpost on the topic. In pretty much every case, CC is much more expensive.
I’m not talking about a 15% increase, which i could perfectly understand.
I’m talking about things that get twice as expensive. For a lot of customers. I haven’t ever seen people from adobe dispute that. I would love to be proven wrong, or being pointed to the flaws in that reasoning. But So far, those posts just go uncommented.
I am a freelance web designer and until now, the Design Standard suite has served me very well. (BTW, Reid’s description of the Design Standard suite being for “print” is a bit oversimplified, it’s first and foremost Photoshop and Illustrator which are the bread and butter of any web designer.)
After the rebated initial year, the CC subscription model would cost me 2.5 times of what I used to pay for perpetual upgrades.
What I really, REALLY don’t get is why Adobe insists on the model of “One size fits all — and by one size we do mean XXL deluxe with fries”. Especially with cloud-based distribution and online licensing checks, what is the big problem in creating flexible monthly subscriptions as you need.
For example, I very irregularly need InDesign in my line of work. But when I do, it is paid work. Why can’t I then just activate InDesign for a month or two and pay for it?
Imagine a completely flexible subscription model. For simplicity’s sake Adobe could still offer pre-packaged deals, maybe at discounts for long-term commitment.
I guess what I’m trying to say is:
If you’re charging me to use things, charge only the things I actually use.
—
For example, I very irregularly need InDesign in my line of work. But when I do, it is paid work. Why can’t I then just activate InDesign for a month or two and pay for it?
Imagine a completely flexible subscription model. For simplicity’s sake Adobe could still offer pre-packaged deals, maybe at discounts for long-term commitment.
—
fyi, you can do this with Creative Cloud (just subscribe to individual products for the time you need).
We do offer cheaper monthly rates for longer term commitments.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
“fyi, you can do this with Creative Cloud (just subscribe to individual products for the time you need).”
Your pricing structure effectively offers only two options: order ONE product or order ALL products, any number in between is out of the question for anyone capable of basic math. Already with TWO individual products you almost break even with a regular complete cloud subscription.
So, yes, of course, technically you are absolutely right. Your answer just doesn’t make a lick of sense, especially in the context of the question. But that is the pattern by which pretty much all the questions in here have been answered, so I admire you sticking to your guns.
Sorry, the question was “why can’t I just activate InDesign”. I pointed out that you can do just that.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike, that is why CC pricing structure is way off, it only offers two extremes (eveything or just one) and nothing in between. It suits Adobe, not your customers. Come on Mike why this extreme hostile attitude towards your customers. This will hurt Adobe a lot over time.
I apologize if I am coming off hostile. I was just trying to point out what our policy is.
I may say things that you don’t want to hear, but that does not mean I am being aggressive. Im just sharing what the policies are, or what our thinking around this stuff is.
Ive also pointed out in a number of comments that we are working on solutions for a number of these issues within the framework of the Creative Cloud.
I know some people won’t be happy unless we completely reverse our direction, but frankly, that is not going to happen.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
It’s not you who is hostile it is Adobe ( my apologies)with its single minded and unbelievable arrogant way of dealing with its customers.
But you too are just following the company repetitive line over and over again without answering concerned questions.
It is good to hear Adobe is working on things.
I don’t think anyone is requesting Adobe should reverse the CC thing back to CS or anything like that. CC could work. It is just so flawed, it serves Adobe, not its customers. That is the fundamental flaw. Most of us seem to acknowledge cloud based services and tools is the way to go, of course, you don’t need to make slaves of your customers in the process.
Context matters. Really. Even with questions.
Choosing the Creative Cloud is a no-brainer when looking at the CS6 Production Premium package, which is like CS6 Design Standard but also with Premiere Pro, After Effects, Speedgrade, Audition, and Flash Professional. The premium package price is $2,273 for an original version and update — $625 more than the subscription, but with less software and no online services.
Excellent post, sir !
I thought that CC is more expensive only for small shops like mine, but it looks that is more expensive for all customers as Your calculations prove it. I will add only one remark – Your math is on optimistic side of cost, because You think, that cost of subscriptions will stay the same. With Adobe attitude toward its customers,cost will go up pretty quickly.
PS, Can anyone from Adobe challenge above numbers and other “real business” situations from above post ?
@Mike Chambers: I historically skip versions or buy in using the post-announce upgrade provisions. Thanks to the economy’s vicissitudes, I don’t have the money to buy a recent-enough computer to will run this s/w, not to mention replacing my monitors, calibration h/w, etc., etc. Then I’d have to replace all the rest of my s/w as well, including some that doesn’t exist in a version that runs on current h/w and OS.
I really resent the arrogance of this move to SaaS. It would be fine to offer a rental plan to those for whom it’s a good buy, but some of us can’t afford it even if we have the h/w to run it, and many of us resent being forced into sharecropping.
And lest you think I’m some intemperate newcomer to your products: I’ve used PS since v2. PM was my first page-layout app before you even owned it. I own licenses for AI, PS, AE, Acrobat, ID, DW, GL, as well as some of the products that fell by the wayside.
From where I sit, Adobe has every right to look out for its publicly traded bottom line. Seems you’d have better profits if you didn’t throw your customers under the bus.
Just my $0.02. Neither of which two cents I’m spending on rentals. Sorry.
—
@Mike Chambers: I historically skip versions or buy in using the post-announce upgrade provisions. Thanks to the economy’s vicissitudes, I don’t have the money to buy a recent-enough computer to will run this s/w, not to mention replacing my monitors, calibration h/w, etc., etc. Then I’d have to replace all the rest of my s/w as well, including some that doesn’t exist in a version that runs on current h/w and OS.
—
I can understand that, but what does that have to do with Creative Cloud? i.e. if you wanted to buy a new perpetual license of CC, you would still have to update your computer.
Or is there something specific about Creative Cloud that requires you to update your hardware?
Just trying to understand your concern here.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
@Mike Chambers:
Could you comment why you think CC model is better than a traditional maintenance model that a lot of business SW companies use, where you buy the software, but only get support and upgrades if you buy the maintenance?
Could you explain how it is better or worse point of view from both the customer and seller’s side? (I gave my perceptions above, and would like to here Adobe’s side, or at least that from an employee)
Thanks..
Because that model assumes that Adobe is continuing to primarily being a desktop software company (and that is sees its future as a desktop software company). We are moving away from that. This is a fundamental shift in what we do.
I wrote more on this in this comment:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/05/apples-oranges-creative-cloud-my-thoughts-on-cc.html#comment-80871
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Mike:
I understand that part of the new “paradigm” could involve the possibility of some of the “engine” to be on the cloud, so that you can do things on -for example- tablets that you couldn´t do otherwise, because part of the computing happens in the cloud, as Tom Hogarty has explained already. But we are not talking about just the storage, web services, etc., because that is not new, and we can buy that anywhere, and we may not want to buy that from Adobe. The “engine” part could be a different animal, because it would be as if part of Photoshop was “in the cloud”, and Adobe must be the sole provider.
Assuming that was the “vision”, that “vision” is still a “vision” and it is not there yet. So, why would Adobe start charging the higher full-price now as if it were?
And do you really think that that multi-platform, engine-in-the-cloud vision is of interest to all users, especially if the cost model is more onerous to all users, and one that it is dumped on us without options?
I think that you are assuming that we don´t understand Adobe´s vision, and that´s why we complain. But it also could be that it is Adobe that doesn´t understand ours.
I understand that some users want to stay on the existing model, are not interested (or have concerns about) in a service based offering, and / or do not feel it is necessary to keep up to date with the existing product (either for price, or feature based reasons).
I also know that many users are interested in the lower entry point we are providing, are more comfortable with a service / subscription based model, and increasingly expect a more collaborative and social workflow.
As far as why we don’t pursue both models, ive addressed that a couple of times here (search for “Chambers”), but to summarize, it comes down to focusing on what we believe is the right path if we are to remain relevant in this space for another 2+ decades.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Adobe will listen to the bottom line. Vote with your wallet if you can.
Nicely said jlua. Good points.
‘That “vision” is still a “vision” and it is not there yet. So, why would Adobe start charging the higher full-price now as if it were?’
It does feel like the new model is for us to pay for future development of Adobe’s vision (in the short term to just keep using what we already had plus some refinements). The old model was us paying for work that was complete. We got to each judge individually whether the improvements were worth the cost.
It’s the accountability issue. We need to maintain some checks and balances. In the current scenario, our only option if we don’t like the improvements per cost is to totally jump ship to a competitor. With the lease to own model (or maintenance), we’d be able to keep using the Adobe versions we were at in the hope that the improvement/cost analysis would return.
I guess I just don’t get this strategy Mike.
Creative Suite existed for years as a collection of creative focused applications with some inter-workings. I don’t see how cloud services would require you to change this model. I am all for a more affordable solution, but so far CC is not more affordable, and it is insulting that Adobe seem to push it as if it were.
The cloud services offered so far justify the additional cost of this model, I see plenty of marketing jargon in your link, but not much details on what is really being offered. It may make sense to a business for some of these features. I am a creative hobbiest, I like the power of the tools, and when I could purchase them, at least I didn’t have to worry about losing my work. I feel like I am not even in you targeted customer base anymore.
Unfortunately I may be one of your customers that look for a different way and given the popularity of these subjects, seems like more than a small handful of your customers feel the same way. I really don’t want to, but Adobe’s actions scream to me that I need to, for my own good. It may not be your intent to hold me hostage to a monthly fee for application use, but this is exactly what you are doing, and then telling me it for my own good. I don’t need services, I need your application. I am willing to pay for it, even pay maintenance to keep current. Just take away the threat that if I don’t pay, I can’t use it.
Cloud based systems, seem ideal for data storage and sharing, allowing access to work on any of the PC’s connected to the internet. I don’t see this a must have feature for creative suite, especially since CC limits me to use on 2 machines, it’s not even a true cloud based login.
This strategy you outline doesn’t seem to be about helping the customer, as much as giving your competitors a chance to sell their applications. I also don’t see in the response on why a maintenance approach is worse than what Adobe is now offering. I agree with those that responded directly to your link. I suggest Adobe should listen to their customers, they are trying to tell you something.
Someone’s been drinking too much Adobe Kool-aid.
CC= captive consumer.
This situation involves two problems for me:
1. Need new everything to run CC; can’t afford to upgrade.
2. Don’t like SaaS rental model; won’t spend money to endorse this as a corporate policy.
I don’t want to rent my tools. I don’t want to have to “phone home” for the nth time to “revalidate” my software. I don’t want to have to run an Internet connection on my work machine just so a big corporation can “check my diaper.” I don’t want to turn on my computer one morning and discover that oops, my s/w isn’t working because Adobe shut it off.
Just because you say you won’t do that doesn’t mean you can’t. The lore of the digital working world is full of stories of Murphy’s Law.
And that’s just the tip of the problem. I’ll state this again one more time before I fade out of this discussion: I don’t want to rent my tools, and I don’t want a big corporation telling me that if I don’t rent my tools, I can’t work.
I can’t make this any clearer.
—
1. Need new everything to run CC; can’t afford to upgrade.
—
ok. But that has nothing to do with Creative Cloud. It would be the same case if CC was available as a perpetual license.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
“ok. But that has nothing to do with Creative Cloud. It would be the same case if CC was available as a perpetual license.”
Mike: considering the fact that the cost to stay current for one tool goes up to TWICE AS MUCH as we had to pay until now per current version refresh cycle, and contrary to what you say, it does have much to do with the advent of CC.
John, There are a lot of posts here already. I’ve spent the last two weeks reading and thinking about almost every post on your site regarding CC – and I’m sure it’s mentioned above in someone’s post – for me it just comes down to this: Give me a way out should there be a reason I can’t or decide I don’t want to continue my subscription so that I have full functionality and access to my files (yes, I know Adobe isn’t deleting my files, I’m sure you know what I mean by access 🙂 People have referred to this as a “buy-out” or in another way, after say 2 or 3 years of a CC subscription you get the last version you are at without anymore updates or cloud functionality.
I agree that there should be some program retention when a customer decides to exit the cloud…. But a “buy out ” option could be skewed. If I joined the cloud before July 31..my first year would cost me $30×12= $360. The second year would cost me (at the projected price with today’s information) $50x-2=$600. After two years my projected cost would be $360 more than the CS premium upgrade cost that I would have under the current perpetual licence model (I do not require the equivalent of the master suite but you do not currently offer a configuration like that). So by year two I would incur more than I do now…so an additional “buyout” would be in effect double
billing (assuming that the majority of upgrade options would be front loaded and subsequent monthly updates would be much smaller and likely equivalent to the monthly payment).
I am not good with a buyout….program retention after 18 months with no money owing would be the closest “fair” exchange.
I have subscribed to CC. I did think about it long and hard and I am still not convinced I made a 100% right decision.
Can I add a couple of niggle I have.
I’m close to retirement and I’m not sure if I’ll be able to carry the cost off CC into my retirement and faced with that problem, I might have to drop back to my boxed version of CS6 and live with that.
Second and more important, I am keen to get into digital publishing and note that with CC I can publish to single edition but one real SHOW STOPPER is the fact that I can only publish to Apple Apps with single edition DPS (standard with CC). If I want to publish to Android devices etc, I am obliged to pay £400 (here in the UK) per month plus download fees to use the Pro version of DPS. This is completely ludicrous because the world is changing and I do sense that by restricted CC users who want to use the DPS for smaller projects (smaller companies do) then Adobe is being seen (by me at least) as trying to force yet MORE money out of the small players in the business.
I’m going with CC at the moment and see the benefits but I still feel as though I am being squeezed very hard by Adobe.
Richard
I came here to post the same thing. John, before you mention DPS as a big customer win, you should be aware that the free “single” edition is very limiting, locking you to the now minority tablet platform and preventing you from actually doing a multi-issue magazine. (you know, like a real magazine)
I was on the beta, and watched as Adobe moved all the DPS desktop tools into the cloud, so they could make this into a “service” and charge a toll for every magazine you publish. That basically makes DPS a non-starter for non-profits or any free publication. Not that Adobe would care, because…
It’s just more of the same. Force the customer to pay on an ongoing basis. Create recurring revenue. That’s Adobe’s MO right now. All attempts to spin it otherwise are weak and show a disrespect for your customer’s intelligence.
That’s why no amount of “listening” is going to matter. Money talks way louder than customers that are pinned down by a need for Adobe tools.
That’s precisely why my non-profit client’s project WILL NOT be built nor distributed with Adobe DPS tools.
Thom Hogan nailed it: licenses dropped precipitously between CS4 and CS6. They know they will take a revenue hit for a couple of years, with 2012 income projected to not be equalled until 2016. They are projecting 50% of income to be from individual subscriptions.
