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.
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.
BaldCol, wow, you really don't get it do you?
A software licence is NOT a house or an office, nor is it a phone. Such things lend themselves to being rented, however, software does not because there is NO reason it needs to be in "Rent" form other than to milk you for a constant stream of cash.
I'll say it again because you keep dodging this one:
Go on, try as hard as you like because whatever you come up with is going to be as wrong as this whole renting farce. It is people like you that companies such as Adobe thrive on.
To all of you who thinks this is ok, it isn't, and in the simplest way possible, here's why:
David Rossberg: This is a great deal, Adobe finally did something reasonable and ppl are still complaining.
VirtualMirage, the only reason I don't answer all the questions is because there's little point in arguing the toss with anyone who is prepared to pay out a constant stream of cash for something they will NEVER own.
Why can't you grasp that?
Comparing it to a phone contract is beyond stupidity. You were able to buy a one-time licence before, and therefore, you ought to still have the option to buy one now. I can imagine there are businesses extremely pleased with this model, but for the rest it's just a cash-milking machine.
They are not giving you the choice, THAT is the problem.
As for Apple (another greed-machine), there is no such thing as a lame Apple joke. Every Apple joke I've ever seen serves a purpose; to warn people that they are effectively about to pay a company to shackle them.
Anyone who CHOOSES to PAY TO BE SHACKLED is not on the same intellectual level as those that choose not to.
Use RawTherapee; cheaper, better, faster than Lightroom - NO SHACKLES INVOLVED!!!
I don't fall into any of them, rather I fall into the one you missed out because it didn't occur to you: I fall into the category of those that have a fully-functioning brain.
As I said in another post, enjoy your digital shackles because if nothing else, at the very least it sounds quite kinky :-D
And the many more millions that collectively choose to use the alternatives, disagree with yours :-D
jimkahnw: Don't criticize Adobe for creating a way to protect its investment. They employ an army of coders to build Photoshop and at one time PS was the most pirated software on the internet. Software as complex and powerful as PS is not free, and Adobe is entitled to make a profit, especially if it supplying tools that others use to make a profit. Hence the Creative Cloud business model.
As a professional user of Photoshop, I have always purchased the upgrades as they were released. I also use some of the other tools available from Creative Cloud, so the cost of the subscription is really a bargain, especially when compared with the prior prices of boxed versions. It's the cost of doing business.
Those users who would select less capable software, mostly out of spite, are giving up a competitive advantage.
BladCol, I have no intention of buying it, and that's the point, neither are you, they won't let you buy a copy any longer because they've discovered the art of milking a constant stream of cash out of you instead.
At the end of the day, you will do what you want and I'll do what I want. But seriously, it's actually a very sobering thought when you consider that these companies are able to pull-in "adults" who should know better. I mean if you're a teen that has yet to the discover the pitfalls of this world, fair enough, but an adult should know better. I feel exactly the same about people who use Apple products; if you're a teen, fair enough, but if you're an adult, no, I think there has to be something majorly wrong there.
No matter what way you look at it there are better alternatives than taking out a subscription that will leave you with no purchased product at the end of it, but as that is what you want, go for it.
It'll cost you, not me.
That's because you're in the minority that thinks it's reasonable. The rest, however, can see that it is not.
pumeco: Adobe had a little lamb, her fleece was white as snow.And everywhere where 'dobe went the sheep were sure to go!
'tis, isn't it?
I'll let you into a secret here, just between us two mind you. That poem, it was actually written for an Apple-related thread, I just changed the name from Apple to Adobe.
But then I thought, nah, why save it for an Apple thread when there are much funnier gags already available for those:
Anyway, have fun with your Adobe shackles, it does sound kinda kinky ;-)
An hour and not a single like, you're just doing it to make me look bad, ah well, that sucks. Ok it doesn't suck as much as Adobe sucks, but it still sucks.
Ah well, I'm bored of you all now so I'm off to play with PhotoLine that I just downloaded - looks very capable.
Here's the link if you don't know what it is (I didn't until I found out about it just today):
BTW, I'm expecting LOTS of likes for that poem, I deserve it after all the like buttons I've been pressing here lately. I bet I'm not the only one with yellow fingers!
luchs: The whole point about the subscription is: PS has everything you need and updates become less attractive since what they can add is only necessary to few. (Intelligent scaling ...?) So you have to rent the Software to make sure the shareholders get their pay.
In case you are worried about the Price just get PhotoLine (www.pl32.com) - it does most of what PS does and a lot of what InDesign does, too. Unlike Serif PhotoPlus, which is also nice, it also supports different color modes, such has HSL and Lab and runs on Windows, Mac and Linux with wine.
