KelvinHammond: I'd say that those who whine about CC probably have no idea how to effectively use 95% of the features LR or PS. For those of us that have already used PS for 20 years, and LR for maybe 10, the sheer power of the software for enabling us to turn pixels in to $$'s, including infinite updates, is a grand bargain!!! I spend more then that on coffee every month, which is btw, equally important.
This is good business, not some crybaby Tea Party event. :)
And what that has to do with anything? The main problem with the subscription model is that you are completely dependent on Adobe's whims. I think this is a great business for them but not necessarily to their users. Have you actually read any of the CC terms of service? Adobe takes no responsibility for anything and guarantees you absolutely nothing in return for eternal payments.
The difference between coffee and CC is that if you're short on money you can stop drinking coffee for a while but you can not skip paying your CC monthly fee.
Now I can perfectly well understand why many like CC model but personally I like to think long-term and also get something in return for my money.
I can fully understand Adobe's rationale behind this but I can not endorse it any way. Subscription only might seem good idea only if you are thinking in terms of next month. But the problem with it all becomes quite obvious when the economic downturn comes round again. With perpetual licensing one could easily skip a upgrade cycle or two and still get all the work done but with subscription it comes down to cutting something else off. Mostly likely some of the staff. Subscription model makes budgeting hugely inflexible.
As Windows 7 is supported until 2020 at least Photoshop CS6 will do just fine. Fortunately there's plenty of good RAW converters around (DXO Optics, Capture One, AfterShot) Lightroom won't be missed much.
Finally there is certainly a room for some competition.
I think the biggest problem is not that other software is so bad feature-wise but the biggest problems are related to the workflow and UI. Except Corel Painter, I have found all the possible alternatives to be lacking in workflow and UI.
When it comes to RAW development there are plenty of good alternatives. DXO, AfterShot, Aparture and so on. But when it comes to editing, then Photoshop beats all other because of its great workflow. GIMP - butt ugly and very unpleasant to work with. Corel Photo-Paint - again butt ugly and not very smooth workflow. Corel PaintShop - pretty decent in most regards. If Corel would take Photo-Paint, put Painter UI on it, add some more features and better format compatibility and release it as a separate image editing package this could turn into a decent alternative to Photoshop.
chriswei: I don't like the idea that my creative output would essentially be held hostage unless I pay the monthly tribute. My PS files will be locked in a proprietary format (psd) and my Lightroom catalog info will be similarly locked away without a fallback plan. At least with non-subscription software I'd always have the option of the 'last version' - at least until OS versioning required a change.
I only use Lightroom (every day) and PS (occasionally) and I wouldn't use the cloud storage service. At $40/month for 2 individual apps that's $480/year. A 12-month upgrade cycle with the current pricing would be $200+$79=$279 - and it's really more of an 18-month cycle anyway. So I go from $279 every 12-18 months to $480 every 12 months with no option to skip a version or wait to upgrade. And if I ever stop paying, my workflow is dead in the water.
These days you can always use virtualization to overcome any problems related to OS change. Keep a copy of both OS and your software on backup and no problems in the future.
This is the worst thing about Adobe's move - you are completely left without any control in the long term.
JL Whaley: Dumb, dumb, dumb,dumb. Are all companies now hiring MBAs with a concentration in "How to Lose Customers and Kill Companies?" I seem to be having more and more experiences with companies that I use and depend on that are like this Adobe mess. My MANY hundreds of dollars invested in Adobe software now seem wasted, or at least will be in time as my CS6 and LR4 become non-functional.
My investment in Adobe stock has paid off. I sold it today before the #### hits the fan and the investment world loses faith in the company as most of its customers have after hearing and digesting today's news. Once good companies fail because they start to think that only they know what is best for their customers, when all they have to do to succeed is LISTEN to their customers.
This is a sad day in my photographic life. Adobe - you've let me down.
You most likely can run CS6 for a very long time. Even with new hardware and operating system. You just have to use it in a virtualized environment.
CarlosNunezUSA: Corel is going to be laughing all the way to the bank with this mess by Adobe.
The cloud is the mother of all lock-ins, some things are good for the cloud, but NOT everything is a good business to be on the cloud.
When the greedy CEO of Adobe wakes up, a lot of market will be lost. If I had shares of Adobe, I would be dumping them right about now because that decision is going to cost them dearly.
Just like Microsoft and Windows 8, all the customers yelling at them "NO" and they went ahead with it. Results? Sales are flat...
There are two things to note here. First you can not buy a new PC with Win7 anymore. And second, most of the enterprises who buy Win8 licenses do a downgrade and install Win7.
imbimmer: Serious question here:
Will Adobe continue to activate previous standalone versions of CS products if I upgrade my computers or replace my hard drives in the future? I'm very concerned about what would happen when current products reach the end of their life cycle.
They did close CS2 activation servers. Fortunately they made a new version available that does not need activation. Just a serial.
PicOne: "We do not delete any files or software from your computer. You will not be able to use the software but the files you've created and saved on your hard drive are left intact."
So.. my layered PSDs are good for what exactly? On that note, what other software will open a layered PSD.. do any of the competition's do this?
Corel Painter does a reasonably good job.
nnowak: The piracy statements are pure marketing BS.