Many, if not most, of those individuals may not like the subscription model, but Adobe figures that they cannot hold out forever against evolution of OSes and Adobe upgrades, and will finally have to subscribe. Hopefully some competitor will come along and broadside them by then. Coercive models always fall apart eventually.
Hate to say it, because I have used Adobe software for 24 years (and just about always preordered the next upgrade) but I will not rent software. I will revert back to Quark if need be, use less feature “rich” apps, run CS6 in a VM – whatever – Adobe can keep their extortionist, money grabbing scheme and shove that cloud where the sun don’t shine.
Adobe keeps trying to sell this “interconnected” – hey look we bought Behance – cloud stuff. I just don’t buy it.
Here’s my prediction: they oust the bozo that’s currently CEO within 18 months and release a simple, non-cloud, back to basics CS. Hey, maybe I’m wrong, maybe they are – we’ll just have to wait and see. I will tell you this, Adobe won’t be getting $900 from me in that time or any money from me to rent software.
I have contributed a lot to various forums including this one about my opposition to CC, so I am not going to repeat myself, most of it has been said in this post many times over anyway.
I am still on CS5 and probably will upgrade to CS6 eventually, but my association with Adobe is definitely finished.
Folks, Adobe got the message, there is no doubt about it, I am sure of that, however they will hang on to this model for as long as they can until it is severely beginning to hurt their revenue. Then they will come back to us again with their marketing spin saying something along the lines of how they are prepared to listen to their customers and make necessary chances. Keep hammering it to them as I don’t think we’ll see much happening for another 12 months, but it will happen, there is no doubt about it. They will not be able to ignore this huge backlash. It will hurt them. This is a good old fashion David and Goliath fight. Their customers will have the last word.
Thumbs up!
Correct, thumbs up!!!
I appreciate hearing more about Adobe’s strategic thinking behind Creative Cloud, and I don’t doubt the sincerity or the depth of thinking behind those statements.
I do not accept, however, that those objectives can only be accomplished through a subscription pricing model which is so obviously a problem for so many long-time customers. (Actually I do understand, because the economic motivations being articulated to the investor community, but avoided with customers, are quite clear, but let’s leave that aside.)
80%+ of the issues voiced here, on the earlier blog post, and on countless forums elsewhere boil down to 2 things:
1. Cost. The barrier to entry for new customers has been successfully lowered, but at the expense of an ongoing price increase for the smaller (one or two product) customer who has already paid the large initial cost of the software and has been paying upgrade pricing since. And the timing of those subscription payments is completely inflexible, so what remaining choice a user had to time an upgrade based on cost considerations has now disappeared.
2. Termination, or what was aptly termed the “barrier to exit” in an earlier post. In the historical model, a user who decides to skip an upgrade, for economic or whatever other reasons, does not see any immediate change. That user can continue to use the software, uninterrupted and without any degradation in capability. Of course, eventually that capability erodes away in the face of hardware and OS changes, compatibility with newer cameras and a host of other factors, but the user can manage that process and extend the usability of the software for potentially many years. In the new model, when you stop paying, the software goes dead.
All of the alternatives which have been discussed at length represent a compromise, at best. Of course we can save TIF’s to protect our work, but that is not the point. A read-only version makes no sense. Reverting to CS6 is a possibility now, if one avoids saving CC features into PSD’s, but will make less sense year by year into the future as OS changes and other factors make CS6 progressively less viable.
The simple answer, as has been stated many times on this blog, is for Adobe to construct a pricing model where a “paid up” user who terminates subscription retains full access to whatever version is sitting on their machine at the time they stop subscription payments. There is no need for a boxed version, no need for a “perpetual version that periodically catches up with the current one”, no need to maintain two software variants in parallel with one another, no need to sacrifice a more incremental release strategy, indeed no need to sacrifice any aspect of Creative Cloud. Just let the user keep whatever version he/she has most recently downloaded until, just like in the old model, its capability gradually erodes away.
The issue here is entirely economic. Of course Adobe cannot leave a functioning software version behind for a user who has only paid a few months of subscription fee. But there are countless ways the pricing could be constructed, many of which have been proposed here and on the “You should never lose access…” thread. I’m not personally in favor of a tail-end buyout, but I guess that works in a negative sort of way. I’d prefer to see a model where a user becomes “paid up” over time, based on the length of subscription and ideally with credit for past purchases.
I’m sure there are many pricing models which would work and that Adobe, if they care to, can figure them out much better than their customers can.
It is a strange business strategy to lower the barrier to entry for new presumably-cost-conscious buyers, while alienating the installed base of smaller cost-conscious long-time customers. If Adobe decides to continue in this model without any changes, I hope their calculations are correct, because if they are not and Adobe’s business suffers, then the software and services will suffer.
Very well said. I do hope someone on that end reads this. I feel sorry for John and Mike, who are suffering here on point, weathering the storm while the brass stay cozy in the bunker. I feel for you guys, but I would again like to ask that you or someone else at Adobe address the issues brought up so eloquently and reasonably in this comment and countless others like it.
By now we are all familiar with the arguments in favor of CC in general, but the avoidance of the issues mentioned here smacks of avoidance at best and dishonesty at worst. If Adobe are indeed listening, then what is their response?
Toby,
Agree 100%!
1. The viewpoint and arguments on each side are very clear.
2. Much respect and thanks to John and Mike!
3. Time for Adobe Systems Inc. to speak to their customers, including the 17,712 who signed the change.org petition protesting the CC subscription-only licensing model.
Yes, there are a lot of us that signed up and many more to come.
—
Very well said. I do hope someone on that end reads this. I feel sorry for John and Mike, who are suffering here on point, weathering the storm while the brass stay cozy in the bunker. I feel for you guys, but I would again like to ask that you or someone else at Adobe address the issues brought up so eloquently and reasonably in this comment and countless others like it.
—
I appreciate the thought, but please don’t feel sorry for me.
I really believe in what we are doing. I understand that this is a big change though for a lot of our customers, and I am here trying to help others understand what we are doing and why.
The reality is that this significantly lowers the barriers to newer / younger customers, and meets increasing expectations around more connected, collaborative and social work flows.
Most of the conversation revolves around pricing differences, but as alluded to in John’s post, that is an Apples to Oranges comparison. We have fundamentally shifted our focus, from one that was primarily driven by desktop software, to one focusing on a larger creative process, of which the software is only one part (although a major one).
We are exploring solutions to some of the issues, (see John’s earlier post), but they are solutions which fall within our new direction / model. i.e. things like how do I access my files once I leave CC.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Yes Mike, we’ve heard these thin talking points now ad nauseam. Adobe listens but Adobe doesn’t answer. No point in talking any more, it will save us both energy. Good luck with your bottom line, which is, I believe, the only thing Adobe will listen to.
>while the brass stay cozy in the bunker.
The stock price has generally fallen since the announcement, though not precipitously. I’m guessing they are getting some heat as well.
Yes, this is just the beginning. It will keep going down as time goes by.
If it were only as simple as the apples vs oranges comparison you offer.
In reality, your company created the desire and earned quite a good living (to the tune of over $4B annually) of selling high quality, fresh-picked, tree ripened apples. Then overnight, you expect all your customers to join the fruit of the month club … in perpetuity … and no matter how much your customers really want another apple … all they will ever receive are oranges …
I find it quite odd and disconcerting that one of the benefits you highlighted for Adobe in the CC licensing model, it it removes the stress of a “deadline” for offering new features vs the old perpetual licensing schedule. Don’t you find it curiously perplexing that the software solutions that Adobe offers are actually put to work in a very competitive, hectic and deadline driven environment? … Funny how some developers wish to avoid something many of use must contend with day in, day out. Yet we somehow survive and even flourish. My grandfather referred to as the “Cream rising to the top.”
To me, the CC model has a serious flaw as it attempts to guarantee cash flow and profitability for Adobe … while the rest of us must compete in a merit driven market place. If you look historically, each and every industry that moved from a merit system to time in service reward system … those efforts soon failed to meet expectations. There is no substitute for working your butt off and turning your results in on time. Sure, the finished product may not be perfect, but then perfection is rarely seen no matter how long you take to complete the task.
On the matter of affordability for new users … I remember a comment I heard back in the days, twenty years ago when I first ventured into the digital realm … a presenter at a seminar answered the question, “If you can’t afford Photoshop … you simply don’t NEED Photoshop.” …
When I read how excited new CC subscribers are about how they can now “afford” Photoshop, I smile … all the while knowing how much they will have spent if they stay on the CC merry-go-round for the next two decades … I can’t fathom how folks believe that $20 a month for life is more “affordable” than the perpetual licensing model … at least using my calculator … it doesn’t add up.
In the end, I’m quite confident, though I began with Ps v2 (1993) I am done spending any more money with Adobe. I will use the software I currently have perpetual license agreements for … and by the time they are no longer functional, I will adopt the competing options that are sure to surface. Because, as it turns out, I’m allergic to oranges.
ButchM: I love your statement:
“I can’t fathom how folks believe that $20 a month for life is more “affordable” than the perpetual licensing model … at least using my calculator … it doesn’t add up.”
It doesn´t add up on mine either. I won´t repeat the calculations here again, but it ends up costing MORE THAN TWICE what we have been paying every 18-24 months until now to stay up-to-date for one tool (Photoshop) on the current model. Plus we lose the option to skip a version cycle upgrade if we so choose.
Like – Well stated.
@Mike Chambers, while you’re doing “your best” to explain to us why you believe what you do, I full heartily think as a decade professional user, lowering the entry level barrier is like pissing on the pros who got Adobe to where it is. You’re going to hurt our professional level of work so any Chuck, Dick, Jane and Harry can come along and call themselves a designer or what-have-you. If entry level users are serious about their career, they should climb the ladders like the rest of us have over all these years. It’s just corporate marketing rhetoric you’re throwing at us to make a bigger bottom line for Adobe in the short run. I believe this newest stunt will catch up with Adobe and bite you in the backside in the not so distant future.
By the way, you’re not hear helping us understand Mike, you’re telling us the same line of BS over and over again. Nobody’s buying it. I think pure volume in voices should make that very clear.
—
By the way, you’re not hear helping us understand Mike, you’re telling us the same line of BS over and over again. Nobody’s buying it.
—
I understand there is a lot of emotion tied up in all of this, and ultimately, you will believe what you want to believe.
However, I am going to continue to try and help explain what Adobe is doing, and why it is doing it. Hopefully, I can help provide some insight into this.
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
@ Mike Chambers
“Most of the conversation revolves around pricing differences, but as alluded to in John’s post, that is an Apples to Oranges comparison. We have fundamentally shifted our focus, from one that was primarily driven by desktop software, to one focusing on a larger creative process, of which the software is only one part (although a major one).”
So, to clarify, you are saying that Adobe’s decision on pricing is a done deal and nothing we say will change their position?
John said that “We need to make more oranges—and the oranges you want.”. People have said here that they don’t need all that the cloud has and that it can be financially difficult to justify but your above statement seems to imply that that doesn’t matter which contradicts what John said.
Is there a point to commenting further??
I am saying we are exploring solutions to concerns within the framework of the new direction we are taking (Creative Cloud, service model).
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Adobe has made the decision to move from a permanent license to a subscription model for the Creative Suite / Creative Cloud products. That will work well for most of its customers. It will not work well for all of them.
There is no point in getting hysterical if you are one of the ones for whom it will not work, either now or in the near future. Economics will force Adobe to find solutions that work for as many customers as possible.
A vendor maximizes revenue by coming as close as possible to charging each customer the value of the product to that customer. While doing so on a customer by customer basis is rarely feasible, vendors come as close as possible by various means. Adobe has done so by offering both standalone products and a variety of bundled products (Master Suite, Design Premium, Design Standard) and by offering full price, upgrade price, student price, occasional sale prices, etc. Adobe apparently will continue to offer a variety of subscription prices. And it will continue to offer CS6 on a permanent license basis for the time being.
Of course, the availability of CS6 on a permanent license will not be a permanent solution to the “tail” problem–what happens when someone retires and is no longer producing enough revenue to justify a full-price subscription–because CS6 will become obsolete with changing OSes, etc. But it is a reasonable option right now.
There is no point, however, in panicking about what might be the situation a year or two from now. Does anyone really think that Adobe will be stupid enough to just jettison retiring customers in a couple of years? Why would Adobe (or any other company) do so when there is money to be made from many of those customers by selling them something they can use and afford?
As a senior myself, I’d like to know what my options will be 2 or 3 years from now but it is unrealistic to expect Adobe to lock themselves in several years in advance. Nonetheless, I am confident that Adobe will make some option available that they can sell to customers that they would otherwise lose, albeit at a price that will make those customers grumble, just as they (and I) have grumbled at the cost of every upgrade over the decade I have been using Adobe products.
With CC, Adobe has let the genie out of the bottle. There’s nothing to stop them from going to a pay for play model next. Want to use a single transparency (2 cents per use). Want to use a dissolve (1 cents per use). Want to use the title function (50 cents per minute of use). Getting back to CC – Most customers don’t want subscription models for software – it’s rather simple. This lifelong Adobe customer is leaving due to CC. And I don’t care if subscription fees were $1 a month. Adobe will earn $0.00 from me.
For a person like me who uses most of the flagship apps a lot, it’s a good deal. To my 2nd shooter (videographer) I talked to last night who only uses Photoshop occasionally and was just learning Premiere after the FCPX debacle, it’s not a good deal and they’ll probably never subscribe. Adobe is sure to lose most of their casual users and hobbyists, for better or worse.
[That is *exactly* the opposite of what’s desired/intended. Creative Cloud is supposed to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them. We have to find a way for it to work as intended. –J.]
Simple solution John. Sell traditional licenses to the software that people want and need. Provide for the market that exists. Stop trying to redefine that market.
It’s simple business 101′
“Let the customer make the choices they want” so that they stay a customer. Don’t force a service on them that they don’t want. Give them options.
It is good to see your added comment, John, but unfortunately this is the result that Adobe has created.
I’ll give you my own example as another case in point:
Probably most of the people posting here are design professionals, but in my own case I am retired, and an amateur but serious photographer. I have beeen a Photoshop user since 2001 (v6) and a Lightroom user since 2008 (LR2) and have bought every upgrade of both products along the way (except for one skipped PS upgrade for whatever reason).
I looked closely at the Creative Cloud option when first announced, attracted by the additonal capabilty, but decided against at the time for simple cost reasons.
Ironically (and I say this very genuinely) I had recently been investigating InDesign and the related products for iPad app development, and had I gone forward, I would have subscribed to the Cloud because (as you intended) the reduced barrier to entry made it the sensible choice.
