19 hours ago
 |
AbrasiveReducer
Lives in
United States
Joined on
May 27, 2010
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
DigitalPlatonist: Companies we love make us feel like they exist to serve and empower us. Companies we hate make us feel like their goal is to control us and extract more from us than their products/services are worth. Adobe transitioned from the former to the latter long ago. With this latest move, they've reached a new low.
For heaven's sake (a poor choice of words with this cloud crap) stop loving and hating companies! They are companies! They are not people; they certainly won't love you back.
LeoG: You guys....Wow... 1500 posts to say the same thing.
"The CC model does not work for the hobbyist photographer". Most hobbyist I know really don't need anything more then picasa anyway, or at the very most elements. they think they do....but they don't. BUT if they want it.. well, who said any hobbies were cheap?
Pro's will pass this cost to the customers. End of story.ll
No matter how wildly used PS was never a program for the masses. That's even the ones who "got in early way back in 2.1"
True, Designers and video guys get the lion's share of the 30+ programs and are the ones who will not bat a eye at it.
As for photographers with a web presence, don't discount prosite. Its very good. I dropped my squarespace sites and moved my url's over to prosite and I am SAVING $30 a month. So CC is putting money back into my pocket.
Sure, I am worried about future price increases but that's at least a few years out.
I have to agree with Leo. Hobbyists are simply not worthy of Photoshop. They don't know what they want but it isn't Photoshop. They should express their gratitude to Adobe for stooping so low as to deal with amateurs, hobbyists and students. As Garth would say "We are not worthy!" Heh, heh (I put this in because someone will think I am being serious).
Here's a survey. Is the reason so many users skip every other version of Photoshop (a) because it's too expensive for anyone who's not a full-time professional, or (b) because there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between versions? I have CS5 at home and CS6 at work and except that they've moved the tools where I can't find them, I don't see much difference with the newer one. Content-aware fill was useful; shaky camera filter sounds like something I can live without.
Pangloss: I can summarize the concerns about Adobe's move to subscription-only use of their software thus: try to imagine a stranger clutching your balls in his hand. That's a real "concern", isn't it?
That's an image that needs no Photoshopping.
Bernd M: I have no concerns at all. Adobes step makes a lot of sense to me. It seems people think, Adobe wants to erase all the pictures worked on with Photoshop, if you stop paying.
Instead of paying a big chunk of money buying the program I pay a monthly fee that don't weigh me down. On the other hand Adobe gets some money all the time, what gives them the cash they need to keep things going. The only one who suffers is the bank, because Adobe won't need to keep a big deposit to pay their staff in times between releases.
Now were not only worrying about Adobe's monthly allowance, we have to lose sleep over the bank's suffering, too.
Are we confusing "right" and "wrong" with pragmatism? If a thing can be stolen, it will be, unless nobody's interested. I had a friend who left his Volvo unlocked in Oakland, California, hoping it would be stolen. In the end, it was as hopeless as trying to protect a photo on Facebook.
djsphynx: For those who feel comfortable with LR + PS alternative, be warned.
Imagine a scenario in 2 years time where Adobe says "The last 12 months of development was brutal. And there were results we were not happy with. We have decided to focus on the CC LR product." Sounds familiar? It should, it's what they said about CS PS.
So regardless of the fact that they've said "ya, we'll keep CS LR going, but make CC LR better", be warned before you commit more and more to their catalogues etc.
Fool me once...
This may just simplify things. Normally, I have to decide between .NEF and .CR2 and/or DNG. The solution seems to be none of the above. TIFF works with everything (including each other's applications) and Canon, Nikon and Adobe can all vanish.
thomas2279f: Interesting to see the Share price at the moment - although still holding up well... perhaps there gamble will pay off...?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/adbe/real-time
The stock market is at an all-time high. You could be selling asbestos and your share price would be high right now.
Henry M. Hertz: what is scott kelby saying on the grit?
all is fine and the cloud is great?
i can not be bothered to watch him but im curious....
Scott thinks this development is both inevitable and wonderful. The creative cloud is pink, with silver lining. 5 stars! Make that 10. But is it reasonable to expect he would say or do otherwise?
Lea5: Besides all the anger, we should see is as a chance.
Imagine....all the other creative software manufacturers are seeing this moment as a big motivation to design photoshop alternatives? I mean real professional alternatives? It would be very interested to see how the whole visual creative industry changes. It would be a change. I don't think Adobe realized yet, that they could feel the Kodak moment of downfall sooner than they expect.
My guess would be other companies are seeing a big opportunity to develop a state of the art imaging program that sells for $49. Maybe a bit more before piracy kicks in, say $99. Google seems to think this is too high. I was surprised to receive the entire NIK suite for free. I owned most of the pieces, but still.
wildeye: It's great that manufacturers are listening to photographers and responding with better image quality in smaller packages. All these cameras look interesting as does Sony's RX1. For sensor tech though, the 'writing' is literally 'on the wall', (or more to the point, you can't see the words!), for the APSC Bayer samples on page 10. So, like others here, I'm wondering why the DP compact cameras have largely been ignored on this site when it comes to serious review to this point? Agreed Foveon is not perfect, but it has had a fraction of the investment that all the other makers have poured into Bayer and it does seem to offer something of genuine value to photographers that deserves some further interest, if not support. The micro detail of the writing from the Foveon on page 10 is truly impressive compared to the Bayer. NB. The last people who tried to sideline a different technology simply because it didn't fit into their existing workflow were the Luddites!
