Why all the hating on Adobe?

[charlyw64]

Abandonware or companies no longer being in business is not the issue here.

But it could easily have been - because in a basically saturated market you can rarely generate the profits needed to do both new development and decent software maintenance. One or the other suffers (most of the time it's the software maintenance). I am working in the industry and it has been like that since the day I started. Btw. Software subscriptions were already the norm 30 years ago in business environments.

How could you tell?

By the same slow pace of improvement as in the pre-CC days. But it´s the other way around: Those that do claim CC has increased the speed of innovation should be able to provide evidence. I have yet to see any.

You need to also consider one thing. As a publicly traded company the company has certain duties - and these may even be enforced by law. In the US there is a law that free feature updates are not allowed to protect investments by the shareholders (yes corporate America is so strange), all feature updates must be paid updates (ever since a software company didn't put their shareholders interest first with some sort of iffy scheme that involved free updates of their software). That's why previously to going subscription Adobe has had a 2 year cycle and for example anything except new camera support was relegated to this schedule. Now they can freely publish major feature updates whenever they are ready for public consumption - so your "speed of innovation" no longer is forced into a paid update every 2 year cycle.

 

[Liquid Light]

Abandonware or companies no longer being in business is not the issue here.

But it could easily have been - because in a basically saturated market you can rarely generate the profits needed to do both new development and decent software maintenance. One or the other suffers (most of the time it's the software maintenance). I am working in the industry and it has been like that since the day I started. Btw. Software subscriptions were already the norm 30 years ago in business environments.

How could you tell?

By the same slow pace of improvement as in the pre-CC days. But it´s the other way around: Those that do claim CC has increased the speed of innovation should be able to provide evidence. I have yet to see any.

You need to also consider one thing. As a publicly traded company the company has certain duties - and these may even be enforced by law. In the US there is a law that free feature updates are not allowed to protect investments by the shareholders (yes corporate America is so strange), all feature updates must be paid updates (ever since a software company didn't put their shareholders interest first with some sort of iffy scheme that involved free updates of their software). That's why previously to going subscription Adobe has had a 2 year cycle and for example anything except new camera support was relegated to this schedule. Now they can freely publish major feature updates whenever they are ready for public consumption - so your "speed of innovation" no longer is forced into a paid update every 2 year cycle.

"Free feature updates"? When was that ever the case with all things Adobe, before and after CC introduction? Currently, Adobe seems on a one year update cycle, during Creative Suite days it was approximately a 1,5 year update cycle. Or are you implying Adobe broke the law in pre-CC days for 15-20 years?

I already mentioned that there is a reasonable use case for a subscription model, namely for companies who need the software for short periods of time only, or who need fast scalability of the number of licenses used. But this is perfectly compatible with maintaining and offering perpetual licenses.

As far as invoking a subscription model as the norm in business environments, why don´t you sort this out with those who claim CC is good because it allowed cheap and immediate access to Photoshop for individuals who don´t want to pay 600-1000$ for a perpetual license?

 

[charlyw64]

Abandonware or companies no longer being in business is not the issue here.

But it could easily have been - because in a basically saturated market you can rarely generate the profits needed to do both new development and decent software maintenance. One or the other suffers (most of the time it's the software maintenance). I am working in the industry and it has been like that since the day I started. Btw. Software subscriptions were already the norm 30 years ago in business environments.

How could you tell?

By the same slow pace of improvement as in the pre-CC days. But it´s the other way around: Those that do claim CC has increased the speed of innovation should be able to provide evidence. I have yet to see any.

You need to also consider one thing. As a publicly traded company the company has certain duties - and these may even be enforced by law. In the US there is a law that free feature updates are not allowed to protect investments by the shareholders (yes corporate America is so strange), all feature updates must be paid updates (ever since a software company didn't put their shareholders interest first with some sort of iffy scheme that involved free updates of their software). That's why previously to going subscription Adobe has had a 2 year cycle and for example anything except new camera support was relegated to this schedule. Now they can freely publish major feature updates whenever they are ready for public consumption - so your "speed of innovation" no longer is forced into a paid update every 2 year cycle.