But the latest announcement stopped me dead in my tracks. I am not going to buy into a new product (InDesign) at the expense of locking myself into lifetime payments for the products I use almost every day (PS and LR). There are other ways to do iPad app development. And much as I like Lightroom, there are alternatives today (Aperture). And the lesser alternatives to Photoshop may eventually bridge the gap (at least for photographers), or we can just bag Photoshop and the added 10% it gives over Lightroom/Aperture.
So Shawn is right: You will lose most of your casual users and hobbyists, for better or worse.
The software is excellent. The capabilities the Creative Cloud model creates are attractive. But the pricing model, the lack of choice, the lifetime lock-in, and the drop-dead state at termination are deal breakers.
I’ve doubled my lifetime posts on the web, on any forum and on any topic, here. In the business I am now retired from, we would have been pleased that so many of our customers cared enough to write the kind of comments you have been receiving, but we also would have been looking at fixing the problem faster than Adobe (apparently) has.
I dont know how many here are from outside Noth-Amrica. But I feel (beyond the CC subscription issues) that there is no justification from Adobe’s point of view to charge us prices that are non equal to the ones that US/Canada residents pay. In Europe and most parts of the world – we get the same products as North-Americans get and the same support (Forums) – So – why do we have to buy from a reseller – We pay more than twice and get not extra service from that reseller or Adobe. It’s not like we pay more because we are given additional support by phone or a custom-language plugins or abilities inside the software (If I choose to buy a localized version – I need to pay more).
So If I chose to subsvribe to CC – I will have to acivate my software through the Adobe server and download it from the same server you Americans do. So why the additional cost ? Is this your way to piracy ? by leading me to that path – which I as a legal client chose not to go (and believe me I can) ???
My thoughts exactly. I live in Japan, where Adobe products cost about 30-40% more than in the US. Yes, that is in Japanese, but English s/w is handled through Hong Kong, where prices in USD average 25% more. I always used to buy boxes in the US at B&H and have them shipped to me. Adobe closed that route for upgrades, but I can still have someone in the US buy for me and ship. Now, if I subscribe to CC, I will be taking a huge hit monetarily, because I must subscribe and pay the extortionate foreign price.
We are finally seeing some responses from Adobe (in the persons of Mike Chambers and John Nack.) I appreciate the time you guys are spending to be here.
However, after reading every single post in this thread and the other major thread on the topic of CC (…”You should never lose access…”), I have yet to see a direct Adobe response to the issue of lost trust and long-term accessibility of files.
To reiterate and summarize from many comments:
Price, while important, is not the main issue. Consumers almost always acclimate to price increases, albeit with lots of grumbling. Happens all the time The issue is the loss of trust in Adobe as a company and the attendant rise in anxiety among their customers. It’s really quite unprecedented.
I’ll quote myself from another post:
<>
A scenario:
The year is 2023. A loyal CC subscriber has been happily creating art with CC tools and decides to retire. How does he continue to open his files? (…without continuing to subscribe until the day he dies…)
Ten years hence, in 2033, he passes away. His heirs wish to access those files. How do they open his files? (…without continuing to subscribe…FOREVER)
What happens if, by then, Adobe has pulled a Kodak and is no longer in existence?”
<>
‘d love some more clarity on this question of trust. Please give us some reason to reserve judgement.
I’m afraid we already have our answer wrapped in Mike Chambers’ statement that “we understand that not everyone may be interested in this path.”
—
However, after reading every single post in this thread and the other major thread on the topic of CC (…”You should never lose access…”), I have yet to see a direct Adobe response to the issue of lost trust and long-term accessibility of files.
—
John had an entire blog post on this subject a couple of days ago (with a very good conversation in the comments):
You should never lose access to your work, period.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2013/05/you-should-never-lose-access-to-your-work-period.html
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
You’re not answering the questions.
We’re simply not on the same page here, Mike.
Yes Rick, I’d too would really like to know what “we understand that not everyone may be interested in this path.” What does that mean Adobe, your long-standing loyal users up to this point or SOL? Way to treat your customers who have served you all these years. Where’s our choices?! Adobe should be so proud to accomplish such juvenile decisions.
“[That is *exactly* the opposite of what’s desired/intended. Creative Cloud is supposed to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them. We have to find a way for it to work as intended. –J.]”
Geez, John, are you serious? How could you at Adobe possibly think that you could “enfranchise” people by locking them into a lifetime of payments at DOUBLE the former cost (in the case of Photoshop Standard), and leaving them with nothing if they have to stop payment?
You’ve said that Adobe is listening and looking for “creative solutions” to the exit barrier. Many people, myself included, have suggested a feature locked version be made available to people leaving a subscription so that we can at least keep on working. But based on the tenor of Mike Chambers’ posts …
“I am saying we are exploring solutions to concerns within the framework of the new direction we are taking (Creative Cloud, service model).”
…it seems like you’re listening with your fingers in your ears. For every one of our concerns we get more CC education on why you’re not going to address them.
I’ll be plain here. A limited function “reader” will not be a solution for me. I have to be able to work if I leave the “Cloud”. You can be as creative as you want in finding that solution, but that’s my bottom line.
@Rick: ‘A limited function “reader” will not be a solution for me. I have to be able to work if I leave the “Cloud”. ’
We’ll know soon, b
@Rick: ‘A limited function “reader” will not be a solution for me. I have to be able to work if I leave the “Cloud”. ’
Agreed, it would be very disappointing if the solution were just a file converter/ printer. This would basically only save the step of saving a flattened TIFF, losing all the non-destructive benefits.
They are listening on this point, and I believe they will figure out a way to address this within the new CC direction. They probably need time to get this change right the first time…
I agree. Nothing short of a full, functioning (albeit with out “cloud” functionality and feature updates) will be acceptable should someone stop their subscription (within reasonable terms).
It’s not a question of faster feature delivery or price. If Adobe wanted to charge three times the price for its products, then that’s Adobe’s prerogative. Look at 3D software like 3ds Max or Softimage… those packages start at $3,000 plus. As a business owner software price is not a big issue. A professional electrician or plumber will always pay premium price for high quality tools to do their job effectively and efficiently. What is a BIG issue is rights to the media source files I create. I can’t sit here and spend 5 years creating hundreds of media source files (fla, psd, ai, etc.) and then all of a sudden cancel the subscription to Adobe’s CC (Captive Consumer) program and not be able to open or access hundreds of source files that I worked hard to create. “Not everyone may be interested in this path” – To Hell with that idiotic comment, it’s a path that’s not even legal to begin with. It’s about a complete violation of my rights to access my own freak’in Intellectual Property!
Well, for some price certainly is an issue. Read the comments above. Retired people and struggling freelancers are two big categories of (formerly?) loyal long term users. Adobe and users who want to support our cause need to realize that it is a broad and diverse user base impacted by this change.
It also only adds to the pain some users are experiencing right now, when these forums become divisive with explicit or implicit statements to the effect of, “If you were a real pro, and not such a loser, you wouldn’t be so worried about price.” A bad sentiment coming from one of us or from Adobe.
Not a bad sentiment John. Opinions about cost are no valid arguments. Adobe has every legal right to charge what they feel their software is worth. If they wanted to price themselves out of range of their competition that’s their business choice. The real issue is when you stop using CC and can’t open your sources files to your own Intellectual Property. Many people signing the Change.org petition are citing this exact legal issue.
In germany, we have the concept of “Wucher” which Wikipedia translates to this english article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
Wucher also applies to selling a product at an outrageous price.
Not sure about US law, but in germany, this can have implications. Also: one might think of Adobe’s offerings as something being close to a monopoly. In those cases, as well, they are not completely free to set prices as they like. I believe this goes for the US as well.
But i tend to agree: Pricing really is only the second or third most pressing issue here.
True, we have been letting Adobe become a monopoly by supporting them throughout the years.
This is a big wake up call. We should NEVER put all of our eggs in one basket. It’s time to explore other non-Adobe software and balance the market a little.
Adobe can only monopolize the market if we let them.
Hi John,
Just my two penneth. Creative Cloud has allowed a someone like me, working within the budget constraints of a small business, to do two things I could never have done with the boxed software versions:
1) Keep current. Before this, I was stuck on CS3 and unable to afford the upgrade. This was Design Premium. Master Collection was unjustifiable.
2) Add another team member (technically, an apprentice in this case). Before CC for Teams, adding another seat was unthinkable due to cost.
Everyone’s budget is different, but I’m surprised I haven’t seen many people coming out in support of Photoshop Elements. I recently got a copy of that with a tablet purchase (PSE 11). It was much more powerful than I remember it from years ago. Perhaps there is some sort of stigma among home users that it just isn’t good enough for them, that they need the full PS? Perhaps there still needs to be some tweaking for version 12, to make it the perfect companion to Lightroom for home users, and maybe that would be a way forward? Just a thought.
R
But you did understand, that those small costs up-front might come back and bite you in some years?
Especially as a business-owner you need to be able to do this much math yourself. When you were on Design premium CS3, you must have used that for, what, 5 years? This will have cost you something along the lines of 1500$. Five years of the CC (single license) will cost you 12×30$ (first year) + 48×50$ (next four years). That is 3760$.
Doing the same calculation for the team license is 480$ (1st year) + 3360 (2nd-5th year) -> 3840$.
Please tell me, how CC is a better deal for you, and how you couldn’t afford upgrades for CS3? If that were true, you certainly can’t offord them for CC, either. But now you’re locked in, and are forced to continue paying.
I am sorry to say this, but if you’re unable to save up money for a small investment (1000$ license), maybe you shouldn’t be running a business.
sorry, i made an error in that line:
> Five years of the CC (single license) will cost you 12×30$ (first year) + 48×50$ (next four years). That is 3760$.
Should have been: “that is 2760$”.
Still, the statement holds up.
One or two reasons, one of which is the obvious one: cash flow. But there are others also, particularly when it comes to accounting and allowances. I’m not running a business in the US, btw. Just so you know.
CC is a great deal for a business that uses interns, apprentices, and other temporary employees as you can cheaply pay the monthly cost knowing that the cost will end as soon as the employee is done. Definitely a boon for summer interns and short-term contractors. For full-time employees, however, you no longer have the option to not upgrade to save money. If you need to cut costs by cancelling a CC subscription then you will also need to layoff that employee as they will no longer be able to use the tools.
Not upgrading doesn’t save you any money. You’d be holding on to a soon obsolescent tool that won’t play well with anyone else who has the latest versions. And even before CC, with Adobe’s 2 version limit to upgrades, you’d be paying full fare sooner of later if you keep holding on anyway.
What’s wrong with a subscription that gives you the FULL Master Collection, and more, and always updated/patched as soon as they are ready?
And for those with ad-hoc needs to open/edit archived files a few times a year, just pay $20 to work on it for a whole month. Done. The next time you need it, pay another $20 for the latest available at the time. What’s to lose? You’re always current, always on budget.
The one thing I do agree on amidst all the angst, is it would be perfect if CC would allow us to hold on to the last subscribed versions of our apps, maybe not for free, but at a reasonable fee?
“What’s wrong with a subscription that gives you the FULL Master Collection, and more, and always updated/patched as soon as they are ready?”
Everything is wrong with that.
First, that’s the only option available
Second, most people don’t need all the software
Third, there is no guarantee that the subscription cost is going to be low. It can and will go up.
Fourth, it will actually cost more in the long run
Five, Adobe has a lot of unhappy customers right now because of this.
Six, if you read the posts here (and in other forums), there are plenty of other reasons on what’s wrong with the forced CC. Creative professionals want options.
I just can’t understand the “no exit strategy” model. By offering a way to “keep what you’ve got” for a fee based on how long you’ve been a subscriber would be an easy way to make this all more palatable. I would think that the exit fee could be set so that bug fixes and compatibility issues could be maintained for some period and still pay for itself. Set a once a year date and make that the exit strategy for what improvements you take with you to make it easier to keep track of what needs updates if you want.
If you take this approach you essentially get all of the gains you wanted plus you give those who want to avoid the monthly fee an approach to having what they want. Set the minimum subscription before buy out is allowed at 6 months and make the exit fee high early on to give everyone a chance to decide to stay as a subscriber. Obviously, you couldn’t take cloud storage and the other non software perks with you either. People would hang on as subscribers as long as they could but not feel like they were left with nothing if they had to opt out.
As it stands, someone like me who is retired and living on a fixed income is left with nothing new since CS6 when the inevitable happens and I can’t keep up the monthly fee. Maybe that won’t happen before I die or get too old to enjoy Photography but it seems a shabby way to treat a long time customer who’s bought every update since CS and never made a dime on photography.
I also think you underestimate the number of people who just won’t subscribe for one reason or another which will drive your prices up and I get left behind sooner. An exit strategy would reduce that number and quiet a lot of the complaints.
Adobe made this move too soon and with too little customer feedback to get the approach right.
The whole choice thing is a great idea in theory. But for many photographers it is hard enough to learn to use all photoshop/LR features. Having access to the CC is not going to give me more time to then learn all the other programs in my spare time. Long term archival access is key. We might as well all start exporting all our processed work as layered Tiffs. Then in 5 years when PS CS6 won’t run on the latest OS (PC/Mac) we have an out.
Or you live with say converting to DNG knowing you will have access to the raw unprocessed images and in the future will have to redo your work to recreate something.
I have a question: Since there are customer issues described here that Adobe is going to look into and the discount for CS6 customers expires 7/31/13, will there be an extension to the discount if Adobe hasn’t finished looking into the issues?
Im running CS4, I don’t do a lot of image editing, it works fine for me, I do not need to upgrade. At the moment I do not need anything else from Adobe, they killed the platform and tools I used of theirs.
The new subscription model would leave me with nothing, unless I paid for the latest and greatest, which my usage doesn’t warrant.
“just pay $20 to work on it for a whole month.”
What an absolutely ridiculous idea! So I need to make a quick bday card for my niece but tell her she has to wait 9 months like everyone else who’s ask me for a bit of work, until I have enough work for the month, at which point I should take time off my day-to-day job to get the work done.
“What’s wrong with a subscription that gives you the FULL Master”
The same thing thats wrong with having to buy a full cow, instead of just the steak I’m after for my dinner, it’s called choice.
“What an absolutely ridiculous idea! So I need to make a quick bday card for my niece but tell her she has to wait 9 months like everyone else who’s ask me for a bit of work, until I have enough work for the month, at which point I should take time off my day-to-day job to get the work done.”
You’re not making any sense with this comment. I don’t get your point. If you’ve stopped subscribing and have to do a quick birthday card with Adobe software, just pay for the one month of Adobe apps that you need and do it. What’s the problem?
If you wanted to do free birthday cards all the time there are lots of affordable apps out there, including Apple iWork/iLife that can do that.
It’s not work explaining to you if it doesn’t make any sense, but I’ll try once again.
Previously I paid for an app. Whenever I needed to do a bit of work I was able to use that app at my free will, whenever I wanted at no extra cost.
