Harry Shepherd: Charles Boot posted "Here is a proposal, which these greedy people would never think of: Let everyone upgrade to CS 6 if they want to at a reasonable price (free for users of CS5.5) and keep ACR updated for CS 6 for say 10 years. Something like this would have earned stars. as it is they are hated."
That would be nice, but it would appear you cannot even buy the CS6 upgrade at the full price anymore.
Looking on the bright side this will save me money. Bye adobe.
CS6 is still available on DVD from some resellers - I just bought my last-opportunity copy 2 days ago, and it arrived within the past hour - not bad for a UK purchase of a disk that was in a California warehouse! At least FedEx is a large company that prides itself on customer service!
epo001: All this endless whining. Adobe don't want to sell me any upgrades? Fine, I'll continue to use CS3 until the competition improves. If you have CS it will continue to work, what's the problem?
Most non-commerical users don't NEED Photoshop, it is just a name they've heard or they are fetishising the most polished toy, rather like people who buy a sports car and just use it to drive to the shops.
Yeah, existing installations of CSx (or even, as in my case, Photoshop 7) will work on ... UNTIL, of course, you need RAW support for your new camera ... or Windows 9 drops support for the 32-bit version you have been relying on ... or ...
Who would rent a house, if they could afford to buy one? Even though it is a massive investment, most people would prefer to live in their own place, rather than at the beck and call of a landlord.
Who would live with a hired care forever, if they could afford to buy one of their own? Again, though it's a major expense, most people are willing to sacrifice other things to pay for it.
Now if a RENTED house cost more than one you owned, or a HIRED car cost more than buying and running your own - NO-ONE would rent a house, or hire a car. We'd ALL buy and be done with it.
And yet here were are, where Adobe now wants EVERYONE to become RENTERS ... but for MORE that it used to cost to become OWNERS.
Pigs in the trough don't get close to describing their cynical greed.
The poll has missed my MAIN worry: potentially losing access to all MY artwork and creative IP, simply because one day either Adobe goes bust and my software times out, or I cannot afford my subscription any more.
It would be OK if the software could still open/edit/print images PREVIOUSLY worked on, even if you stopped paying for the subs. But that isn't how it works.
HubertChen: A true story: Decades ago the leading E-CAD vendor introduced a hardware dongle as copy protection. It plugged into the printer port and thus you could not print anymore. Real bummer on a CAD workstation. ( This was before printing over network ). Our CAD department was very upset, because the only way to print was to obtain a cracked SW. We never used such thing before. So in the first year we paid for the SW with dongle, but used the cracked version. However, in the subsequent years of new versions, the cracked version remained but new licenses were no longer purchased. The inhibition barrier of using a cracked version was broken. I truly wonder if this new move from Adobe will decrease or increase illegal copy installations ?
Nothing to do with Intergraph, I suppose? Still have one of their dongles somewhere, never even did install the stuff.
QUOTE: "The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. 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 products."
Er, HELLO? Just HOW hard is it to REMOVE the "phone-home-and-disable-me" code to convert CC back into a stand-along CS version?
I never thought I would be encountering so much SNAKE OIL at one time!
Michiel Koolen: The Adobe Financial people have gone over this. They will lose revenue from people who would upgrade only every few years. They already accepted that 2 years ago, by only allowing upgrades from the previous version.
People who will pirate the software will keep on doing that. It will be the never ending cat-and-mouse game between hackers and DRM. Adobe has a perfect track record of losing that one. I'm sure they know that.
So what will they lose financially? A few thousand enthusiasts who would spend a few hundred dollars every 2-4 years.
What will they gain? No more need to push out updates every 12-18 months. They can add 1-2 features and boast about it. Predictable and constant revenue, for products that have reached such a maturity level it makes it difficult to come up with something new and generate revenue in a traditional business model.
The Creative Cloud is very innovative indeed. As a business model. The real innovation will now have to come from the competition.
Yeah, rattymouse, you MISREAD Michiel's eloquent post - which is NOT pro-Adobe in any way!
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...
The REALLY insiduous thing about Win8, is that many brand new machines will ONLY run Win8 - their BIOS prevents booting from and/or installing earlier versions of Windows - or Linux. I know, I have an HP ElitePad 900, which is a lovely tablet - but TOTALLY LOCKED to Windows 8.
I am old enough to have starting my computing career using time-sharing terminals on a mainframe computer. Then the PC was invented, and for 30 happy years, we've been freed from the tyranny of the "SysOps" in the central computing department.
Guess what: the Cloud is simply a reinventing of the old method of computing; the deathknell to "personal" computing; a reversion to 1979 and all that.
Bravo Adobe for backtracking 35 years.
Biowizard: It's taken a number of years, but this is the obvious and inevitable follow-on from the "Authorisation/Activation" model that Adobe first introduced with the original CS (that followed on after Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10 & InDesign 2). Up till then, you could buy your CD, and install it on a computer without even having to register it. You had a personal serial number, and "agreed" not to make multiple installations or to give the software away. And if you did the latter, the serial number could be traced to you.
With CS, once you'd installed your software, you had to go online to get your stuff "activated" - without this it wouldn't work. At the time, many of us felt this could one day be abused, and this is one of several reasons I stuck with PS 7.