The only reason for switching to a subscription model is that it guarantees a steady and dependable revenue stream. No more need for major annual or semi-annual software revisions in the hopes of luring new customers or upgraders. No more spikes in sales right after a new release followed by lagging sales as software nears end of life. No need for discounts to clear out previous version software. The programmers now only need to roll out small new features on an ad-hoc basis.
Nothing about the cloud service (functional or financial) is beneficial to me and is only designed to help Adobe. CS6 is the end of my relationship with Adobe.
With all of the people promising to abandon Adobe, I don't see how this ridiculous change will be a financial benefit in the long run. Maybe Adobe will die a quick death and then that steaming pile that is Flash will be gone forever too. I can only hope.
I can't see how they could. Of course they could turn off activation servers for example but this can and will be circumvented. What is most troubling about this cloud software is indeed that you just throw your money into black hole without any certainty about the future. You would be completely left to the mercy of Adobe. With current version of products you could fire them up even years later in a virtualization software and still use them and have access to your content. With cloud you have no control and if you stop paying your fee you have nothing. Completely unacceptable.
I doubt that they will die quick death. They basically have monopoly in several areas of software. Indesign/FrameMaker, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Illustrator and so on are industry standard.
But I think this could backfire them considerably. Probably a lot of people will keep using their CS6 products for a very long time. There is so much power in those products that it will cover probably 99% what most users need anyway. Also this will presents an opportunity for Corel. If they would get their act together and improved their interface and file compatibility they could get some more recognition. Take Painter interface, put it into Photo-Paint and release it as a separate application from Draw Suite. Could definitely offer some competition to Photoshop. They also have AfterShot that is very decent RAW converter so they have that part covered already.
Peter K Burian: Of course my CS6 would be fine for quite a long time, though without the new features. I would need to upgrade when I buy a new camera in future, one where CS6 does not support the RAW format.
Yes, I think opening RAW files is among the lesser problems. There are many very good RAW converters. Both free and paid.
Henry M. Hertz: im waiting that the adobe acolytes like SCOTT KELBY tells us why the cloud is so great....
and many idiots will fall fo it....
I see Adobe has unleashed its sock puppets. This is not a good thing to small businesses. Small businesses do not have upgrade every year. They often can do fine with previous version for some good time. So when they have need to upgrade, they could plan their budget accordingly. With subscription they have unavidable expenses. So this is actually much worse.
the Mtn Man: In other news, the GIMP remains 100% free. :)
Yes, GIMP = horrible interface to work with. Useful only for occasional basic editing.
No big deal. If you have not upgraded to CS6 do so. It will do everything one would need from a photo editing package. Hell, even CS2 will probably do everything most of the people would need. I certainly did not use CS2 to its full potential yet. Upgraded to CS6 just because I did not have to pay myself. There are some good improvements and so on, but essentially I could still do fine with CS2.
There are also alternatives. I'm not going to say GIMP because it is horrible. But Corel certainly has a potential opportunity here. I have used Corel and they are capable of making a competitive product. It just that the workflow has not been so smooth as with Adobe. And well, there always was Photoshop. But I definitely see myself using Corel if needed. Feature wise there is nothing to complain about.
And there are plenty of alternative RAW converters to Lightroom.
undergrounddigga: I don't think this is a bad idea, on the contrary this is a great thing. You can now access your account and the programs from anywhere in the world, on any computer you want. It's similar to an email account.HOWEVERthis is DAYLIGHT ROBBERY! PS never was cheap, but at least for student/teachers, and even for fully employed people, this was fairly affordable. If this would have been 5-10 dollars a month, hell, even $15, I would have said, great stuff. But, for $50 and $30 a month? Which student has $30 dollars a month? I mean seriously? The guy on the pension summarized it well - these no way poor people can pay so much money. It's not that they don't want. It's that THEY DON'T have as much.
I'm just glad I bought CS6, while I was student.
I'm just afraid other companies will follow - however, hopefully there will be new alternatives, such as snapfree, etc, which are cheaper. However, at these prices I can't see it working long term. People just don't have money, and that's it.
Well, to be honest, this is how stupid people see every thing that has "cloud" written on it.
How often do you really would need to access your photo editing software (or any other software) on any computer anywhere in the world? Srsly? This cloud thing is a complete BS that really has very little real world value.
Glad I have upgraded to CS6. I upgraded from CS2 not because I needed to but because I could. This will be the last time I will buy Adobe product probably. It will take a lot of time before I will even utilize all the potential that CS6 has so really, there is absolutely no need to move to new version.
magneto shot: the sames goes for those insisting on shooting films. there are absolutely no advantage to it. insist there are? ur the reason Kodak thought they were right.
Oh, boy, are you wrong.
I have been shooting mostly film on past 1.5 years and I must say moving back from digital has been so very satisfying. It's actually the hassles you need to take into account when shooting film that make it so satisfying. If you put more effort and dedication into something you get a bigger emotional gratification in return. And the limited technical freedom keeps your creativity flowing and makes you improve on your technique. Also, film has still an organic quality that is special and that most people prefer over digital. So there are plenty of reasons for shooting film, but unfortunately in a society where where dedication and attention is in sharp decline, it's obviously harder and harder to understand.