Now you suggesting I either save up all my work until I have a months worth (which isn’t going to happen as clients and birthdays don’t wait) and do the work for $20. Or pay $20 every time I need to do some work, which will work out much more expensive as the work I do is not on the cutting edge of PS, I do not need the latest and greatest.
You did get one thing right though. I obviously won’t be subscribing to the cloud, and therefore like many other people who previously used Adobe tools, I will have to look elsewhere.
In that case, just hang on the the latest boxed version that you currently own, and use it for as long as you like. It doesn’t sound like you should ever need to subscribe to CC, given the work that you need to do.
John, when you listed the ‘key points’ you failed to list the thing that seems to be the biggest 2 issues for everyone…
– A subscribe or be left with nothing model.
– No choice over what your buying. Buy the whole shop, or no shop.
This whole thing stinks illegal. We need to start approaching our government bodies to investigate a monopoly going on here. Adobe, be smart and keep your hands clean by giving your customers a choice. Enough said.
Just to let you know: Also Plugin Developers for Adobe products protest against software as a Service. The Maker of some popular free After Effects Plugins has just announced the End of Life of his Plugins, as he has lost interest “in adding value to Adobe’s ecosystem”. Source: http://tinyurl.com/por9jwo
I can only applaud this attitude.
Very sad that it has to come to this. It didn’t need to.
Luckily, some plug-in developers have been able to provide us with software to run their plug-ins without the need of Adobe software. OnOne software and Topaz are a good example of this. I am sure many software developers will do something similar to keep us as customers.
Ok, I’ve been following this thread for a while and it seems the vast majority of complaints here have to do with edge cases. Look, Adobe makes software targeted at professionals. We professionals generally have been regularly upgrading our tools at least every other upgrade cycle. We don’t go 5 years between upgrades because most professionals need to exchange files and if you don’t have the latest version of Photoshop you won’t be able to edit the file. One of my biggest complaints about the old model was InDesign not being able to save back to older versions. Now with CC this shouldn’t be too big an issue because most people will be current.
Hey, I’m sorry if you’re retired, an amature photographer, or a student living in Pakistan, but these tools aren’t targeted towards you. They are for people who make their bread and butter using them every day. For most of us this is a great step forward. I don’t care that I’m “locked in” to using Adobe’s products. I’ve been using them since Illustrator 1.0. I plan on using them for the foreseeable future. Yes, some people in this thread have some genuine concerns, but please don’t whine about price. Even in the odd cases where the new model is costing you more, it’s still a good deal for having access to very powerful software. The stand alone app cost is $20 a month. If your business can’t afford that, then maybe you need to look at your own business model instead of asking Adobe to change theirs.
I don’t recall having to take a test that would qualify me to own and work with any Adobe product…..did you?
True, using Adobe software is not what makes us professionals. Our experience, hard work, and skills is what makes us professionals. We can do the job with any of the great tools available to us in the market. It doesn’t have to be Adobe software.
@Bill, please run the math on upgrading every other cycle vs the subscription model over 3 years.
There may be many types of edge cases, but if the concerns and potential solutions are turning out to be similar, it seems like this is a useful conversation.
One thing that does affect each and everyone of us is the power to vote with our money – before upgrading or skipping; now continuing to subscribe or not. If there only option to stop paying the subscription is to stop working with all our past creations, much of this power is gone. Would you be happy to keep paying if all the newly developed features didn’t help you at all?
Rich, skipping an upgrade cycle isn’t really voting with your money. You end up paying more for the following upgrade anyway. Besides, to really vote with your money you switch from Adobe to some other company’s product. Obviously, you’re not going to do that if the other professional you’re working with all use Adobe products. If however Adobe’s products stop being a good value and a competitor comes along that offers a viable alternative (like InDesign did with Quark) then people will jump ship. But it won’t matter whether Adobe is a subscription model or not.
As for the price comparison… I don’t have any of those numbers in front of me. It really depends on your situation and what package you bought. I was buying Design Premium, but then I bought AfterEffects as a stand alone. For me getting all of the apps (even if I didn’t need every one of them) for a fixed monthly cost made a lot of sense. The added benefit of continuous feature updates has been great. Illustrator’s Package export function was a great benefit when it came out. A great many of the features that were announced at Max I’m really looking forward to using.
It seems that most complaints here that aren’t about price are about an “exit strategy”. I’m not looking for an exit strategy. I’m looking for tools that help me do my best work.
There used to be a 3 version window to upgrade. This was going to end with CS6 but Adobe listened to our concerns ( http://scottkelby.com/2011/an-open-letter-to-adobe-systems/ ).
Skipping upgrades did save money in the past. With CS6 Adobe appeared to be trying to ween us from this (leading up to subscription model).
Switching to a competing product would of course send a message, but Adobe probably would not like such a drastic action to be the only option for us to vote with our money.
Good point.
Adobe should be focusing on making their software so good that it makes us want to upgrade, instead of forcing a CC subscription. We should give them money, because they made something we want, not because we belong to the CC monthly cloud that we are constantly paying wether we like it or not.
I don’t mind upgrading and paying the money if I get to make that decision. But when Adobe wants to make the decision for me, I will not stand for that. That’s not good business.
I would rather take my business somewhere else and I believe that is what a lot of people are saying. I don’t blame them. They have a good point.
“Yes, some people in this thread have some genuine concerns, but please don’t whine about price… If your business can’t afford that, then maybe you need to look at your own business model instead of asking Adobe to change theirs.”
When you work out the math, they are only charging about $1.52 per app or service per month for the complete subscription of 33 apps and services. No one is going to argue that getting your tools for $1.52/month is a bad deal. The issue is that presently, Adobe is saying that you either subscribe to one tool at $19.99/month or all the tools for $49.99/month (2 or more tools is basically the same cost). What if you only need 5 apps? You can’t see a reason why someone would not be happy about paying for 20+ apps and services they don’t need or probably won’t use?
How happy would you be if you went into a Honda dealer and wanted to buy a well equipped Accord and the dealer told you that Honda changed their marketing direction and your only choices were to buy a Honda Civic or a fully equipped Accura RL?
“Look, Adobe makes software targeted at professionals.”
Really … look at one of the major new features in Photoshop CC … Camera Shake tool … how many “professionals” really need or will actually use this tool … shouldn’t a “professional” either be capable of capturing an image in a manner to avoid camera shake in the first place? … or have access to images that don’t suffer from camera shake? Is this the type of “professional” support, that we are expected to pay twice as much to have included in Ps?
I really hate how some folks toss around or tout the term professional in an air of superiority when the facts, based in reality just don’t add up.
In case you haven’t noticed yet, Bill … you are in the extreme minority on this matter and more than a few “professionals” disagree with you. In the end, price is just another brick in the wall that Adobe is building around their offerings … regardless of how “affordable” you consider CC to be … the cost is still higher for single applications … almost twice as much as it was before … yet the “improvements” to the individual apps do not double their influence to the bottom line for the “professionals” that utilize those apps … if you can’t grasp that issue … too bad …
ButchM, you may be right that I’m in the minority on this thread, but trust me, Adobe didn’t make their decision to change their business model on a whim. They did a lot of market research. So I’m afraid it is you who are in the minority.
The fact is, professionals get images from various sources. I don’t run into a problem with camera shake very often, in the event I do that new feature should come in handy.
By the way. I didn’t mean to come off as superior. When I said “professional” I’m saying it to emphasize the fact that most of Adobe’s customers make money using their software.
“By the way. I didn’t mean to come off as superior. When I said “professional” I’m saying it to emphasize the fact that most of Adobe’s customers make money using their software.”
You really need to reread your post because you most definitely ‘did’ come off as being superior! While I appreciate that your bread and butter depends on your Adobe tools right now, you may wish to use them into your retirement. People who ‘create’ don’t stop just because they ceased working 9-5 for someone else. A photographer will continue to take images and sell prints as long as he or she can still hold a camera. Digital artists or even print specialists often offer their expertise on a volunteer basis to worthy organizations.
This is why most are concerned about an exit strategy…which doesn’t hurt a CC power subscriber like you one whit!
I am really not sure what you are arguing for unless is some measure of exclusivity.
Bill!
Your post is full of demagogy, empty rhetoric and out of touch with real world graphic business.
You wrote: “Look, Adobe makes software targeted at professionals.”, then why Adobe has special pricing for student(any student, not only “art” students).
You wrote:”Hey, I’m sorry if you’re retired, an amateur photographer, or a student living in Pakistan, but these tools aren’t targeted towards you.”
1.What is wrong with students from Pakistan ???
As I wrote above: Adobe targets students with lower prices( this is huge market) and they target student from all over the world.Also Pakistani students with PS version in Arabic!
Link below will tell You how many languages CC supports.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/tech-specs.edu.html
2. I was amateur photographer, but I have purchased PS and now I am pro(I make money off it, to be precise). According to Your “logic” , PS was not for me. Fortunately I do not listen to people like You.
3. About transition cost: read post from Reid Bundonis — 2:56 PM on May 18, 2013, posted above.He put some facts and calculations about it, not empty words like You.
4.If You are pro and if You are subscriber to CC, then I have easy questions for You.
How the move to CC helped You with:
better creativity
saving more time and money
better communications with customers
getting more clients and spread info about Your business
Greetings…………..Marek
Marek, my comment wasn’t meant to suggest there was something wrong with students from Pakistan or students in general, but this thread has been populated by all sorts of complaints about the new pricing structure from various factions. Students, retired people, amateur, etc. I probably was rash in my comments and I apologize for that. I have nothing against foreign students. But my main reaction to these complaints is the same. Adobe’s tools do cater to professionals. Yes there is student pricing to help students learn the tools to become professionals. Of course amateur photographs can benefit from using Adobe’s tools, but they have never priced them to cater to the amateur market (at latest when it comes to Creative Suite).
I’ve been a professional graphic designer for about 30 years, so I do know about real world graphic business, and in the real world I’ve been using Adobe’s tools since the late ’80s. I’ve used CC for the last year and have been very happy with the product’s value. The inclusion of Package export in Illustrator that was released to CC users did help me save time. As far as saving money goes, I use my tools to make money not save it. I’m sure I could detail out how one feature or another was worth the cost, but for me I know I’ll be using Adobe products for many years and would have upgraded every release or two. So if you know that, then you are already basically subscribing to their software, but with CC you space out the cost and if new features come out you don’t have to worry whether it’s too expensive to upgrade that month because you already budgeted for the monthly cost.
Jesus!!!
All that half truth arguments…
Do all the pro-cloud guys even try to understand all the concern?
WE KNOW THE FACTS ALREADY!
Repeating again and again does not help.
Even the not pointed out arguments are the evil…
@Bill, if you were following this thread you’d understand pretty clearly why being “locked in” is a bad move for everyone for so many reasons I won’t list here since you’ve already been “following” this thread for a while.
TK, in ant real sense we’ve been “locked in” ever since we bought into working with digital tools. Technology doesn’t stand still. Processor speeds increase, software changes to take advantage of these changes. It’s been going on for a long time. No one is really going to keep their old copy of Photoshop and an old Mac so they can open and edit files in their retirement. Even if you were still using pencil and paper, eventually you have to buy more supplies. If your supplier of pencils decided one day to change the way they sold boxes of pencils by charging a monthly fee to keep you in stock rather than making you buy a big crate of pencils at the beginning of each year it would be the same idea. If you’re in business you’re buying pencils. Whether you pay for them monthly or annually makes no difference. If you decide to go out of business and stop buying pencils you can still look at your work, but to edit it you’ll have to go out and buy some pencils.
The difference here is the software that Adobe produces requires many highly skilled people to produce it and update it to deal with bug fixes, etc. Adobe is saying, look, we have an ongoing relationship with our customers now and into the future to consistently produce quality software. The vast majority of their customers don’t buy once and that’s it. They are in it for the long haul. 10, 20, 30 years. It’s not like a car, where this year you buy a Toyota, and then in 10 years switch to an Audi.
Are you really sure “no one is really going to keep their old copy of Photoshop”?
I am still seeing people posting jobs specifically asking for InDesign CS3. That’s three versions back. So with CC what will happen to InDesign? Is Adobe going to freeze features, or is InDesign going to splinter into a million mutually incompatible versions? Historically Adobe has not been good at making InDesign compatible with itself.
Ambrose, that’s exactly my point. InDesign has been a problem because people hold off on the upgrade because of the huge cost. So they put it off. If everyone is on CC then that problem will go away because everyone will have the latest version.
No they won’t. There are places where they don’t upgrade their *hardware* until years after everyone else have upgraded. Some non-profits. Some government-run places. My local central library was running Windows XP until a year ago.
And there are places where people upgrade their hardware but hold off upgrading their software because the company is too large and they don’t like people running different versions in different places. If the software won’t run on the old hardware, they don’t upgrade.
Ambrose, how many years are you expecting Adobe to support XP on old hardware? If these places aren’t upgrading then they aren’t going to CC either so no problem. They keep their old copy of CS3 running on XP and they’re good to go.
My point is they won’t care. They will keep using their own version of CS3, and if you have to work with them, YOU have to use CS3 yourself: I can’t, because my InDesign is too new.
Even if we just talk about “professionals” we are not just talking about art and design people. There are other professionals who are being affected, translators and copy editors for example. Those people are not going to keep upgrading the hardware to run CC.
Ambrose, I guess I still don’t understand your argument. Because some edge cases aren’t going to commit to CC and use an older version of CS you want Adobe to do what? Even if they kept their old business model I would still be out of luck working with these people unless I have InDesign CS3. By the way, going forward Adobe has said that on CC you can download any version you want going back to CS6 I believe. So you see there is some flexibility there.
By the way, I do have a copy of CS3 InDesign on my system for just this reason.
Are you serious? Non-profits, government agencies and large corporations are edge cases? Are you equating “professionals” with freelancers and design agencies? In-house people are professionals too.
This is a good point. We all have our spheres of Adobe software usage. What seems like an edge case for one may not be for another. Ultimately only Adobe can decide with whom they think it is worth doing business.
Non-profits, government agencies and large corporations are NOT edged cases, but any organization of any size has monthly expenses that need to be met. If an organization doesn’t find value in a particular expenditure then they will make cuts. Maybe they will decide that the monthly expense of CC is worth it or maybe they will shift funds from a less deserving expenditure to be able to use the products they value. Adobe is a for-profit company, not a charity. As for myself, I am not a huge company that makes tons of money. But somehow I can find a way to pay the monthly fee, along with my utilities, rent, etc. I pay Waste Management $56 a month to haul away my trash. Adobe is asking for less than that for a set of quality tools that I use to make money with. I’m sorry if a huge corporation can’t swing the expense.
