icexe: The only way I can see this working is if Adobe adopted a far more reasonable and guaranteed pricing model.
A more reasonable structure would be $4.99/month for any single product, then offer special "bundle" prices (E.g. Any 3 for $12.99/month, any 5 for $19.99/month, the entire suite for $39.99/month).
But the most important part to get people on-board is to guarantee those prices for a minimum of five years.
Also, if/when you drop subscription for a given product, it should fall back to a "limited functionality mode" that allows you to still open, view, and print your current images but maybe disables most filters, or the ability the save any new changes, etc..
" open, view, and print your current images"... you can already do this with just about any other product in the market, most support PSD, including Lightroom which is still sold as a perpetual license. IMHO, this is a non-issue.
ianp5a: If you don't like the deal they offer, don't take it. Don't get angry. Go somewhere else. Give your money to a rival to help them offer a better product. It's good for everyone. Even Adobe users. As Adobe will have to drop their prices or improve their product. In fact, didn't they just drop their prices? Mass exodus appears to be working.
I think most of us don't like the deal and we have not taken it... we all still have the right and almost duty of calling Adbe on this scam...
pumeco: Well, some good news here I reckon, looks like Adobe are cracking even quicker than we thought.
I noticed today that their dummed-down "Elements" range has fallen to half the price of what they were (less than half in some cases). The Photoshop/Premiere Elements bundle for example is down from £120 to less than £50.
I'm guessing that so many people are ditching them and choosing the pay-once alternatives, that Adobe have decided to try and beat those packages by tempting you into their relatively underpowered Elements stuff.
That's what I reckon, anyway.
Let's just hope people won't fall for that one, either. When it comes to choosing between Corel Photopaint X6, Serif Photoplus X6 or Elements, remember who ALWAYS had fair prices and those who did not.
Adobe DID NOT - so please support the ones that always did. Keep this up and like any business, they WILL come crawling with their tail between their legs with the customer back in control.
Their profitability is hurting... the stock is very high, because professional investors like the predictability and have probably swallowed ADBE kool-aid that eventually everybody will join CC. Time will say, renting software with no ownership is not for everyone...
Per Inge Oestmoen: Needless to say, the reason behind the subscription model is that it is more profitable to make the users pay a regular fee than to let them use their programs indefinitely.
The issue with CC, and its logical conclusion "cloud computing," is not the costs over time.
The true issue is the fact that if the software cannot be copied/backed up, installed, re-installed on compatible hardware and used indefinitely, then the user is completely at the mercy of the software service, its availability and its accessibility.
Contrast that with user-controlled software that resides locally in the computer and can be installed at any time, can be backed up for future installations, has no ties to its manufacturer at all and thus is not dependent on software services, subscriptions or license controls to work.
The latter is a tool that the user can always be certain to be able to use, no matter what happens to the company that made the software.
Now it is time to go Open Source.
IMHO, the reason why Adobe did this is what has been called "the consumption gap", which is the difference between the features you really use and the hemorrhage of fringe, obscure, almost useless features that SW vendors put in the sw every year as upgrades. Once the product gets to a level like CS6 it basically is more than GOOD ENOUGH, therefore it stagnates and people refuse to upgrade. By going rental, ADBE secures income whether they update or not.
Stock is up, but profits are declining.... I have 5-6 years to wait... let's see who can hold longer
SemperAugustus: Selfies made easy....
tkbslc,they do, but unless you are the rubber man from the Fantastic 4, you can't do a selfie at a distance longer than your arm, can you?
Selfies made easy....
Polytropia: "FluCard" ... really? What's next, the "AIDScard" ...?
Someone in the Pentax marketing department needs to find another job.
Someone should tell this "genius" to go and work for the competition...
SemperAugustus: If you are making money from your images $10 a month is reasonable, but if you are a hobbyist, amateur or just enthusiast, then IMHO is best to invest in another SW e.g. Corel Paint Shop Pro or even PSE For a photographer, LR is probably 90% of what you ever going to need, specially if you add some plugins like Nik Collection and Perfect Effects. They have the ability to add layers and blending. They also have some masks (not as powerful as PS) but adequate in most cases. Trying CC and cancelling is not a realistic option, PS is not something that you learn overnight, it does take years. So when you cancel your sub, not only you are left with no SW, you are letting go many man-days of effort and learning. Why not put that effort into some other SW.... Corel PSP has layers, masks, blending modes, selections, etc.... you could use LR for ACR and then trigger Corel PSP for a single image editing.
I have used Corel PSP in the past, I actually downloaded the X6 to give it a test drive now that is 64 bit. I know it is capable and I would use it, but it doesn't make sense for me while I have PS CS6, which has a lot more polished capabilities...e.g. when cloning, the brush will show exactly what you will be painting... it is this kind of refinement that gives PS the advantage TODAY. Corel can easily match those and grab the photographer segment, leaving the graphic designers to ADBE.