"Free feature updates"? When was that ever the case with all things Adobe, before and after CC introduction?

They were legally forbidden as a publicly traded company in the US!

Currently, Adobe seems on a one year update cycle, during Creative Suite days it was approximately a 1,5 year update cycle. Or are you implying Adobe broke the law in pre-CC days for 15-20 years?

Nope, those feature updates were always paid updates, as mandated by law - which by the way came into effect just around the switch to subscription. Back then it was doubtful if even smaller feature updates like camera support were to be allowed under the new law.

I already mentioned that there is a reasonable use case for a subscription model, namely for companies who need the software for short periods of time only, or who need fast scalability of the number of licenses used. But this is perfectly compatible with maintaining and offering perpetual licenses.

Except that perpetual licenses have major drawbacks for users and especially software developers. The company I work for has a mix model, where practically every piece of software comes with (effectively) mandatory software maintenance agreement because there are outside influences that will require us to put in work to keep the software up to date with regards to changing tax and corporate laws.

As far as invoking a subscription model as the norm in business environments,

It is the norm as the corporate business environment has little to do with what you think about in terms of PS for individuals. The subscription is good because it allows for

a) speedy development (they have the money to hire the required developers).

b) good software maintenance (again money for the required developers).

c) cloud (do you really think that providing cloud storage doesn't cost anything)

d) implementation of features that incur additional cost on the base of usage (I only say map module where Google changed terms of service a few years back and as a consequence companies like Adobe need to pay a monthly fee on the use of this feature in LR)
If I can I would always go for a subscription over a "perpetual license" as I know that with current development trends in OS maintenance you can only bet on the longevity of an unmaintained perpetual license to be in the order of months, maybe a year... I know, because I constantly need to adapt to new things broken because of "security fixes" by Microsoft. If we didn't have those maintenance agreements in place we would probably have to work for free a lot - and that isn't healthy for a company.

 

[Liquid Light]

"Free feature updates"? When was that ever the case with all things Adobe, before and after CC introduction?

They were legally forbidden as a publicly traded company in the US!

Currently, Adobe seems on a one year update cycle, during Creative Suite days it was approximately a 1,5 year update cycle. Or are you implying Adobe broke the law in pre-CC days for 15-20 years?

Nope, those feature updates were always paid updates, as mandated by law - which by the way came into effect just around the switch to subscription. Back then it was doubtful if even smaller feature updates like camera support were to be allowed under the new law.

I already mentioned that there is a reasonable use case for a subscription model, namely for companies who need the software for short periods of time only, or who need fast scalability of the number of licenses used. But this is perfectly compatible with maintaining and offering perpetual licenses.

Except that perpetual licenses have major drawbacks for users and especially software developers. The company I work for has a mix model, where practically every piece of software comes with (effectively) mandatory software maintenance agreement because there are outside influences that will require us to put in work to keep the software up to date with regards to changing tax and corporate laws.

As far as invoking a subscription model as the norm in business environments,

It is the norm as the corporate business environment has little to do with what you think about in terms of PS for individuals. The subscription is good because it allows for

a) speedy development (they have the money to hire the required developers).

b) good software maintenance (again money for the required developers).

c) cloud (do you really think that providing cloud storage doesn't cost anything)

d) implementation of features that incur additional cost on the base of usage (I only say map module where Google changed terms of service a few years back and as a consequence companies like Adobe need to pay a monthly fee on the use of this feature in LR)

If I can I would always go for a subscription over a "perpetual license" as I know that with current development trends in OS maintenance you can only bet on the longevity of an unmaintained perpetual license to be in the order of months, maybe a year... I know, because I constantly need to adapt to new things broken because of "security fixes" by Microsoft. If we didn't have those maintenance agreements in place we would probably have to work for free a lot - and that isn't healthy for a company.

