ryan2007: I am curious about forum rules when it comes to commercial advertising. It is one thing to review a product vs placing a link to ask/pledge money. How is this not in violation of said rule. What exactly is the grey area here.
Here is a quote from said forum rules and it specifically mentions Kickstarter here?
Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site please contact us. This rule includes owners of other digital photography websites promoting themselves on the forum. You will be banned and have all of your messages removed. Other things we consider spamming that will result in removal of messages and a possible ban: never posting anything but links to your own site, soliciting votes / support for your entry in a contest, soliciting contributions (be it for charity, a Kickstarter project or a survey). If you wish to post such content please contact us first.
This isn't the forum though.
Schweikert: Tough sell. Photographers will blow money on cameras and lenses but are cheap when it comes to gadgets which are just as easily home made.
A Canon rear lens cap is $7 + hot glue and velcro. DIY will out sell this product.
The concept is solid though.
Or rather than sell the entire cap, just sell packs of pre-cut velcro discs with adhesive backings.
Cdog: 11mm zoom? This is the second worse decision Canon has made recently. (see the 5DF-ail.
Can't wait to see how distorted the foreground objects will be and how ridiculously tiny the background will be. This is the perfect lens for NYC apartments. Literally nothing else.
Being an owner of the Sigma 12-24 II then I can tell you 12mm is alot of fun. Yes you get some odd distortions but that's precisely what I bought it for because it produces some unusual/interesting shots.
And thats a big old bit of kit despite not being a stop slower, so no surprise this Canon one is a beast.
ArminH: I would love to buy PS CC - But I'll NEVER rent it!
Its about as good a plan as potentially being left with no software if the rental price rises to an unacceptable level in the future. It also offers you the flexibility not to upgrade if none of the new features are of any worth to you. Even on the old licencing model an awful lot of people only upgraded every couple of versions of Photoshop, and an awful lot of people are still quite happily getting stuff done with the pre-CC releases.
zorgon: I've noticed on the sigma website, the weight has gone from 470g to 'TBD'. I thought 470g was too light for a lens of this size.
Half a kilo sounded about right to me given its dimensions and amount of glass.
Interesting to note that the deal has now been extended to Dec 8.
Timur Born: I talked to Adobe's German shopping line today. According to them you get to rent Photoshop, but *own* Lightroom 5. The drawback is that when LR 6 arrives you have to buy an upgrade, just like anybody else.
Too bad, I would have been more tempted if I knew that I'd get two versions of Lightroom for about the same price that I'd have to pay for two upgrades, with Photoshop CC on top (owning LR4).
As I said, i'll wager that you'll get your CC version of Lightroom updated to whatever comes out during your subscription but once you stop paying that CC version will stop running and all you'll be able to do is install the version 4 that you own outright now. Think of your current LR4 and the copy of LR5 you get with CC as two entirely separate things.
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.
IIRC Elements and Lightroom usually get a temporary major cut this time of year. I bought LR4 for instance on about a 30-40% off deal last year. So I wouldn't read too much into it. I remember seeing the Elements combo on Amazon Black Friday deals for about £50.
If they were genuinely 'cracking' then the $9.99 CC deal would be permanent and with some genuine future commitment and not expiring on Monday.
Prognathous: Adobe: The price is $9.99 a month for the current year, and then $19.99 a month in subsequent years.
I'd get use out of it (I use it in my day job so am quite savvy with it) but it was just a question of whether I'd get additional extra out of it over and above what i have now to justify such an open ended commitment.
I've heard that it shouldn't go up too off Adobe staff via FB, but if that's the case then why not officially state that through more official channels? Much like their support people repeatedly saying 'this is the ongoing price' doesn't sit well with this whole thing being a time-limited offer. Its a toe in the water at a different price point on Adobe's part given the initial reaction to CC (especially those who don't make proper income using Adobe tools). Which way things go I don't think they entirely know themselves yet.
So if in about 12 months it doesn't go up more than pence/cents for this years deal-takers on renewal then i'll probably look at it again then. As it is I've got LR4 (haven't quite been able to justify upgrading that quite yet) and I don't do enough stuff often enough outside of that to quite justify springing for Photoshop.
pumeco: To all of you who thinks this is ok, it isn't, and in the simplest way possible, here's why:
It is NOT ok to continually pay for a product you will never own. Other than blatant greed, I cannot, no matter how hard I try, see any reason you should not be allowed to keep the product once your subscriptions have covered the cost of the retail product.
If you can think of even ONE reason you should not be allowed to keep the product you had covered the cost of, then I'm all ears!
People need to get a grip and stop talking crap. I could pay, say, £600 for a Photoshop licence before, and therefore there is no reason I should not be able to keep my licence once I covered that £600 in subscription fees.
What they are doing ought to be illegal, it is NOT a phone service, it is NOT a product that can ONLY work through a subscription model. They should offer a choice, or, allow you to keep your licence once covered but stop the updates if you stop paying your subscription.
