Adobe Creative Cloud update brings ability to download previous versions

Well said. And all of that is on top of the subscription that ends up costing you a fortune in the long run.

@Kim
I guess you also say no to subscription based cable tv, internet connection, a mobile phone, a car, a mortage on your house, and some insurances too?

@Just a Photographer: I already replied to your analogy to cel phone subscriptions in a later post. This analogy you are trying has gone from bad to worse. Cable and cell services are overly expensive and cancellation is punative, even under stricter rules brought recently in Canada. According to several recent articles, the situation in the USA is not much better. So using these as the basis of your apology for Adobe is only makin them look just as bad.

As for a car and a mortgage, these are LONS then end up with OWNERSHIP. How silly of you to confuse the two concepts. Insurance is a subscription model as well, and is intended to compensate someone after a death or other disaster. This is again not the same thing as Adobe's subscription service.

Since you want to pound this drum, how about you compare this with Microsoft Office? I subscribe to 2013 and I get all of the Office applications for 5 people for 11 bucks a month. That makes Adobe look downright predatory.

That is not what I am asking you Kim.

I am asking you if you have subcription to any of those services.
If you have them then you either stop using them because you find yourself being robbed. Or you 'shut up' and buy into their commercial model. Even if you are against it.

Nobody forces you to use Adobe software. There are plenty of other programs you could use to edit your images. Yet you seem determined to want to use Adobe Software. Then accept the consequence of that decision, or leave it alone and choose something else.

You're not Don Quichotte are you?

@NDT0001: Why do you suppose Adobe finally broke with their long-standing insistence that they could not support newer versions of ACR on any given version of Photoshop? The answer is obvious: because they could not go into the cloud and force everyone to follow and spend far more than they were willing. So they have maintained support for all new cameras in ACR and will continue to do so until they are willing to absorb the costs of the backlash of the century.

I realize you (NDT0001) might be very, very new to the scene; but you're so incorrect. If he wishes to use photoshop CS6 with newer DSLRs he can first convert the raws to DNG them import them into CS6. Or even better: he doesn't even need photoshop to process his raw files; there are products that do a better job. He can go on & edit the converted raws in CS6 or PS7.

If I were converting large numbers of raw files I wouldn't use photoshop. Something like DXO would be one of the faster editing programs. Also, not all professional photographers shoot large quantities. I have known photographers who specialise in still life and would only shoot one at a time. Photography is a wide a varied profession with many different techniques and practices.

Your right JF69 i have no clue. But i do use software like Photoshop that can edit raws directly from import to export without having to jump around with different software or do conversions. If peasants like yourself wish to keep using sub standard or superseded software because your too cheap to use the latest software to streamline your workflow thats your choice i guess 3rd world fool lol.

I guess you don't own a mobile phone either?

Meaby you own one, but you still need a subscription to be able to use it. Without having a phone subscription it doesn't make sense to own a mobile phone.

Is that robery too?

@NDT0001: Derision and dismissive name calling does not actually bequeath an illusion of superior intelligence, assuming that is why you are doing it. Now, assuming that you are either an employee or apologist of Adobe's, your point of view is the well known positive side of the subscription model. But the excessive cost and the forced perpetual spending is the down side, and is an equally legitimate argument.

@Just a Photographer: Yes, it is also robbery. The cell phone business is known to have excessive and punitive costs, especially in Canada and the USA. I would shy away from using that as some kind of paragon of righteousness to which Adobe should aspire. They are already there :-)

Hey man, don't like a product? Don't buy it! Simple. What a bunch of spoiled babies we've become when it's considered "robbery" everytime we don't like the price of some retail product. Like we have some god-given right to photo editing software.

@J: We have the right to get value for money. Conversion of a defacto standard to a subscription model at a very high price is a violation of our trust. People are not "babies" for complaining, although insulting them for it might be considered a bit puerile.

Well i think its fair to say that Adobe will persist with the new business model. They may lose some users, those people probably weren't really their core customer base anyway. (upgrading your software every 3 years is not gonna help their revenues) Adobe want to keep their Pro users who have integrated the suite as part of running their businesses every day, be it photography, graphic or web design so i think people on forums can rant all they like but is not gonna change a thing.
And i really disagree about the price being more expensive. I can tell you with absolute certainty that i payed more for PS and lightroom previously than the $120 per year subscription they are currently paying. I do agree that they got off to a shaky start with price packages but they listened to photographers and packaged a deal for them which is currently $10 pm for 1 year. Im sure this will go up in the futuee, but then again, so would the box version.

"Well i think its fair to say that Adobe will persist with the new business model. They may lose some users, those people probably weren't really their core customer base anyway. "

They probably also GAIN a lot of new users for which the the old pricing system was much too high. 10 dollars a month isn't really that expensive considering you get Photoshop + Lightroom hassle free - No jailbraik, required and you get proper support on your software too. ;)

@BaldCol: There are a huge number of people on this forum that already own GS5 or earlier. To get the new features we now have to pony up 240 per year (Adobe has always maintained that the 10 dollar price is temporary, leaving them open to double the price at any time and that's one reason so many people refuse to do it) ...

For new people, the entry price is cheaper, but the real price when it hits will make it 3 years to get to the payback and that's as long as many people go before upgrading since Adobe always have fed small increments to the market as upgrades ...

If you think there is some benevolent force at play here then you missed marketing 101 somewhere along the way ...

Two incredibly successful, multibillion dollar companies who have userbases in the hundreds of millions and make software so relied upon by an overwhelming majority of professionals in their respective fields that they are near monopolies?

Yeah, you sure burned them, bro.

Like it or not, this is the present nature of the software industry. Companies are moving to the subscription model, largely because diminishing rates of version upgrade purchases over the last decade have led to severe revenue pressure. And, like it or not, these are publicly traded companies with a legal responsibility to maximize shareholder value.

Personally, I don't like it either, but, as a technology journalist, I've been writing about the upgrade business for more than 20 years.

You probably mean Apple? They've been for charging $99 for buggy updates to the same operating system for 10 years, until just recently. As far as I know, when you go to Windows Update, it doesn't need to have your credit card number on file.