Never heard of PhotoLine to be honest, sounds good though, will check it out.
RobertSigmund: "Rent" is the wrong term anyway - extort would be more appropriate. If you rent a flat, for example, you really have something, all the time, and the landlord cannot let it to somebody else. With this software, though, you get a product and once you got it, the cost for the company is quasi nil! Unless you believe their promises of constant upgrading, of course.
Yes, I do, I always purchase to flat-out own or I don't purchase. The technicality of it being a "licence" makes no difference in real terms, the point is I could have purchased Photoshop for over £500 if I was so inclined, but at least I would never have to pay further if I had not wanted to.
It's called choice, and you can no longer purchase such a licence.
Adobe had a little lamb, her fleece was white as snow.And everywhere where 'dobe went the sheep were sure to go!
Not really, the difference is that before you could pay and keep the product, but now they're forcing a neverending commitment in order to use it.
So, to reiterate what every other wise person has said - screw 'em - you don't need 'em anyway.
Felts: There's a lot of whinging and moaning about this (I realise I may get some backlash for this statement)...
£8.78 per month = £105.36 per year.If they put their prices up next year to, say, a tenner = £120 per year.The following year, maybe £12 = £144 per year.
So in 3 years you'll have paid £370 which is still just over half the price of CS6.
And you get LR5, storage etc., and all the subsequent updates as part of the package. I'm not sure I understand the negativity!?
And all this mention of greed... it's what companies do, try to make money.
If you want to sign up, great, enjoy the package. If you don't want to, also great... enjoy your other software programme.
It's made Photoshop affordable for me so I'm going to take the plunge! :-)
Yes, it does, but the problem is Adobe upgrades are never that significant and I might prefer to stick with whatever version I would be at.
Their system doesn't allow that, because there is no end to the payment even if you have covered the retail cost of the product.
I have thousands of pounds worth of commercial software I've purchased, and every one of them was purchased because I was prepared to accept the price that was being asked for it.
I've nothing against paid software, I just have zero tolerance for blatant greed.
Felts, I can't speak for others but my own reason for giving Adobe a "GREED" tag is this:
Prior to this subscription crap, Adobe products were already insanely over-priced for hobbyist and casual users. Now though, not being content with such outrageous pricing, they have gone one step further:
Before, you at least got to keep the product after you'd spent such ridiculous amounts of money on it, but now, you NEVER get to keep it no matter how much you pay for it. You really need to sit back and think about that. The system is a greed-machine and that's all there is to it.
When you're expected to pay and pay and pay and NEVER own a thing, it's a greed-machine. If, on the other hand, the product became yours after you'd paid an amount equal to it's retail, that would be different.
They aren't going to do that, though, and guess why?
SemperAugustus: If you are making money from your images $10 a month is reasonable, but if you are a hobbyist, amateur or just enthusiast, then IMHO is best to invest in another SW e.g. Corel Paint Shop Pro or even PSE For a photographer, LR is probably 90% of what you ever going to need, specially if you add some plugins like Nik Collection and Perfect Effects. They have the ability to add layers and blending. They also have some masks (not as powerful as PS) but adequate in most cases. Trying CC and cancelling is not a realistic option, PS is not something that you learn overnight, it does take years. So when you cancel your sub, not only you are left with no SW, you are letting go many man-days of effort and learning. Why not put that effort into some other SW.... Corel PSP has layers, masks, blending modes, selections, etc.... you could use LR for ACR and then trigger Corel PSP for a single image editing.
Semper, just to clarify, the X6 I'm talking about is the Serif product not the Corel product.
The links will take you to Serif, not Corel. Like I said, although I used to use the Corel product, I think the Serif product is better, it's slicker, more responsive and has a nice workflow that doesn't paste lots of floating windows all over the place.
Believe me, as far as paid products go, there is nothing to touch Serif Photoplus X6 for bitmaps and Serif Drawplus X6 for vector work.
The only problem (and I don't know if they still do this), is that the demo they put out is nothing like the latest full product, it's actually many versions behind if I recall. I never saw the logic in that and it must cost them thousands of lost sales.
The actual purchasable product, though, that's VERY powerfull indeed. I remember playing around with Drawplus' vector stuff and being amazed to find I could even snap gradient colour points to a grid.
I didn't buy at the time due to a grid bug.
"Not GREED... PROFIT."
Yeah, or even "GREED for PROFIT"Same thing.