With rented property you do in some cases have some restriction on rises in rent and you also have a healthy market of alternate property if someone starts taking liberties.
Bob Meyer: I have to laugh at all the criticism of Adobe. If you don't like it, don't sign up. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
I have to laugh at those people who say it's "wrong," especially those who tell me what is good for me. It's neither right nor wrong. It's a business decision. If it generates more income for Adobe it's "right" for the company and it's shareholders. Adobe isn't in business to make you happy; it's in business to make money. And what's "right or wrong" for you doesn't matter to me; I'll make up my own mind, thank you.
The only real problem I have with this deal is that it's bait and switch. After 1 year Adobe jacks the price back up to their normal rate, anf you're screwed.
They haven't committed to any such thing. I've had conversations with Adobe where their customer services say it 'might' stay at that rate forever (even a suggestion it could go 'pay what its worth') but there has been no hard contractual commitment of the sort. TBH if they committed even for a couple of years I would've already signed up. However, what they're not saying is what's putting me off.
The Scurvy Dog of PR: This just in! And why I can no longer trust Adobe to do the right thing. Who knew they still have not notified everyone of their security breech of a month ago? http://www.electronista DOT /articles/13/11/25/up.to.138.million.adobe.cc.accounts.violated.by.data.breach/
I've certainly never been told about the account hack by them but oddly I now get spam to an address that was only ever used for an Adobe ID account. How odd.
I'd expect the CC version of LR to get upgraded whilst I continue to subscribe. I wouldn't expect my 'bought' version of LR4 to get magically upgraded though.
Unless there is some quirk with LR that means they can't stop the upgrade being applied to the 'bought' version. This seems improbable though as if I went and bought a LR4 to LR5 upgrade now then don't you get a fresh licence code issued?
EDIT: Having read the Jeff Tranberry posts in your link he actually seems to back up what I'm saying. Yes you'll get upgrades to Lightroom via CC (as you'd expect) but this doesn't mean those updates will be applicable if you revert back to an older version you had on perpetual 'bought' licence. i.e. if you have LR4 now on perpetual, buy the CC deal and later cancel then you'll be back at LR4 as whatever version you had via CC will cease to work.
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..
What I think a lot of people would go for is if after 2 or 3 years you had the option to terminate the subscription but maintain the version you were on 'as is' with no further updates/support. Maybe with a severance payment (say 6 months subs as a one-off lump sum) if the sums don't add up quite enough for the vendor. Yes, people can vote with their feet and move to another product but with proprietary formats and so on then the hassle can be considerable even if your old software still works 'as is'.
I've certainly used subscription-based software in the past (mainly development tools, MSDN and so on) and you always had the security that the stuff kept working 'as is' if you no longer needed continual updates. There was however a cost incentive in terms of reduced year 2+ rates to keep the subscription instead of just taking out a new minimum subscription every other year.
Timur, I had the same conversation with Adobe UK and they said both PS and LR on the CC offer are subscription-based. The only way you'd have LR post-subscription is if you already own a 'bought' version on perpetual licence (and you'd obviously only have whichever version you last bought outright).
And as others have said, some kind of commitment on price (even the first year renewal) would make a world of difference. I've even had people at Adobe say "well we've heard this is the price going forward", yet no one actually wants to officially commit to that. And the time limited nature of this $9.99/£8.78 offer only adds fuel to that scepticism.
The annoying thing is this offer should be an absolute no-brainer. However, the lack of transparency/firm commitment on Adobe's part (plus the damaged trust many have with them and total loss of software at the end of the subscription) makes me (and apparently many others) hold back.
TomCreek: I call Shenanigans! How could a lens case be priced at $699!!! ;=)
...because its the same company that thinks nothing of asking about £50 for an SLR battery and about £100 for a mounting ring?
Dante1: Yet another rip-off. Since when have Euros been worth more than Pounds?RRP of £11999.99 / €11800
Everyone knows that tech has a special exchange rate of $1=£1=€1
tdptdp: Adobe usually has 3 or 4 titles in anybody's list of most pirated software, and Photoshop is always one of them. I can't blame them for moving to a model that makes this less prevalent.
Looks like the pirates ruined it for everyone who wanted a boxed copy.
Correct. I doubt many foiled pirates would turn into CC subscriptions, whilst at the same time people who previously bought the product but can't justify the eternal commitment may well look elsewhere. And when it is eventually cracked (and it will be) then a number of previously paying customers will probably go down the piracy route. All the while you're having to devote development effort into making it crack-proof once more.
What might've been more sensible was following the same model as others where a flat fee buys you 12 months of updates. If after a year you don't renew then you keep the product you had up until that point but with no further updates unless you start over. I suspect most would've been happy with this and it also encourages the vendor to keep updates/feature additions regular in order to keep people continually subscribing.
wkramer: Those who pirate software would not usually be a purchaser of the software if it could not be pirated. Very little to no extra income for Adobe from the current pirates.
It'll probably get pirated more severely than ever before in all likelihood.