Did you read my comment about people not upgrading their hardware? Have you worked in a non-profit and know how hard it is to get anything budgeted?
It doesn’t even matter that large corporations are going to be able to have the expense budgeted. If their policy is not to upgrade their hardware until they can upgrade in one fell swoop some years down the path CC is not going to sound safe to them.
Ambrose, I read everything you wrote but fail to see what it has to do with whether Adobe has a subscription model going forward or not. If an organization is going to upgrade then they aren’t upgrading. Period. They keep their existing hardware and/or software until they can move forward. Once they do upgrade their hardware, if they are a subscriber to CC they can download the software that is compatible with their hardware/OS.
Naturally, the new model changes how things are budgeted somewhat, but that’s the nature of technology, and life in general. Things don’t stay the same. And when things change, there are always people that benefit more from the change than others and some where change doesn’t weigh in their favor. In general this change is like any other business expense. Some may not like the change, but most will adapt. This is not an impossible, insurmountable problem.
You really don’t understand do you?
Did you read the comment that CC is going to force you to upgrade after a year or so after the update is released? What happens if that update doesn’t work on your hardware and your corporate upgrade policy mandates that your machine is not going to get an upgrade until 2 years later? What if you’re in a non-profit and you simply don’t get an upgrade until a sponsor comes along and give you the cash to upgrade it?
Ambrose, you should really get your facts straight.
From Adobe’s website:
Creative Cloud paid members have access to a select set of archived versions of the desktop apps. Starting with CS6, select versions of each of the desktop creative apps will be archived and available for download. Archived versions are provided “as is” and are not updated to work with the latest hardware and software platforms.
So you see, not only does Adobe NOT “force” you to upgrade (I’m not even sure how they’d do that) but you have the option to download previous versions of the software (CS6 and later). Naturally the old versions may not work with newer hardware but that doesn’t seem to be your concern.
Why is this directed at me?
This has been brought up numerous times in this thread, and I have literally read every comment. No one has pointed out the existence of that page until now.
And how does this mesh with forced security updates? What is going to be updated when the user is running these “archived versions”?
Adobe is NOT “forcing” anyone to upgrade, but they are forcing the cloud subscriptions for people that may want to use their software for years to come. Pro creatives need upgrades in the future.
Being this the case, Adobe is forcing us to subscribe. CS6 will only last a while longer. As operating systems and hardware change, CS6 will be obsolete.
Many people don’t want to be stuck with Adobe products that gives them no options for the future. They would rather start using other non-Adobe products with clear options for the future.
It’s very clear what a lot of people don’t like about the CC forced model.
From the FAQ:
http://www.adobe.com/go/cc_faq
—
As a Creative Cloud member, am I required to install an upgrade to a desktop application when it becomes available?
No. You are not required to install any new version of the desktop applications available in Creative Cloud. You can continue using your current version of the product as long as you have an active membership. You have flexibility on when you install a new release to take advantage of new product features, if you choose to do so.
—
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
BTW, everyone in the software business is supposed to know large corporations lag behind in upgrades; they upgrade neither their hardware nor software continuously.
If Adobe really had done extensive market research before they made their decision (at this point I have to say I strongly doubt it), I would like to know how they explain how their continuously updated model will mesh with the fact that corporate hardware is not going to be up to date.
Ambrose, I’ve been running the same hardware for the last 4 years. The only real upgrade I’ve made is to RAM. I don’t expect to have to upgrade my CPU for at least a few years more. You don’t need the latest hardware to run Adobe’s latest software, not by a long shot.
The fact is, today’s hardware is fast enough to last most users quite a long time. THAT is why corporations and many others are not upgrading. If there were significant productivity enhancements to be had from upgrading they would do it.
No, while what you say is true, that’s not the reason why corporations are not upgrading. I don’t know what else I can say; after all, I can’t really say I have worked in large corporations.
But what you’re saying definitely does not apply to non-profits, at least not to the small ones.
Any organization of any size has monthly expenses. Whether it be electricity, rent, or whatever. This is just another monthly expense. Yes, it’s different than it was. That’s all. This is not Adobe picking on the little helpless non-profits, or students, or fill-in-the-blank. This is a change, and many people hate change because it doesn’t match the pattern they have been used to. If however, there is a real problem where certain organizations can not adapt to the change, I’m sure Adobe will not want to lose out on that business and will make an adjustment to make it work. Otherwise, the market will see a void that needs to be filled and a solution outside of Adobe will be created by someone who is better suited to making a product for those users.
Not to side with anyone but Adobe addresses business Here, but not sure how Adobe defines “Enterprise”
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#cc-enterprise
Ang Gov’t Here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#cc-govt
In my business (which is not photography) we run in a fully validated environment. So yes we are always 1-2 versions behind the main commercial product. We are not heavy Adobe Creative Suite users. But i can imagine some validated environment say the companies the design all the simulation stuff for war games and pilots can’t upgrade without validation testing.
Sure we can look at this as just business which is fine. But as with all things digital it does not address long term file access. Let’s say I do work for the Air Force. 15 years after the design planes start spontaneously blowing up. People are going to want to look at the design files.
You wondered how Adobe would “force” people to upgrade.
See Mike Chambers’ comment dated 9:35 AM on May 19, 2013. Since that’s from Mike Chambers, I will take it as an informed response from Adobe.
Mike said that they reserve the right to update the apps (though I’m not sure what that means in practice) but he goes on to say that this is for security updates and that sort of thing, so it’s clear that he’s not saying that Adobe will update apps to newer versions with out the user’s permission.
Are you serious you don’t know what they mean in practice? If you read through all the comments it’s very clear: There is a backdoor inside CC that allows Adobe to upgrade it any time, disable it, or do anything they want.
Ambrose, I don’t usually go in for conspiracy theories. You should ask yourself: what is Adobe’s business interest? Yes, I’m sure if you stop paying your bill then Adobe will stop your service. And it’s reasonable that they maintain some sort of controls over the software they are putting out there to protect against security exploits and bugs.
When I said I wasn’t sure how it works in practice, I meant that as far as I know, any software updates that happen on my system require my permission to proceed. That’s a security measure that is part of the Mac OS. Now maybe there’s some way that Adobe can circumvent that stuff, I’m not sure. But my assumption is that there isn’t and what Adobe would be upgrading are the software residing on their servers. So, for instance, if you’ve downloaded PS CS6 v13.1.2 and afterwards they discover a bug or security flaw they can update that version on their server to v13.1.3. I think they put that language in the user agreement just to cover their bases in case there is some reason they have to roll back a feature that had a serious bug.
Basically, it’s not in Adobe’s best interest to “screw” their users, even if some may feel that’s what’s going on in this case.
Are you really serious about this? Software that self-updates without asking for your permission already exist. If you use Google Chrome you have already seen this in action.
This has nothing to do with paying or not paying.
@Bill, you’re like a troll that you’d see on old discussion boards from the late 90’s who’s all washed up and feels the need to keep commenting on an argument that you know you’re being outnumbered on but feel you can’t leave well enough alone. This is my last reply to you Bill, please by all means have the last word.
TK, I never stooped to the level of person attacks in any of my posts. So who’s the troll?
Bill, this statement by you above:
“You don’t need the latest hardware to run Adobe’s latest software, not by a long shot.”
Quite suggests to me you don’t use Premiere Pro!
Really Richard? That statement makes me a troll. True, I haven’t run Premiere in a while but I do use AfterEffects quite a bit. Are you really saying that Premiere requires the latest hardware? I mean, I’m sure it helps, but really?
Bill, I prefer to buy my cars. After 60 monthly payments I own it. It’s in the garage I can drive it as much or as little as I want, when I want. If I wear it out, I can go buy another one when and if my finances allow. Some people rent, great for them. It’s called choice and Adobe isn’t offering it going forward. Many are upset by one of their preferred choices being taken away.
On barrier to entry being lowered:
In 1995, as a freshman in high school, I saved up for a scanner that came with Photoshop 4.0 bundled. As a student I also payed to upgrade to 5.5 and 7.
I’m not sure that I would have bought into the monthly subscription plan. While the monthly costs would have made it easier to pay without saving up front, planning for the accruing cost would have offset this. The investment of learning a powerful tool that would require long term financial commitment would have probably caused significant inertia. In grad school, I moved away from reliance on Matlab as soon as my computer vision class ended, even though Python’s NumPY was a step down in many ways.
John… though I believe you are sincere in your thoughts on this issue and that in general, Adobe thinks this is the best thing for us, your customers, the fact remains you have alienated a massive portion of a loyal customer base both with this new Creative Cloud model and with a seemingly uncaring lack of understanding of what is really upsetting everyone.
In the end, barring some deep pockets (Google/Nik) coming in and stealing away all the angry customers, you may retain most of these people as customers (though you are likely to loose at least some segment of them regardless), but they will no longer be as loyal.
And, heaven help Adobe if they raise any of the Creative Cloud pricing in the next 36 months.
The “what happens when I retire or reduced my work to the point where it no longer is economic to subscribe” question occurred to me as soon as Adobe announced that the subscription model would be mandatory going forward from the next release (CS7, now renamed as CC).
At first, I was very concerned, as many of the other commenters are. However, the more I think about it, the less concerned I become.
Retirees are a growing market now as the leading edge of the baby boomers reach retirement age. It is too big a market for companies to ignore.
Companies survive by selling product, particularly in an industry like software where the development costs are huge, and the “manufacturing” costs (distributing the software) are minimal.
Does anyone really believe that Adobe will just stick its head in the sand and forgo further revenues from retirees, if there money to be made from them?
Adobe’s immediate solution to the retiree problem is to allow owners of prior versions to continue to buy CS6 at the upgrade price. That works now, but, as others have pointed out, it won’t be a viable solution for either the customers or Adobe as CS6 gets too obsolete to sell to customers retiring in the future, and also too expensive for Adobe to maintain–perhaps as early as a couple of years from now. So what happens then?
Adobe will surely come up with some other idea to extract an affordable fee from retirees rather than pass up an opportunity to get SOME additional revenue from them.
I don’t know what that idea will be. Likely, no-one at Adobe yet knows for sure what the idea will be. But, Adobe is too smart–and some would say too greedy–to pass up the opportunity to derive further revenues from retirees. To do so, Adobe will have to make product available at a price such that it is more attractive for a customer to stick with Adobe’s products than to move to some competing product.
Adobe already has regular prices, upgrade prices, student prices, suite prices, individual product prices, etc. I have no doubt that Adobe’s marketing people will come up with some scheme to make continued purchases of some sort viable for at least a large percentage of retirees.
So, I am not going to worry about what may happen a couple of years or more from now. Adobe will come up with an answer because they’ll want more of my money then just as they do now.
After reading Mike Chambers’ posts concerning Adobe’s position on things to come, I can say that you John have much more faith in them than I do.
“No. You are not required to install any new version of the desktop applications available in Creative Cloud. You can continue using your current version of the product as long as you have an active membership. You have flexibility on when you install a new release to take advantage of new product features, if you choose to do so.”
If true, this would certainly ease some of my fear. However the EULA states quite the opposite: that Adobe may install anything anytime without warning or permission.
Which is it?
Adobe simply doesn’t get it, and they’re not interested in listening to the overwhelmingly negative response to their newfangled subscription licensing plan; they will simply do what they want to do without care or concern for their customers, plain and simple.
I think we’ll see by Q4 how it is working out for them. They certainly aren’t going to exhibit anything conciliatory before they see if their strategy to get people on board will work.
If we don’t give them the business, they will get the message. That’s the only way they are going to get it.
If the still don’t, then it’s their lost and they have to suffer the consequences. Too bad it has to come to this.
I want to say thank you to all the Adobe developers & creative minds that have made my career mostly fantastic for the last 20+ years!
If you ever change your mind & want to return to a system of choice, you have my contact info!
Hi. I’ve been connecting some dots, and something doesn’t add up.
We heard Adobe say that one of the reasons for not continuing with CS had to do with the difficulty of parallel development of apps for CC and CS. I thought that sad but reasonable.
Now I have read that in order to allow CC users to choose their upgrades, and restore their choice if necessary (due to crash or whatever), Adobe will keep full snapshots of the various stages of the apps–obviously plus installers–on their servers for download.
So where is the need for any parallel development? Isn’t the full program already there? If I am not missing something, the only thing needed to transform one of these snapshots into a standalone application is a box and some distribution considerations…
So the “parallel development” statement seems to me to be–how shall I put it?–nothing but a canard. Or?…
I don’t like being lied to. Please tell me I am wrong.
The archive apps are tied to an active, paid Creative Cloud account, and dont have separate licensing scemes, distribution modes, etc…
mike chambers
I understand that the apps are tied to active CC accounts; I’m just saying that the apps exist and therefore there is no need for “parallel development” of the apps per se. I understand that Adobe chooses not to, but once the apps exist they could be distributed under a traditional model without having to maintain separate development lines for the two models–at least unless I misunderstand something.
When Adobe says “the reasons for not continuing with CS had to do with the difficulty of parallel development of apps for CC and CS.”‘ is just another marketing gimmick to convince us all that the forced CC is the way to go. I just don’t buy it.
So CC sync is broken:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/17/adobe_creative_cloud_problem/
Here are some documents that Adobe prepared for investors. Worth reading:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/AdobeMAXFABriefingSlides6May2013.pdf
See Page 24
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/IR-presentation-may2013.pdf
See Page 13
JD:
Interesting slides. There, we can see some jewels like on Pages 18 & 22 of MAXBriefing, that now that there is a choice, less than 6% of Adobe customers (479K, of 8M total) have chosen to join the Creative Cloud so far!! So much for the great idea, and its great appeal, according to its defenders…
Plus, only 19% (Page 16 of IR-Pres) of the Cloud subscribers so far were single-product subscribers.
All this facts confirm what we are hearing on this discussion from the user side. Adobe folks are on another wavelength, far from our reality as users.
Adobe is a business. They are beholden to their Stock holders. They have a fiduciary responsibility to them. These slides read like typical investor/analyst reports. We could get into GAP and non-GAP analysis as well. The User/Customer is only part of it. Photography is my hobby. My day job is in a large regulated industry so I get where Adobe is coming from. I may not like it but “keeping it in the black” is what keeps the doors open and investors happy. Look at the NY Times today and the tax avoidance strategies Apple used. Of course Adobe is happy they have such a passionate user-base. It sucks to have customers/user who don’t care.
So JD, for people like me who rely on Adobe for my career, we’re supposed to be okay with this?
Not asking you to be OK with it. I swallowed the corporate pill when I moved from a University. It is business. There are no morals. What is the bottom line. Adobe should quit spinning this and just admit that stockholders are the number one priority and customers come next. If the users/customers speak with their wallet things can change. I use Acrobat all day in my job but you can bet I am going to give every support and sales rep for the product grief. I even made a stink on our internal Yammer site.
