GaryJP

GaryJP

Lives in Hong Kong Hong Kong
Works as a TV Production, Directing, Shooting, Editing
Joined on Mar 11, 2006

Comments

Total: 907, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Lanski: 2000 posts!

Not true entirely. Premiere users at least are just as mad.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2013 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

Leon V: An alternate FREE image editor for PC users: PIXBUILDER STUDIO (http://www.wnsoft.com/pixbuilder/). This was mentioned in another forum. I downloaded it and looked it over. They copied many of Photoshop panels, functions, tools, tone and color adjustment panels, etc. (even has layers). Not as sophisticated but for amateurs it will do for photo editing. For tutorials and YouTube videos google "pixbuilder studio tutorials".

Yet. It will come, now Adobe has opened up a new market.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2013 at 00:05 UTC
In reply to:

MarcLee: At the end of the first quarter this year, Adobe reported a 64.8% drop in quarterly earnings on higher expenses and lower product revenue. However, even THAT was above Wall Street expectations.

Earnings for the first quarter were $65.12 million or $0.13 per share, compared to $185.21 million or $0.37 per share last year. Adjusted earnings per share (EPS) declined to $0.35 from $0.57.

Revenue decreased 3.6% to $1.008 billion, due to lower products revenue offsetting increase subscription, and services and support revenues.

Adobe have LOST more in product purchases than they have gained in subscriptions. And that was when they still offered a choice. Products revenue fell to $675.79 million from $808.52 million (133 million loss), while subscription revenue grew to $224.27 million from $146.23 million (78 million profit).

Exactly, the purpose of subscription for any software company is to get a steady stream of REVENUE.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 11:42 UTC
In reply to:

ppage: The poll doesn't address my main concern: losing control over when updates to my software are made.

1. I can't imagine anything worse than being under pressure to get something done and suddenly discovering my software's interface has changed.

2. I don't like the idea of software bloat forcing me to upgrade my hardware when I'd rather put it off.

That is pretty standard phrasing used by any software to avoid having to maintain antique releases. They can update their software. It does not imply they will reach into your computer and update it on your computer.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 11:31 UTC
In reply to:

Norman B: I was planning on buying LR or Elements in the fall when I upgraded my computer from XP to Windows 7. That should tell you I am a hobbyist and do not need the latest bling including photo editing software.

I am watching this with interest. It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before LR and Elements are available by subscription only with unreasonable terms and conditions. The ball is in Adobe's court but I am a potential customer with the money. Time will tell if Adobe wants my money or not.

This is wrong. Word 365 requires subscription. Word 2013 is standalone (although apparently only if you have Windows 8). I know. I have installed the standalone Office just last weekend. Many people have been conned into buying the wrong product. But Microsoft IS still offering the choice although they seem sorely tempted not to.

Again, as with Adobe, part of the reason for this is they want steady revenue even though upgrades are minor and looking less and less compelling.

In terms of Office, I will stick with an old version rather than go on the subscription model.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 06:16 UTC
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: A new article titled "Unhappy Customers Want to Parachute From Adobe’s Creative Cloud" was just posted on Wired.com about an hour ago which references the 5,000+ signatures on the change.org petition to keep packaged software.

Here's the link: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/adobe-creative-cloud-petition/

You misunderstand who is getting dumped.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 03:22 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: Running commercial photo studio comes to $20 000.00/year + plus + expenses in total of approximately $40-50 000.00 a year. Not mentioning that I own it means $750 000.00 investment in property another $200 000.00 in equipment. I am truly watching a literally every dollar to be competitive. I must be efficient and I must know that there is return on my dollar. The Photoshop CC concept simply does not provide this basic business incentive. It is a money-drainage. If I will do upgrade three times in next 10 years that will be apron 1 000.00 - 1 500.00 Doll. If I will go with subscription it will be 6 000.00.
Someone may say o’well 4 500.00 Doll big deal. It is a big deal. Big Time !

Where I am, buying is a tax deductible expense too. So tax does nothing to change the pricing balance. Meanwhile we pay the Adobe tax. The accountants in the large TV company with which I work are NOT going to give themselves an uncontrollable expense that can be changed unilaterally. That's not how they think. The company doesn't even see the need to upgrade beyond Word 95.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 03:19 UTC
In reply to:

Norman B: I was planning on buying LR or Elements in the fall when I upgraded my computer from XP to Windows 7. That should tell you I am a hobbyist and do not need the latest bling including photo editing software.

I am watching this with interest. It seems to me that it is only a matter of time before LR and Elements are available by subscription only with unreasonable terms and conditions. The ball is in Adobe's court but I am a potential customer with the money. Time will tell if Adobe wants my money or not.

You are right. We cannot even trust that they will allow us to use our own Lightroom files in the future. As they have shown, when they want to rewrite the rules to their benefit, they will.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 03:17 UTC
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: A new article titled "Unhappy Customers Want to Parachute From Adobe’s Creative Cloud" was just posted on Wired.com about an hour ago which references the 5,000+ signatures on the change.org petition to keep packaged software.

Here's the link: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/adobe-creative-cloud-petition/

This guy is so naive he actually trusts Adobe. And we know now where that gets you. Forecasts are made to bluff shareholders. They did not forecast their 15% drop in fiscal-third-quarter profit in 2011, their 21% profit drop for the first quarter of last year. Or that their share price increases would be lower than the Standard and Poor Average for this year.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 03:01 UTC
In reply to:

OBI656: Running commercial photo studio comes to $20 000.00/year + plus + expenses in total of approximately $40-50 000.00 a year. Not mentioning that I own it means $750 000.00 investment in property another $200 000.00 in equipment. I am truly watching a literally every dollar to be competitive. I must be efficient and I must know that there is return on my dollar. The Photoshop CC concept simply does not provide this basic business incentive. It is a money-drainage. If I will do upgrade three times in next 10 years that will be apron 1 000.00 - 1 500.00 Doll. If I will go with subscription it will be 6 000.00.
Someone may say o’well 4 500.00 Doll big deal. It is a big deal. Big Time !