Pumeco, thanks for your "classy" contribution
kbfo: Can somebody explain to me why we in Europe have to pay 65% more (12,29 € = $ 16,6) than US citizen?
Any idea how to pay the $10 fee?
I am guessing that the IVA is included, where in USA and Canada tax is NEVER included and has to be added later. e.g. The CC $20 price is really $22.6 in Ontario where the tx is 13%, but it would be $23 in Atlantic Canada where the tax is %15
Danny: I have €250 waiting for you Adobe, but only if I can buy the latest PS upgrade and own a copy of it. Not even a cent I will pay for your Cloud. Not even if it was for free.
Add my C$200 to the list...
I am with you 100%. I can't bring myself to add yet another monthly bill ... I have the same plan, use PS CS6 until dies on my Win 7 PC (which I just built)....then go to either PSE or Corel PSP + Plugins. I will probably upgrade LR every 2-3 years until it goes the same route. I will then assess other alternatives out there. Eventually somebody will develop an ACR equivalent, that day ADBE can go to hell.
If you are making money from your images $10 a month is reasonable, but if you are a hobbyist, amateur or just enthusiast, then IMHO is best to invest in another SW e.g. Corel Paint Shop Pro or even PSE For a photographer, LR is probably 90% of what you ever going to need, specially if you add some plugins like Nik Collection and Perfect Effects. They have the ability to add layers and blending. They also have some masks (not as powerful as PS) but adequate in most cases. Trying CC and cancelling is not a realistic option, PS is not something that you learn overnight, it does take years. So when you cancel your sub, not only you are left with no SW, you are letting go many man-days of effort and learning. Why not put that effort into some other SW.... Corel PSP has layers, masks, blending modes, selections, etc.... you could use LR for ACR and then trigger Corel PSP for a single image editing.
mpgxsvcd: I can't help but think that if this image was entered into a challenge it would get ripped apart for technical flaws. I like the concept and I can appreciate the effort it took to produce it. However, the blurred stars in the water were just too distracting.
I think it would be an excellent image if you just crop the water out all together.
Kim,Nobody can predict the mind of an artist, this is what gave us Van Gogh, Manet, Kandinski or Dali... your assumption that the reflection of Kirkjufell should be in the water is closer to a documenting view of the image than at an artistic one. You are entitled to look at my response as "elitist", but I think too many times photographers allow themselves to be cast into documenting an event or a subject.
"this image was entered into a challenge it would get ripped apart for technical flaws" ... this is the reason why artists should not submit their works to the opinion of technocrats whose only focus is to evaluate the "technical" aspects of what should be considered art.
SemperAugustus: Well here are my photographic exploration of Johan Vermeer works, I have created my own story which can be read in the description..... http://levin-rodriguez.artistwebsites.com/art/all/vermeer/all BTW, all other Galleries are also photographic explorations on Dutch Golden Age painters like Ambrosious Bosschaert, Pieter Claesz, Heda and others.
Thanks Buzz..... I call it "Photographic Painting".... which paiting by using photographic tools....here is a more detailed "definition" if you will..http://levinrodriguez.blogspot.ca/2012/08/about-photographic-painting.html
Some comments seem to see the use of filters, software and other techniques as a detriment of the final image. IMHO, this is true ONLY when talking about photographs that are meant to be documentary or for journalism. When the artist choose a photograph as a derivative or the source of an art piece then, there are no rules. The final products is a result of what the artist envisioned and it may look simple once is done, but the idea was originated in the artist mind. That's the difference.... the challenge is never to think that it can be done with this or that tool, the artistic challenge is to have the idea/vision in the first place.
RoccoGalatioto: Painting and photography are totally different arts. If you must paint, learn how to put paint on a canvass. Photography is a totally different medium. It may look easy but getting superb images is very hard. Photographers should not waste time imitating panting they should use their imagination at capturing the instant and the very graphical images that the medium allows to capture. Although at first photography appears very naturalistic, it can be so, it has the potential to be the most surrealistic. My opinion. If you like an image who cares what or how it's made from. Life is too short. ENJOY
I disagree, no creative work is a waste of time as long as bring satisfaction and reflection to the creator and others. Just because a particular type of work has no value to you, it does not mean that this assumption applies to others. Photography can be or not a different medium, I see it as different set of tools to make something that looks like a painting.... which is what I choose to do.... and I have enjoyed enormously as it has pushed me to be more creative not just with my tools (camera, story, props) but also with the story to be communicated. At the end, it is all it matters at least to me.You should try sometime....
Well here are my photographic exploration of Johan Vermeer works, I have created my own story which can be read in the description..... http://levin-rodriguez.artistwebsites.com/art/all/vermeer/all BTW, all other Galleries are also photographic explorations on Dutch Golden Age painters like Ambrosious Bosschaert, Pieter Claesz, Heda and others.