Band together and do a kickstarter project. Do the Libreoffice thing?
JD, I get you now. I must of misunderstood your post. I get it’s just business but when Adobe puts their stockholders above their customers, that lack of moral in itself loses my trust. So yes, I’m hoping the banding together and voices on this thread and throughout the web speak loud and clear. Looking at your first link, it’s apparent there’s a greater force working against Adobe right now and they need to swallow their pride and just give their customers what we’ve been arguing for after all this news about going to the cloud.
Business and Morals are oxymoron’s. Perhaps Adobe will listen. But look at what they did when the said everyone has to upgrade to CS6 in order to get future upgrades as they were doing away with the skipping a version policy. That generated revenue but in the end we have no ability to upgrade at a reduced cost. I give John Nack credit for having the cahones’ to even put this topic out there. He just works there for The Man.
For Adobe to “keep it in the black”, they need customers. Without us, there is no profitable Adobe.
Customers always come first. In my business they always do.
Unhappy customers = no business. It’s that simple.
Unfortunately that doesn’t hold true in a monopolistic model–as long as the monopoly exists….
The monopoly I am talking about is the one that WE as consumers allow. A lot of us have been loyal to Adobe products for many years now and we have recommended these products too many people.
Now that we have learnt something from this situation, that will no longer be the case. A lot of customers will become ex-Adobe customers and the monopoly in this way will stop.
Thanks for the comments.
Looked at Quark today. While not the juggernaut they once were, my printer and their prepress workflow still supports them and Quark is actively developing and competing while still selling “boxed” software. Somebody there must have been praying really hard for Adobe to stumble like they just have.
Thanx. Interesting & useful.
Personally, at this point, I think the best we can hope for is that Adobe will adjust their one size fits all subscription plan for the cloud and that they will come up with a way for accessing files after leaving the cloud.
Anything I’ve read on Adobe’s position indicates that they are all in and the cloud is here to stay…
After watching this video, I no longer will support giving this guy any of my hard earned money to line his fat pockets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaR2jR-RpYo
Yes, this is the same theme that is still going on.
Ignore the customers, pretend the CC is the best thing since ice cream, and keep pushing and forcing the CC.
I am not surprised.
I’m actually just wondering whether publishing businesses will be upgrading to CC until they’re actually forced to by hardware/OS incompatibility. I am a freelance magazine and web editor in the UK, using ID, PS and Illus (and Acrobat only when I have to because each release is worse than the last, it seems).
My magazine publishing clients use CS4 on the whole – or CS2 (for which I have had to keep an old Powerbook around!) . I work with small (under 20 seats) to large publishers (300+). The core of their work is InDesign and they see no reason to upgrade.
It’s not because they’ve see nothing worthwhile in CS5, 5.5 or 6, it’s just they have neither the time nor the resources (IT and financial) to roll out upgrades.
My father is in New Zealand and his magazine clients are all on CS3 still. And that’s down to cost alone – Adobe software is horrendously expensive in NZ (eg on Apple Store – because I can’t find it on Adobe site – Photoshop CS6 in UK £665, in NZ$1595=£849. CC price isn’t available in NZD but only Australian dollars for some reason, but hey, exchange rate fluctuations just add to the fun, right?)
I’m mightily dubious about the CC model, but it doesn’t look like it’ll have any effect on my work for a few years yet.
I predominantly use Lightroom (lets all hope that doesn’t become a cloud app) and occasionaly go into Photoshop for minor tweaks to my images. I don’t need to do major manipulations because I try and get it right in camera and if I don’t then I don’t bother edititing it at all. Because my wife is a student we have had the advantage of a student price. What is going to happen to that? Last comment: It seems as though Adobe is catering to the commercial world of graphic designers and ignoring the amateur photographers who only need a fraction of the features of Photoshop. Looks like I will be sticking to CS6 for many years and may eventually have to change to a different software package to achieve what I want. A sad day for many amateur photographers.
We still have student and educational pricing.
You can find more info here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/students.edu.html?marketSegment=EDU
Hope that helps…
mike chambers
mesh@adobe.com
Just remember, student or not student, you will be making payments forever. Every single month. And the prices always to go up eventually.
And if you stop paying, you will not be able to easily open any of Adobe’s proprietary file formats.
[That’s not the case. We’ve committed to finding a solution for that problem. –J.]
Actually, I am in the commercial world of graphic designers and I don’t think Adobe is catering to us at all. Adobe is catering to the stockholders for profits.
A lot of my fellow designers in the commercial world of graphics feel the same way. Most graphic designers and illustrators I know will be switching to or are looking for non-Adobe software.
Adobe will be losing a lot of professional clients in the near future.
Exactly. Despite the what many say that it is the customers that matter, the bottom line is the investors right now. Look at the investor slides. Adobe may learn the hard way that at some point customers are going to move to other software. Perhaps Adobe wants out of the less than 100 seat license market? Maybe they will quit sponsoring Photoshop world?
Sad to say, I feel the same way. I really want to like the new CC upgrades, but I will not rent my software. I have been using Adobe apps since 1989. So sad Adobe senior management have screwed up the company…
To my mind you are just trying to rationalize what is essentially a management decision based on the profit imperative, and what is best for Adobe and it’s shareholders. I would lay odds that this decision had little to do with creativity and altruistic motives, and more to do with the dollar.
My guess is that the managers at Adobe (not the creative) see a dwindling supply in the magic pot of useful new features, and realize that people might start upgrading with an even lower frequency than they do now if they can no longer provide compelling upgrades. So they move to a model where you pay for it, whether or not you think it’s worthwhile.
Point well stated!
—
To my mind you are just trying to rationalize what is essentially a management decision based on the profit imperative, and what is best for Adobe and it’s shareholders.
—
Or, it could be that he just looks at this differently than you and is trying to explain why he views things the way he does.
mike chambers
One thing Adobe does not have a monopoly on is talented engineers. Market demand will create the means of satisfying that demand. Look at the price of Paintshop Pro Ultimate–what is that, two or three months of renting Photoshop? If they can add a few important features, they will carve a huge hole out of the semi-pro PS user base. Get a few Corel Kelby clones to do tuts and people will quickly see the cost/utility ratio and move away from Adobe if they possibly can. And any momentum engendered will reinforce itself and build.
Toby, Corel would have to add a whole lot of features to compete with Photoshop. It’s not even close. That’s why it’s cheap.
You know what else used to be comparatively cheap and lacked features – Photoshop. Anyone remember Scitex? That was the game for color correction and time spent on Scitex systems in prepress was very expensive for its day. The same can happen with PS. Just look at what Pixelmator can do for $15-$30!
I want to say something about Pixelmator. A lot of people underestimate it, just because they don’t use it, understand it, or it just doesn’t meet all of their needs, but for the price and what it can do, Pixelmator is a great app.
Also, if you press the Command-Shift-V keyboard shortcut when using Pixelmator, it turns into a vector app called Vectormator. Its like having Photoshop and Illustrator features in one app.
It may not be the app for everyone, but it will be the app for many. Worth looking into.
I know PSP is no PS, but Adobe will never get me on board for subscription, so I am hoping that someone with initiative will fill the hole. Once investors see possibilities money will become available. At least in my workflow, some PS features (such as 16 bit) are essential, but I can live without a lot of other stuff.
Most people, including Pro’s don’t need or use ALL the features in Photoshop. All you need is a good solid app that gets the job done. No need for Photoshop full features in most cases.
You may be right Willie. Most pros I know work in movie and TV advertising, so we do a lot of pretty heavy manipulation of the image. I guess if you don’t want all the benefits of puppet warp, smart objects, etc. then by all means throw Photoshop away and get something like PSP, but I have a feeling that a lot of features you take for granted will be sorely missed once you jump ship.
We already started implementing other non-Adobe software into our workflow and so far we have not missed working with Photoshop. It did take a little adjustment and gettind use to, but thats part of a healthy transition process. We do have CS6 just in case, but our mission is to be non-Adobe dependant in the next 6 months or sooner. This will empower our business in the long run.
Then help foregin creative people thrive – remove the “non US” tax. Swedish people have to pay 30% more – excluding VAT – compared to US equals. I think it’s even worse in other countries. You (Adobe) have a 50% worse exchange rate from US dollar to Swedish Crowns compared to for example Apple.
“College officials are concerned and confused by new licensing terms from Adobe they fear will dramatically raise costs.”
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/22/adobe-pricing-plan-raises-concerns
“But look at what they did when the said everyone has to upgrade to CS6 in order to get future upgrades”
At least at the executive level, they knew at that time it was probable that there weren’t going to be any future upgrades. The defense, of course, would be that they didn’t know that for sure. So they didn’t technically lie, they just deliberately mislead their customers.
Sad.
It is all about “choice”. I am a print designer and I have invested in Adobe the last 20 years. I was a supporter of the switch from QuarkXpress to InDesign in every company I worked for, since it was at that time the better product and a better “choice”.
In my daily work I am using four Adobe products, so my natural choice would be to have only this four products, it was already a little bit irritating to get the whole Production premium CS shoved down your throat, but you own the products, the price was alright and you had the “choice” to upgrade.
Now we have the next step of diminishing my “choices”:
• One program $20 or 20 products $50 per month on an annual subscription
• No exit strategy
• No rights to your generated work
• No flexibility
• No incentives for all those years of support/trust
I am writing again to this post, because I think it is important that people who are perfectly fine with the CC model should still have the decency to support the people who don’t like this way going forward. My initial thought was great, 64 bit, dark gray interface InDesign, awesome I will get it, since money is not the real factor in this.
It is about choice, freedom, your work and solidarity for the long term aspect. So please sign up with all the petitions out there to show your sympathy for this cause.
Thanks
Very well said Wolfgang. The majority of us including myself fully agree!
I really doubt that Adobe is going to return to their old model, but I wonder if some other arrangement could be made that would address your concerns. Maybe if they allowed users to lock-in to a specific version at a given point in time by paying fee of some sort. You would not be eligible for future feature updates but bug fixes would be included. This would solve the exit strategy problem for users who are getting out of the business or retiring.
I also think Adobe could adjust their pricing beyond the one or all structure they have now. Perhaps $30/month for any 4 apps. That way users could choose Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat if they do print only work. Web designers could choose another combination.
You bring up good compromises which resonate with a common sense approach.
To get there will you sign the petitions out there and vote initially with your wallet by not renewing or signing up to CC?
I would like to contact Adobe to send feedback about their cc program but they make it very hard to find a way to do that on their site. Unfortunately, I can’t stop my subscription to CC since I have ongoing work that must get done.
(regarding joining the protest by not paying)
> Unfortunately, I can’t stop my subscription to CC since I have ongoing work that must get done.
I realize, most of us already got the ironic part in that response. I’m STILL pointing it out, so that there’s no possible way to miss it.
He is Subscribed to CC already.
He would at least think about joining a protest, that would lead to adobe getting less money. (i’m guessing, from what he answered)
He is UNABLE to join that protest, because that would cut him off of the possibility to do any more work.
This is a HUGE example in why the subscription licenses are a very bad choice for customers.
They do not want to do anything more complicated, because as Steve Jobs said:”They are lazy. They have all this potential to do interesting things but they just refuse to do it.”
They do not want to give customers more options, because it would required more work and their focus is to make as much money as they can at as easy way as they can.
” You would not be eligible for future feature updates but bug fixes would be included.”
Uh, did you miss this line in the post?
“Fixing bugs in the shipping version often came at the expense of working on the next version’s codebase.”
I for one will be looking for a solution that doesn’t want a monthly payment from me.
@Claudius, I’m so glad you pointed that out in his reply. I was thinking the SAME EXACT thing! An epic fail right there as to why this is a bad thing!
With respects to the previous comments on Adobe’s new economic model; I thought this insight into the previous number of units sold and subscriber level estimates by Thom Hogan is interesting:
The Financial Side of Cloud From Adobe’s Perspective – May 21, 2013
http://www.bythom.com/
He suggests there will be deaf ears for a good while by Adobe over their subscription model.
Richard thanks for pointing out this interesting entry by Thom Hogan; for others, here is one excerpt:
“So Adobe is expecting to lose users for awhile (4.1m CS6 owners versus a bit over 1m CC renters at the end of 2013, 2m in 2014, and 3.5m in 2015). Implicit in this particular growth curve is another assumption: that a number of perpetual suite owners finally give in and rent Creative Cloud (or, I suppose, that some huge number of new creative professionals suddenly land on planet Earth and demand software).
What that means is that all those petitions, user protests, discussion rants, blog complaints, et.al., are going to fall on deaf ears.”
If Thom is right about this timeline, Adobe is indeed making a big gamble. A few years time would give competition a good chance of giving us other choices, even for Photoshop.
I don’t agree with the assertion that our input is falling on deaf ears though. It sounds like they are trying to figure out a solution to let us keep working with our files if a subscription lapses. Speaking of which, Thom lays out a practical scenario for why this is needed:
“The monthly nature of Adobe’s software charges has a wicked potential downside for individuals. Let’s say that you were able to pay the monthly charge because you had work coming in that more than paid for it. Then you lose a client or two, or you’re disabled temporarily, or you have another financial setback of some sort and have to cut off your subscription. As I’ve noted earlier, that means you’re also cut off from your work until you resubscribe. This has the potential for becoming a Catch-22 for some once they fall in that hole.”
I’m a creative person and CC will not help me thrive. All the pros of the CC fail with one simple fact – Subscription. Most creative users don’t want subscriptions. I will not rent software. Period. As a life long Adobe customer, I’m leaving. Adobe will get $0.00 for CC from me.
BTW, Microsoft Office 365 is no comparison. For once MS is actually practical. While I won’t be renting their suite either, at least here’s 3 points that make them far better to Adobe:
1) They continue to offer choice of subscription or perpetual AND their rental cost for a year is what CC wants to charge for 2 months.
2) MS will allow me to install on up to 5 of my computers. Yes Adobe, I have a desktop AND 2 laptops and Windows 7 in a VM, yet your interconnected, preference syncing world of wonder just lets me do that with 2 machines or else I need to pay double just to add 1 more computer.
3) If subscribing is your thing, MS lets you pay for 1 month at a time if you want. Costs a little more than a 12 month commitment, but it’s available. Adobe used to do that. It seems that the new CC requires an annual commitment.
So there you have it – Adobe is the new Microsoft!
RHernandez, on point 2: even when Adobe offered a perpetual license it was only good on two computers, so you paid extra anyways.
My point was that even now with subscription, Adobe is no better than they were before. MS’ plan is better than it was by letting you install on more computers than before.
When I spread the word through my photography asociation of the benefits of using Lightroom + One one sofware “Perfect Suite” I am sure that many will not sign up for CC. Many may just stick with CS6 until Adobe comes to their senses.