Professionals do not rent and give themselves recurring overheads when they can BUY cheaper.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 02:51 UTC
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: A new article titled "Unhappy Customers Want to Parachute From Adobe’s Creative Cloud" was just posted on Wired.com about an hour ago which references the 5,000+ signatures on the change.org petition to keep packaged software.

Here's the link: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/adobe-creative-cloud-petition/

And if Adobe is lucky they won't lose 19 out of 20 of their users. My bet is they will. And YOU will be paying to take up the slack. So shill on.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

Mr Fartleberry: I just dumped my cable TV. Because every month I was paying and paying for an extra outlet. Year after year. And they had the gaul to jack up the price of the splitter and cable earlier this year. It was paid for in a few months but that was many years ago.

Lets hope the photo magazines smell the stink from the new Adobe outhouse and stop promoting their program in their magazines. Readers should let them know it's time to move on from promoting Adobe to photographers.

Adobe love clearly rots some people's brains.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

Rick DeBari: A new article titled "Unhappy Customers Want to Parachute From Adobe’s Creative Cloud" was just posted on Wired.com about an hour ago which references the 5,000+ signatures on the change.org petition to keep packaged software.

Here's the link: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/adobe-creative-cloud-petition/

"Adobe reports ..." And we believe Adobe because so far they have shown a huge amount of honesty and ethical behaviour. ;)

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2013 at 00:11 UTC

And, even when they haver GOT your subscription:

" Customer agrees that Adobe may change the type of Software (such as specific components, versions, platforms, languages, etc.) included in the Subscription Edition at any time and shall not be liable to Customer whatsoever for such change."

In other words, we have no obligation to tou whatsoever.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 23:53 UTC as 204th comment
In reply to:

ottonis: Aside of Adobe's greed, the software subscription model (as an only option to use a particular software) paves the way for a very dangerous development. Just imagine how easy it will get to cut politically non-conforming people or groups from using professional tools.
Just imagine what power a government gets to control what you are doing and to stop you from doing / editing / publishing pictures that may convey politically uncorrect or unpopular messages. The government just needs to call adobe and ask to cut certain customers' licences et voila - there you go, George Orwell.
This alone may be readon enough to defend our principal human rights of freedom of speech and dismiss business models that may inherently allow for maximal control and patronizing of free citizens.

I am in China (Hong Kong to be precise). It's a very real concern here.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 11:36 UTC
In reply to:

WellyNZ: Change. I don't like it and neither should anyone else.

Missing the point a specialty?

YOU are welcome to owe Adobe money until you hit your grave. What others want is the choice they are taking away.

And change did not exactly work well for Apple with FCP X. They virtually destroyed their production house market.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 06:26 UTC

Maybe a big part of the anger comes from the fact that up until this week I was naive enough to consider Adobe one of the good guys and a company that actually helped me be creative.

Now, after hearing about this, and about their licensing on the Director 12 software for iOS apps, (which will now cost developers 10% of their earnings on any app which makes more than $20,000). I have had a very rude awakening

Really, once trust is gone, it is GONE.

Meanwhile, Mac Users, take a look at Pixelmator.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 03:57 UTC as 282nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

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.

If you walked into a shop, and the shop assistants' attitude was the same as that of Adobe, would you EVER shop there again?

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

HubertChen: Adobe is setting a very bad example for marketing

Reading and listening to their interviews you come back with the understanding that the way to make money is to be at odds to your customer and not to care about it. Worse, reading comments here it appears they already make many people believe that in order to make more money you need to be ad odds to the customer. This is a really bad example for business causing a damage way beyond the scope of Photoshop Users.

A contrast example: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/09/leica-s-system-interview-at-forbes.com

The Leica interview clearly shows Leica's success of entering a complete new market segment is created by working extremely close with the customer, making the customer's success their success. This is an important role model for other marketing directors. I wish more photography company do win - win marketing such as Leica and less do Win-Loose marketing such as Adobe.

.

Office doesn't MAKE you pay monthly for the program. I just installed the latest version, and I installed the standalone version of it. No one is complaining about companies offering you the OPTION, as Microsoft does for now. They are complaining about it being compulsory. If you have subscribed to the monthly version of Office now, and you don't want it, you have screwed up. The standalone version still exists.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 03:41 UTC
In reply to:

Sosua: While this appears a bit short sighted, all it has personally done has made me ask the question - "Do I really need photoshop"?

The answer is not really, no - Lightroom is still available a perpetual licensed product and is great value.

If I need a little more PP, I'll buy Photoshop elements for next to nothing.

Even if these products go to a subscription model, they will be like $5 per month, meanwhile the competition will be innovating to gain market share.

"Lightroom is still available a perpetual licensed product and is great value."

For now, but not for long, if you read between the lines.

"If I need a little more PP, I'll buy Photoshop elements for next to nothing."

Okay if you only need 8 bit colour. Otherwise better go for GIMP or PSP. Or some other alternative.

Direct link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 03:18 UTC
Total: 907, showing: 381 – 400
« First‹ Previous1819202122Next ›Last »