Looks like we sceptics were right all along. It's just taken Adobe a few years longer than we originally thought.
This is BAD, Adobe. VERY BAD.
BaldCol, I am not against activation PER SE ... as a software writer myself, I am all too aware of the need to control piracy. But I have never liked the idea of "what if ACME.COM (or whoever) goes bust and/or turns bad?". The idea of MY creative work being locked away from ME because some software company decides to remove my license, for whatever reason, is plain BAD.
It's taken a number of years, but this is the obvious and inevitable follow-on from the "Authorisation/Activation" model that Adobe first introduced with the original CS (that followed on after Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10 & InDesign 2). Up till then, you could buy your CD, and install it on a computer without even having to register it. You had a personal serial number, and "agreed" not to make multiple installations or to give the software away. And if you did the latter, the serial number could be traced to you.
I bought one of these around 6 weeks ago, and it is brilliantly designed and very well built. I will almost certainly buy one or even two more, to keep permanently with my assorted iPhones and smaller cameras. *****
Just holding my iPhone 4s against the rubber eyecups of my Swaro binos lets me align and hold the camera perfectly for a casual "digiscope" shot - I can't imagine why I'd want all that plastic getting in the way.
luisflorit: It is actually a shame that not every single DSLR offers this as a default feature, not even modern flagships with video, and you have to shoot with a phone! For example, the Oly E5 doesn't have timelapse. Still, it is not very hard to make timelapses with it: http://luis.impa.br/photo/1204_varios/nuvens-cristo_timelapse_EV-2.0_JN-120407-E_21672-22915a.aviBut shooting several of these movies will ruin your shutter.
I would never use my DSLR for time lapse - the mechanical shutter and mirror combo would wear out far too quickly. One single movie of 9,999 frames would use about 5% of the entire rated life of the shutter on most modern DSLRs.
Deleted pending purge: Reminds me of something from way back during the '90s. A friend went diving with a Nikonos III and forgot to screw in the flash socket plug. The whole camera and 15-mm lens ($1400.-!) was flooded. My diving buddy and me took it all apart and washed every part in 50% alcohol - 50% water.The camera was easy, but there is about a million tiny parts that need careful handling, especially hair-thick springs.Taking the lens apart is a weird feeling, partly because of the price, but we managed to do it as well.Alcohol and water make a better solvent than either of them alone, and the evaporation of alcohol helps bring out the water too. We managed to remove all traces of the brine and dissolved film emulsion, and put the camera and lens together again. We used a toothpick to oil all moving parts with WD-40. Everything worked okay.If your camera ever drops into the sea, wash it thoroughly as described, wrap it up to keep it wet, and send it immediately to the service.
A pro photographer friend of mine flooded several Nikonos III cameras during his diving days, but didn't manage to salvage them. I also had an N III, which I travelled with extensively is the ultimate waterproof backpack camera. If it got wet or muddy, I simply washed it under a tap when I got back to base. My only issue was trying to replace a film that I'd put in at 6,000 ft above sea level, when back at the coast the next day. It's amazing how much a column of air a couple of inches across and 6,000 feet tall all actually weighs :-)
tkbslc: Just curious why if you care enough about the shot to pack a tripod, you wouldn't also just bring a "real" camera? Seems to work well, I just usually think of cell phone photography in terms of unplanned convenience vs premeditated to the point of bringing specialized gear.
I wanted (or rather, still want) mounting options for my iPhones, for use with time-lapse and stop-motion applications. These are things that, with the correct apps, iOS devices do better than my DSLR.
Chinese Junk ... I ordered an iStablizer "Dolly" and an iStablizer "Glass" device, each from one of two different Amazon vendors. This stuff was getting good reviews on the photo forums.
Well, the "dolly" arrived in bits and pieces, showing scuff marks where someone else had clumsily assembled it, played with it, then pulled it to bits and just chucked everything back into the box, and one of the wheels was stiff and didn't want to turn. Sent it back to Amazon on Friday.
Today, I tried using "glass", the suction cup thing. And it turned out that its tripod screw had been badly machined, and would not fit into the standard tripod socket on the mounting device. Sent it back to Amazon today.
Friday was the first time I have EVER returned faulty goods to Amazon, and now I've done a second time in as many working days. Both devices designed in America, and made in China. But unlike the iPhone or the iPad, this was true Chinese Junk.
clear glass: How did the Rover take a picture of itself from a camera on a jointed arm (I assume) without showing part of the arm? Was the arm that raised the camera above the Rover extended so circuitously that it's out of the picture or in a blind spot? Is this a duh question?
It's only semi-duh, inasmuch as I wondered the same thing about the high-res image shown elsewhere on dPreview - then I figured it: as this is a stitched mosaic, all they have to do is use parts of the image that DON'T include the robotic arm - and et voila, it's gone!
A true replacement for the Nikonos underwater cameras, with full-frame sensor, inductive charging and wireless data transfer, so that the ONLY time they would need to be taken apart, is when selecting and changing the lens.
God this is so simple, just give me 100M to produce it, and it will be the ONLY camera on the market forever more. All it needs is ... [oops, patents pending so can't talk now ... watch this space!]