I work with Lightroom, Photoshop and plug-ins and there is no way that plug-ins create as accurate a mask as can be created in Photoshop when you brush in their effects so I gave up trying and apply the effect to a layer and mask it.
Even Lightroom’s smart masking can’t match what can be done in Photoshop.
We use Topaz ReMask and it works create,
The beauty of the Topaz plug-ins is that you don’t need Photoshop to run them.
Other pro’s we know, including ourselves, also use the OnOne software Perfect Mask plugin, and again, no need for Photoshop to use it.
Give one of these a try, you will not regret it.
The One one sofware “Perfect Suite” is fantastic. We use it all the time. The best part is that you don’t need Photoshop to use them. They have a stand alone app.
If Adobe thinks that they may capture the users who obtain “pirate” copies they are mistaken. I have spoken to many of them and guess what they say? “Photoshop is too expensive anyway so why would I pay for a subscription. I will continue to use my illegal copy of CS6 and if necessary just switch to some free software like GIMP”.
We don’t believe in pirating software. Developers work very hard to provide us with good tools and they should be compensated. But its true, unfortunately, some people will always find a way to pirate software. The forced cloud subscriptions can add more to the list.
We would rather not give Adobe any more business and start supporting other software vendors. There is a lot of good software out there to get the job done. If we keep other non-Adobe software vendor in business by purchasing their products, we will always have good tools to get the job done and prevent companies like Adobe from controlling the way we do business and buy our products.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/cloud/381895/forget-cloud-subscriptions-users-prefer-standard-licences
A lot of consumers in the US don’t like forced subscriptions either. Thanks for the link.
Adobe is never going to change the rights afforded to me by the 1976 Copyright Act or what the United States Constitution says about Intellectual Property rights for US citizens. If you want to know and understand IP law then please read the 1976 Copyright Act and refer to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Copyright Clause which covers Intellectual Property. My IP rights as a creative artist and programmer are fully covered and solidly maintained by the 1976 Copyright Act and Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution, so whatever Adobe has me agree to is completely null and void if it violates my Intellectual Property rights covered in the 1976 Copyright Act that protects my work. Adobe cannot legally control, administer, withhold, or perpetually charge me to access my own Intellectual Property.
There sure is a whole lot of overreaction and speculation and on this topic. And it’s amazing how many armchair CEOs are popping out of the woodwork…
Why don’t we all just chill and get back to doing something creative instead?
Andrew, if only it were that easy, but we are dealing with a reality here that will affect us all in “getting back to doing something creative…”
Why? Has your copy of Creative Suite automagically stopped working? Did the launch of CC somehow crash your hardware? Everyone seems to be very worked up over a possible future that hasn’t even happened yet.
Look, Adobe has pretty much bet the farm with CC. If it doesn’t work, it will be a huge loss for them and they will have to execute Plan B in order to keep customers and stay in business.
I don’t get it, for years Adobe has been taking the heat for ‘not innovating’. Now, when they finally do something innovative, they still get grief.
Why all the hate? We all have a huge vested interested in Adobe’s success. Why kick up a stink and switch to less productive software just ‘because’?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face
Andrew, are you saying Adobe charging its customers a monthly fee to access their files for life, innovative? Maybe that’s the kind of innovation we are upset about.
[Please… There are legitimate questions & concerns to raise about Creative Cloud, but accessing one’s files isn’t one of them. Your argument is stronger when you omit the strawmen. –J.]
RHeenandez, no, Adobe is charging a monthly fee for access the the entire Master Collection and more, with even more to come.
Seriously, CC has so much potential. Would you rather Adobe stall their development of CC in order to please what its customers insist on keeping, or that they deliver new ways for us to create and collaborate?
If we don’t support CC Adobe won’t have the momentum it needs to kick it into high gear.
Andrew, Adobe’s been charging a fee for their software this whole time. I’ve been paying them since 1989. The difference that you failed to address, or wish not to, is the fact that at anytime you stop your subscription (for various reasons, people have posted many examples here) you will loose the ability to do just about anything with your files. That amounts to what feels like extortion and a mob like scheme – pay us or you can’t do anything with your files.
I realize there are various work-arounds to be able to get to your work after ending a CC subscription, but I will not be an experiment for Adobe. Should they continue to only offer a subscription with no way out, I’ll stick with CS6 for the time being. If CS6 breaks in the future because of an OS or such, I will figure out a solution, be it running in a VM or another software vendor.
Andrew, we don’t need to support a system that we don’t like. There is nothing here to kick it into high gear. It’s needs to be kicked into low gear.
We are not saying that Adobe needs to discontinue the cloud subscriptions, what we are saying is to ALSO give us a CHOICE not to. This way, everyone that wants to make monthly payments forever, the can. And the rest can stick to the perpetual license. Mathis way, everyone is happy.
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing at all. I hope you will be happy when you get what you want.
John, I am using the term “access” as being able to open and get to the work contained in a document. No strawmen here. Until Adobe officially announces something different, you stop the CC subscription and you are left with no way to open most files created by CC apps (unless you have CS6 and specifically saved all your documents to be backward compatible to CS6 – which would really negate the need to go to CC in the first place)
@Andrew.1. Many do not want or need the Master Collection. 2. Many do not want to subscribe for life with no program retention when they decide or need to stop paying.
If none of these things are of concern to you, it is your choice to stop and get back to doing something creative. I would prefer to continue let Adobe know that I prefer to have the ‘choice’ to upgrade my software on my terms and retain the use of the program without having to continue paying monthly or lose access.
Kim, what makes you so certain that Adobe isn’t already aware of these 2 points?
Andrew, I think they are aware now. I think it’s through arrogance or sheer incompetence that these issues weren’t addressed before forcing a subscription only model on us all. It’s not like a maintenance model isn’t available for other professional level software packages. They have been available for the last 10-15 years from companies like Autodesk and Alias. But even there, they offer a single non-expiring license or an on-going maintenance subscription that gets you all updates and upgrades for as long as you keep your subscription active, If you stop, you still get to keep using the software, you just don’t get anymore support or upgrades.
They may be aware but the question remains if they are going to do anything about changing to meet the needs of their customer base. They expected to lose some customers…but what if they grossly misjudged the figure? They have the opportunity to make some adjustments before customers leave. It has been my experience that when people chose another path, they rarely go back.
Andrew:
This could be financial innovation, not technical innovation. As far as CC, the incremental upgrades are decades old, have been done by dozens of companies for years, and don´t require subscriptions, but just keeping your maintenance current, as most professional-grade companies have done for years.
As for the CC, exactly what is “innovative” about it? Right now anybody could get “cloud” collaboration tools and services all over (for those who need collaboration, which isn´t everybody). Tom Hogarty from Adobe talked about future ideas to supplement computing power for mobile platforms, like tablets, in the “cloud”. But that is an idea now, not a product.
CC right now has little technical innovation. It´s all innovative financial tricks.
Well said.
We are not hating. We are dealing with the facts.
I don’t think anyone here hates Adobe, but they do hate the way they are conducting business at this time. Adobe is not innovating, Adobe is taking away choices from consumers and trying very hard to force people into a system that they don’t want or like. Its that simple.
Exactly, Willie.
Innovation of extortion: Adobe knows many of us require CMYK, Lab and TIF functions in our workflow. They know they have NO competition in this regard. Hence, the cool cash coming there way. That’s all it is. That’s all they care about. Endless profits. Thanks for speeding up the death of the photo retouching industry in America, Adobe!
Hi Eric,
Actually, the good news is that there are good products in the market that support those features. Do a little homework, and you will be surprised on how good other product are.
You are not alone. In the creative community, we will help each other. Don’t give up, but empower yourself and move forward. It’s all going to be OK without Adobe products.
This is not the time to chill. It’s the time to take this seriously. We are talking about our businesses and careers. A lot of people will get affected by this, and not in a good way.
By sharing Ideas and talking, we can all help each other and plan a better future.
I am actually being creative and getting work done, but I also make time for this important topic. I want to help in any way I can.
You could “help” by being a little more honest and mention the great piles of profits Adobe will reap with this software rental scheme.
I’ve been using Photoshop since version 5 (not CS5), Illustrator for a little less. I can’t easily convey how deeply angry and betrayed I feel that Adobe has decided to force Creative Cloud on those who don’t want it.
I’m thrilled that some like it. Why remove the option to upgrade from those of us who don’t want CC but do want Photoshop/Illustrator?
I don’t have any need or desire for Creative Cloud. I generally find the new features in the last few releases of Photoshop to be more demoware than something that produces professional results (you mention content aware fill, but that’s a prime example of something that’s great in demos, but not good enough if you look at it at 100%)
I don’t consider your upgrade prices good value – you don’t fix enough bugs and toss in a few semi-interesting features – but I pay for them because I need support for new OS versions and new RAW file formats.
You can talk about how wonderful CC is – and if that’s the case, people will flock to it of their own accord, no arm twisting necessary.
Listen to your customers Adobe. I won’t buy CC and will keep using CS6 for as long as I can. I’ll use Lightroom and DNG if I have to as RAW forrmats change.
You’re doing the wrong thing and need to back down. Keep offering perpetual licenses to those who want to buy them.
As a creative arts teacher I have pushed Adobe products to hundreds of students in the past.
Not only will I stop doing that, but I feel ashamed I have ever in my life endorsed Adobe.
This is the result of low sales due to weak updates full of bug and lacking must-have features. The customers have been voting with their wallets. Now Adobe wants to remove that option. Won’t happen.
I’m very disappointed. As a student I can’t afford the new model. I’m not against cloud services, in fact I am a subscriber of the Microsoft 365 service and I like it. But Microsoft offers a real discount for students, and I can use all programs in “reading mode” once the subscription runs out. But Adobe CC is way too expensive for me, the CS “Teacher and Student” Design Standard was much cheaper and you could use it for some years (don’t need every update). Now have to look for alternatives to Adobe programs 🙁
On the one hand, being able to use the latest refinements to Adobe products that i’m already buying every few years anyway is appealing. In this sense, CC is great for consumers (not just for Adobe and their bottom line).
On the other hand, however, the CC subscription model serves to lock your userbase in to a perpetual relationship with you. It’s cynical and presumptuous to not allow your users a way out, with their current level of software. A discounted buyout would be appropriate, perhaps.
Surely there’s some way to do this that benefits your users and the company. For example, on the buy in side, offer users a single or a la carte subscription price for those who only use a few products. On the buy or buy out side, offer non-subscription users a way to purchase the current level of products, but offer existing subscription users the option of a discounted price for buying out of the subscriptions at the currrent product levels.
This would be better for lots of users. It would save face for Adobe; you keep the subscription model for your bread and butter, day to day professionals, but you’d show some concern for your users and their fear for the future of their work.
Look, you may be right and CC makes perfect sense as-is. But at least half your users think the CC model stinks and that you hate them. Isn’t it important to respect that and be a little flexible? We’ve all been forking over thousands of dollars to Adobe for many years and the least you can do is throw us a bone here.
Well I just got off a chat with customer service and found out something interesting. I asked if I could switch from the complete plan to the single plan at any time and I was told I could and I reiterated at any time and they said yes.
Makes me wonder if there is more flexibility here than initially thought.
There is more flexibility. They are just trying to keep that flexibility away. Its all part of FORCING the CC monthly payments on us.
Adobe is a big company with brilliant programmers and they have the technology to do anything they want. They can be flexible if they wanted to. They just choose to tell us they are not flexible.
Unfortunately at this point, given all the lies and changing of marketing tactics Adobe has proven over the past week or two since this announcement; it’s hard to believe anything Adobe tells us. We can no longer trust them.
[What lies, specifically? –J.]
For starters John, Adobe using the word “cloud” when it is not actually cloud computing. Secondly, see this thread. There are many more like it out there: http://forums.adobe.com/message/5312380
John, truly you must understand how frustrated we are right now. This is never what anyone ever wanted to see with all their years of being a true Adobe customer. Including myself. You truly must understand what is happening here.
True, nothing but lies.
Like I said before, it’s time to fire Adobe and start using other software.
Adobe is in lala land dreaming if they think we are going to follow them anymore after all this nonsense.
Just to clarify: You can switch at any point in time, regardless of what your subscription model is?
For example (to clarify my question):
If i had subscribed to a 12month plan, could i switch
a) after the 12 months (meaning i am locked in for the subscription period)
b) every month, even within the 12 months (and _still_ get the 12month prices, but sometimes for 20$ for one app and sometimes 50$ for all the rest?)
If it’s b), then indeed this is a nice move on adobe’s part. (Still not a gread model for me, though).
I don’t know if you can switch back and forth between complete and single at will. That was what I thought I was asking but the answer was a bit ambiguous.
Adobe is not communicating well when it comes to the cloud. Issues like this should be plainly spelled out so there is no question. This is not meant to be disrespectful by any means; just an observation about the confusion. It’s not too hard to find posts from people who are confused after speaking with customer service.
John you asked about lies.
I find it dishonest, that Adobe pushed a lot of people to buy CS6 by telling us that upgrade pricing is now only from the previous version. People bought CS6 thinking it’s now necessary in order to have upgrade pricing of CS7 and future versions of the suite.
[Yes, a lot of the communication there was poorly handled. I don’t think any of it stemmed from dishonesty, but we should have done a better job explaining & setting expectations. –J.]
I also find it extremely dishonest how Adobe is marketing CC as a cheaper option to people. Those numbers just don’t match as several calculations have shown.
[I don’t remember seeing Adobe saying that CC is cheaper per se. What I’ve said is that it radically lowers the barrier to people using Adobe tools, and it does. Whether it’s cheaper or more expensive depends on what apps you use, how often you’d typically upgrade, etc. –J.]
John … at first I thought by this post … you were trying to achieve clarity to a positive end … by your most recent contributions … it seems you are really trying to obscure the forest for the trees …
[Give me a break. I take deep exception at being called a liar, so I’ve simply clarified what I’ve been saying. –J.]
You seem to hold “enfranchisement” as a blessed achievement … while at the same time seem to allow “dis-enfranchisement” of countless long-term users as the cost of doing business ….
[I’ve said exactly the opposite about the latter, but I’m not going to go searching back through hundreds of comments just to prove it to you. –J.]
My question is … after a week of this thread … how many “oranges” did you manage to sell?
[I didn’t set out to address every concern or sway every person. It seems that a fair number of people appreciated my effort to shed some light on what you’d find the more appealing side of the equation. –J.]
There is no question in my mind that CC is a bold step that will indeed be an enfranchisement for many, but by making it the only option it also clearly disenfranchises a great many others. The real question, as we all know, is why Adobe chose not to make both options available.