I own and use Foveon cameras but they clip highlights are not really usable at even slightly high ISOs. I have no doubt that if a company like Sony was interested in Foveon both the sensors and the camera bodies would see huge improvement.
Ulfric M Douglas: At this focal length (wide) with a sensible and pedestrian F2.8 I'm sure an OVF will do just great.
Nice camera, I hope it becomes common enough to see some second-hand sales next year. yumm.
I still use my GR-1. Not often, but it's very small, sharp, light and full frame.
DavidMaven: If one is a PS-only user, you continue to pay monthly forever to get ever less additional functionality. How many more pure-photography features can Adobe add that will ever be used?
Adobe is doing this because they have reached the point of diminishing marginal revenue with respect to their maintenance and enhancement of PS in the old license model.
Right, but this is a problem, even without the subscription. Photoshop is aleady rich with features that aren't really useful for photography, which is why it's crucial to lock users into a subscription.
Cameron R Hood: I wonder if Adobe anticipated this amount of backlash? I hope not. You're going to lose MOST of your customers, Adobe; this is a VERY bad idea. And to the folks making comments, I would suggest go to Adobe's webpage, find a way in (difficult) and send them a message directly, even if it's in the wrong place. I think we should keep the pressure UP till they relent.
They're waiting for this to blow over. But when it comes to a choice between hurt feelings and steady cash every month, forever, Adobe isn't going to get sentimental. Me, either.
Horshack: Here's a Bloomberg interview with the Adobe CEO, with his usual fabricated "customers prefer cloud" nonsense.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/adobe-ceo-says-creative-cloud-better-for-customers-0Bfb79OISFGotOcGNxRuQg.html
Btw, anytime you hear a CEO use the word "assets" to describe customer property, check your back pocket to make sure your wallet is still there.
"Assets", "paradigm", "associates" (as in Walmart), "learning curve" (as in difficult/complex), these words and phrases are the Canary in the coal mine. They should immediately cause your BS alarm to go off. There are many others, of course.
AngryCorgi: This reminds me of when I bought my first condo. At the time, the condo fees were $325/month, which was high for the area, but I got a great deal on the unit. I thought, well, I'm ok with the combo of my mortgage and condo fee. I said, "hey, they are the highest around, I'm sure they take great care of the facility for that and its unlikely to go up too much". Fast forward 6 years. The condo fee has balloned to $555/month AND I had to pay a "special fee" of $1085 to upgrade the elevators that were not part of the condo fee! But I'm married to the condo fee with my ownership, nothing I can do. I'm stuck. So I sold the place right before the housing market took a nose dive.
This is how I see this "subscription" arrangement. You always have to pay and there is no incentive to provide an improving product. If they raise the price, you still have to pay. All your work is saved in PSD files!
I promised myself I'd never again own a condo and the same goes for Adobe's sub scheme.
You're being a little unfair. You get to live in your condo, or sell it and you might even sell it for more than you paid for it.
Matt: I like to own what I pay for. Period
I keep my DVDs in a safe deposit box to prevent the true owners from confiscating or de-activating them.
Gregory WAP: I learned PS in 1993. Since then I have bought upgrades on major releases, culminating with 5.5. I had actually bought a year of cloud in February for $600 because I decided to migrate from FCP7 to Pr. I use and own versions of AE and Illustrator and last year I switched from Aperture to Lightroom.
I will not be renewing next year. This weeks proceedings have me reconsidering FCPX and Avid. I am white hot seething mad. What really gets me is all the years of support, all the learning I am going to have to dump. But I will. Hopefully there will be enough folks like me to force a change in policy.
Agreed. But a lot of this debacle could have been avoided if they had been honest and said "You whiners who don't buy every version of everything we produce (even before the bugs are out) are just a big drag--sayonara!"
dannyboy5400: Even if Adobe reverses course on this, TRUST is broken and I will never trust them again. I hope competitors jump on this the way Adobe was all over the Final Cut Pro debacle. I am back on FCX now that it is fixed.
With all due respect, you can trust or not trust an individual but corporations aren't people. Trusting a corporation to do the right thing, regardless of the bottom line, is crusin' for a brusin'.
benmlee: And to think the innovators that ushered in the computer age pretty much gave away their software and invention to help others innovate and change the world.
The professor who invented Visicalc (Excel) gave it away to help the budding computer industry grow. We need the spirit of innovation like that put America in the forefront not this profit squeezing.
CEO is there to squeeze some profit even if it tanks the company down the road. He is only interested in his bonus knowing fully well he will be gone in five years leaving the mess to the next guy.
It's not for anyone here to decide how much money Adobe should be allowed to make. On the other hand, they are not owed a guaranteed stream of income. For that, they need to buy an annuity.