From all that I have gleaned, it does not seem that to keep CS running would cause terrible sacrifice. The cloud apps must be saved in downloadable, executable form in all their various stages anyway for CC subscribers, really–honestly and truly–how much work is it to box one of these every two years and offer it as a license?
The only thing that makes real sense to me is that this is at bottom an extortionate move. People feel that in their gut, thus the outrage. I could afford to subscribe but I will not. I value integrity more than I do this software, and I will find a way to do my work without losing mine.
Indeed. Application Manager is in fact downloading complete DMG files. Even swiching languages triggers a complete DMG download.
Put those DMG’s up somewhere or burn them on DVD’s and we have a suite.
My view about piracy seem to change as I think, what Adobe does is not so far away to be called the same (if I think about the thousands of Euros for PlugIns & the new Software I can blow in the A. now). What I try to say: I never was a friend of piracy, I ever paid my software (Many thousands of Euros to Adobe ofver tha last decades), and till the day not all of the software company have followed Adobes BS-Modell, I will pay all that people who build my tools. But I also understand the concerns of all the individuals who feel forced by Adobe. Piracy in the new so “called” cloud is not impossible. As I can read in many blogs it is still possible today. I think it will always be possible – if you like to do so. But in my eyes – This methods of monopolists which abuse their market might – Companies like Adobe make the acting of those pirates more understandable. In my eyes both should be forbidden: piracy AND this kind of distribution. There is a point, where melking old cows should have an end. There are no great inovations. It´s more polishing. And therefore people don´t want to pay longer. That´s it. Adobe even was not able to synchronize all their Apps over the last 10 years. All the GUIs are still different, Path-behaviour is not the same in all Apps, Layers are different in InDesign, Illustrator and PS…! Where are all the benefits of their great updates? Can´t hear that Adobe arguments any longer, which are only try hiding, that they want our money. Not our best.
The real problem I have with the new plans is the fact that CC (a downloadable product) has a higher price point in Europe compared to the United States. I don’t want an explanation; I want a fix.
I speak English, by the way, and have no objections to using the US English release.
Bingo!
John – the allegation about lies isn’t just about CS6.
We were told if we didn’t upgrade to PS CS5 before the end of 2011, we wouldn’t be able to ever upgrade again. In January of 2012, Adobe said just kidding, you PS CS3 and later customers can still upgrade to CS6.
The CS6 upgrade push was a replay.
Those two data points, plus the YouTube video formed a pattern. The pattern overlaid on the forced change to a subscription model created a natural distrust in many of us.
I don’t want the web services. And in fact for security reasons I couldn’t use them at work anyway.
Second, I only want Photoshop (Lightroom doesn’t cut it for me, though it fits in to my workflow too.), and Acrobat Pro. So that would cost $40 per month. and for $10 more a month I would get all the applications. It really devalues the whole package and/or overvalues individual applications. Individual applications should be $10 a month. They should stay at that price after the first year. Then $50 a month would feel more like the price we’ve paid for the Creative Suites in the past.
Lastly there’s no reason boxed software couldn’t be updated just as often. It’s software sitting on our computer either way. That’s Adobe’s choice to force us to a monthly payment plan that evens out their income over the year – to make Wall Street happy. It’s what happens when we stop paying that’s the problem. We no longer have the software we are used to, to have access to our files if we stop paying. That is the worst of it.
I’ve already replaced Acrobat Pro with a slightly less capable program that does the job for me personally. And yes, I have subscribed to Photoshop cc. At work we’re exploring our options. No doubt we’ll stay with Adobe for now, but we have our eyes open for alternatives – something I would have never dreamed of not that long ago.
If Aperture 4 shows promise, Lightroom will get the boot.
I’ve been a big supporter of Adobe for over 20 years. Did every single upgrade. And I’m saddened to find they are not supportive of professionals who don’t want to go with this new way of doing business.
Hi Eric,
There are plenty of alternatives out there. Here is a great list I found online:
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=7591918&postcount=21
In my experience I don’t think I have ever seen such a massive hissy spit anywhere on the internet.
Mike is saying that Adobe is working on things, they better come up with something very good, instead of a watered down solution, otherwise this thing will explode all over again.
Just to remind Adobe management….
1.. It is about affordability and,
2.. it is about choice (Cs like packages) and,
3.. it is about that horrible exit barrier.
Let’s see what they come up with, or are they going to wait until it hurts in the back pocket, probably since they have shown they care less about the customer.
Here’s how I think it will play out, because Mr. Narayen only cares about his ass. He will be fired as CEO – I have no doubt about this. This has been a big blunder under his watch. He will not back down from the subscription model because it will look like he made a bad decision. Adobe will let the numbers roll in and then either the board will fire him or he will have to come up with an excuse of why they are again changing business models and they will then fire him anyway. I think there is just too much distrust between customers and Adobe under his “leadership”. That at least, is my opinion.
I read an interesting post on a forum referencing Avid: another creative licensed s/w company with mature apps who are struggling to get back in the black after many quarters of red ink. Once the apps are mature it is difficult to achieve high growth or profits with licensed s/w.
Recent Adobe performance was flat, and they obviously decided that they had enough of a lock on the market to strike preemptively so as to avoid Avid’s fate. Many analysts are saying that to ensure continued profitability, s/w will eventually have to go to subscription, so I suspect they thought that the Cloud offered enough extra perks to get people to bite the bullet. Time will tell if they were right. I do think they were incredibly short-sighted not to see the exit barrier coming, and I agree that the one app (relatively expensive)/full suite (relatively cheap) model is ill-advised, but what do I know, I am only a stupid sheep-like consumer.
I also assume that they thought/think that if CC doesn’t deliver, they can magnanimously slide back into licensing to supplement it, which is probably true, although they will have to work to make up lost ground. Well, HP canned their CEO and turned their fortunes around, Adobe can too.
Hi Toby,
I don’t think you are a stupid sheep-like consumer. Your comments are very intelligent and clear.
Adobe would have to work very hard to gain the customers trust again. Their reputation right now is as good as the company being dead to a lot of people.
We did learn a lot from this, but what we learned the most, is to never ever rely on just one software company to decide the future or success of our careers or businesses.
From this point on we will always use multiple software products from multiple vendors, so that if his ever happens again, we drop one software and continue with another, without affecting workflow. Even if Adobe went back to the good business model they had before the forced cloud, is going to be hard to trust them. This is why a lot of people will be switching over to other non Adobe products at this time. It’s the smart thing to do.
Thanks for posting.
For me it is a real shame. Photoshop is the one Adobe product I really need, and so far there is no good replacement for the 16 bit and CMYK and LAB, as far asI know. All the non-destructive stuff is handy as well but not essential. But hey, CS5 will be good for awhile, and I’m sure that nature and the market, abhorring a vacuum, will come up with something for those of us Adobe has decided to cut loose.
Hi Toby,
Also, keep in mind that a lot of companies are already working to make their products better with added features. They understand that the are a lot of customers in need of new software and they want the business. Plus, there are already many good products available. It all depends on what your needs are. Most people only use 10 to 50% of the Adobe product features anyway. No need for software to be bulky and complicated.
A lot of people will benefit from sticking with CS4, CS5, or CS6 for a while, until they make a complete switch. Some people will transfer over immediately to other software to brake the dependence on Adobe products and secure a better career and business in the future and not have to worry about this Adobe forced subscriptions or bad business practices.
We will all be able to move on to better things and less headaches. Hang in there, it will all work out.
Toby,
Take a look at Xara Designer Pro X
Xara–thanks for the tip!
I worked with Zara software around 2001/2002 and thought it to be much better then in comparison to Illustrator. I then moved over to The Mac and lost touch with Zara, it being Windows only, is that still the case btw?
Because honestly if I could go back to Zara on a Mac I would straight away. Never reall liked Illustrator anyway.
Hi Filip,
This Adobe situation has thought me a lot. One being getting back out there to see what else is available. To my surprise, there are many great Adobe alternatives available now. Even the ones that were not so good a few years ago, have gotten much better. This is very exciting!!!
Even apps like Gimp and Inkscape have also gotten better. A lot of people will benefit from these. They may not be for everybody, but they will be enough and more for many.
Corel and Serif software also look a lot more advanced among others I have checked.
I have been running Xara Designer Pro X on Mac OSX Lion with Parallels Desktop, and so far so good. Still not my favorite option, but its a great option right now as we move away from Adobe software.
I must say, Xara Designer Pro X is fantastic! To my surprise, the vectors are much better and more intuitive than Adobe illustrator. I have fallen in love with Xara!
Not only does it do vectors, but it also works as good as Photoshop. Its a true professional tool. You can do everything from masking, layers, image adjustment and manipulation. It even supports CMYK, etc. I think that if many Mac creatives contact Xara, requesting a Mac version, they may just consider it. You never know. Spread the word!
But it’s a good thing that we do have the option to run it with Parallels, bootcamp, etc for now. All the creatives in my business love Xara Designer Pro X!
I worked with Zara software around 2001/2002 and thought it to be much better then in comparison to Illustrator. I then moved over to The Mac and lost touch with Zara, it being Windows only, is that still the case btw?
Because honestly if I could go back to Zara on a Mac I would straight away. Never really liked Illustrator anyway.
I agree Willie. I have lost all trust for Adobe and for a mere second I thought about upgrading from my CS5.5 to CS6 while I still could but then realized, yeah right. I no longer want to give Adobe anymore of my money until they either fire that ridiculous CEO or turn their bastard views around and start listening to their customers. Any company who doesn’t listen to their customers is a bad company to do business with. Especially when there’s an outcry of foul behavior such as this. It’s a two way street Adobe and from what we can see now, it’s only paved one way…straight to hell with your wallets in hand.
To Toby – quoting: “Many analysts are saying that to ensure continued profitability, s/w will eventually have to go to subscription…” – at what cost does this come to? Ours! It’s not our fault they couldn’t think of more creative ways to sell their creative products rather, so their only option was to put our heads over a barrel and grab onto our balls to keep money flowing in? I don’t think so. Again I ask, at what cost? Not a cost I want to be taxed on for life, that’s for sure!
In no way will Adobe forge my creative future nor tell me how to forge my creative future. Only we can forge our own futures and I will not stand for corporate America (India) to tell us what we need and should do with our creative futures.
Well said TK.
I must admit, after I saw Narayan”s horrible, head in the sand performance in Sydney, I have very little respect for the man whatsoever.
When a CEO is unable to give clear and concise answers to direct questions and waffle on about unrelated things, then that CEO is not up to the task of implementing these huge chances. The man talked like an uneducated junior salesman, trying to sell a package he had no understanding off at all.
By the way after a parliamentary inquiry in Australia about price differences where all 3 (Apple, Microsoft and Adobe) were summoned at least Adobe has made the cost of CC the same as in the US. So guys if they can do it in Oz, they can do it anywhere.
This non pointing out all the negative aspects of the so called “cloud” are going to be ridiculous!
This distribution model should be forbidden!
(and may be it will be in some countries)
Can´t hear the half-truth pro arguments any longer.
Good luck to all the users who will subscribe.
And ever enough money even to print out your own creations after subscription!
Stopp CC! Keep CS6 alive!
If Adobe will hear anything ever it´s a lose of income!
Nothing else – as we all can see by their missing reactions.
All they do is praying their sugar glossy arguments.
Bah!
I would say, Stop CC (if thats even an option anymore. I wouldn’t count on it.). Keep CS6 alive just for now if you really need to, but definitely start using and incorporating non-Adobe software into your workflow. This will ensure that you business and career stay strong and will always give you CHOICES. Don’t stay dependent to Adobe software. It will only cripple your options. Get into using other software as soon was you can.
We are already searching for alternatives in workflow.
There are many – like me – who have alternatives beside their Adobe “solutions”. So I kept QuarkXPress beside my CS6 MC. Also still Freehand is running on it´s own MAC and good (& – how ironic – faster & FREE) – for 90% of my illustrator jobs which mostly don´t need gimmicks. I also OWN the right to use Final Cut Pro and will have a look on Avid. A problem here will be to establish new workflows on new solutions. For Example how to handle the PDF-Workflow to printing companies. But we are on a good way. CS6 will run for 1 to 3 years and I think, after that the competitors will have taken their chance. By the way we liked the bridge between Maxons C4D and AE – But may be I switch completely to the Autodesk solutions now (for what I also OWN the right to use as long as I want & can hold a machine running them). I´m very concerned about that I will have to run a MAC the next ten years (and I will do!) to have access to client files. My employees, who often used the Web-Solutions – I don´t do that likely myself – (like Flash, DW & FW) are of the opinion, these solutions can be replaced already today with no great problems. Will take a while till we and the companies we are in business with, will have done our way, but the decision is made.
I´m not in a so forced situation like many others, but my anger at Adobe is the same.
If Adobe would only rise the price (as they do also with the cloud) that would be no great problem for us. My MC allways updated & all the PlugIns were a multiple of the amount for years.
But this forcing and binding is cheaper than everything MS or Apple or Others did. Adobe isn´t Adobe any longer. There is nothing serious with them any longer. I am really ashamed by every use of PS. And I hope, that there will also be a real replacement for that in the near or midway future. Because PS is the thing that hurts most.
Stop CC was more the way, that a lose of income is the only thing Adobe will notice. As you can see, there is absolutely no reaction to words, begs and suggestions. They don´t implement a Buy-Out plan,… . They only are praying their sugar glossy announcements and not pointing out the evil. It´s like sp.tng in their customers faces. I think, as since this guy from Microsoft, who is in the Management board since Dec. (and I also read, that MS still owns great parts of Adobe stack) they will act as they planed. Even if Adobe gets to the ground.
They went down in stock markets to -10% till yesterday and are -12% below NASDAQ since May 6th, 2013. A little hope, may be, for those, who want Adobe change their minds. But I don´t think so.
By the way: Here in the EU many of the users (who have better knowledge of law than me) are of the opinion, that this distribution-change ist not law conform. Read from some guys, planing a petition/intervention at the EU-authorities.
So let´s wish all the cloud-lovers (or that ones who are forced and in and can´t get out as there are no competitors for their needs) enough money for their lifelong dependency. Because they need it (even if they want to open/print/fully edit their own files).
I am not sure how to interpret this, but Shantanu Narayen, Adobe´s CEO, sold 224,000 Adobe shares that he owned on April 5, 2013, about 1 month to the day before the infamous CC announcement. That is about half his holdings of Adobe shares, since he is now left with 230,797 shares. This tidbit of information is from here:
http://www.insidermonkey.com/insider-trading/insider/narayen-shantanu/1224154/
Not sure how to interpret?
Let´s see when he throws away the rest…
Sometimes CEOs are although th… aw…
Let´s see
What a silly thread…
Adobe will do what they they think is best for them until enough of their customers go away…then they will “suddenly” announce that they