I really wish you would consider what I actually wrote, instead of replying to what you think I wrote.

Here´s my comment:

"As far as invoking a subscription model as the norm in business environments, why don´t you sort this out with those who claim CC is good because it allowed cheap and immediate access to Photoshop for individuals who don´t want to pay 600-1000$ for a perpetual license?"

It is not me who said the switch to subscription only is good for the individual. I see both claims (good for the corporate environment vs. good for the individual) as basically a pretense, or a rationalization.

My point is that one half of apologists of Adobe´s business model claiming subscription only is good in a corporate environment with the other half claiming the opposite doesn´t look convincing.

I pointed out the major flaws in a subscription model. You do not address those. Your arguments from maintenance and development do not convince me, b/c as I stated earlier, I do not see any difference in the pace and quality of innovations after the switch to CC.

Personally, I do not need cloud storage. afaik, you pay extra for more cloud storage, so this is a feature independent of the type of license offered.

The only argument which is new to me is the changed legal situation. I will look into this. It seems strange though that this has never been used by Adobe as a justification for going subscription only. At least I do not remember them making this claim. Considering the negative backlash Adobe faced in 2012/2013, one would think they´d had been well advised to use every conceivable resource to make them look less greedy.

And finally, as I´ve said already: I´d have ZERO issues with Adobe´s business model if they offered both, or at least some way to opt out of CC while keeping the software used up until that point as a perpetual license.

All attempts to somehow make the switch to subscription only look like the objectively better choice fall short. The underlying motive is revenue, and not the interest of the customer.

 

[charlyw64]

And finally, as I´ve said already: I´d have ZERO issues with Adobe´s business model if they offered both, or at least some way to opt out of CC while keeping the software used up until that point as a perpetual license.

Given the tight integration of the cloud functionality and the simple presence of the network functionality mandating time sensitive development of security fixes I do not longer see the perpetual license model as viable. As a company you can not leave old libraries like OpenSSL or sFTP providers unmaintained. So they could offer a perpetual license but that would be accompanied by a mandatory maintenance agreement. Sorry to burst your bubble but current OS environments make a solely perpetual license a liability for the customer.

 

[lumigraphics]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

 

[Zeee]

Of course the easy no brain approach is to intentionally misintrepret what I said and assume an audience of similar folks. No, lets get you started. What do you see in the future one hundred years for this planet?

We won't need good air or food. Ray Kurzweil recently updated his predictions. In 5 years computers will as smart as humans. By 2045 humans will merge with AI.


You just need to keep the forests wet

 

[Zeee]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

What parts are you talking about? In 2018 LR6 went subscription and based on the members here that complained it was supposed to be Adobe's last nail in the coffin. Turned out to be the opposite.

Pretty mild for the last several years until the lawsuit. Complaints again but I wonder how many actually really dropped their subscription because of that. We won't see the results of that the lawsuit for a few years. If they are found guilty they will pay and move on. They are not the first and won't be the last. Amazon is going to court next year for the similar thing.

The cloud issue. People thought their computers were being scanned and their files in the cloud were used to train AI. An article said people were threatening to drop Adobe who responded by saying computers are not scanned and AI is trained only using licensed stock photos. They are scanning files in the cloud to flag for things like child pornography. So now that this has been settled how many actually left Adobe. Was it in droves?

Not as much traffic on this one. Only about 40 posts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67705423

 

[lumigraphics]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

What parts are you talking about? In 2018 LR6 went subscription and based on the members here that complained it was supposed to be Adobe's last nail in the coffin. Turned out to be the opposite.

Pretty mild for the last several years until the lawsuit. Complaints again but I wonder how many actually really dropped their subscription because of that. We won't see the results of that the lawsuit for a few years. If they are found guilty they will pay and move on. They are not the first and won't be the last. Amazon is going to court next year for the similar thing.

The cloud issue. People thought their computers were being scanned and their files in the cloud were used to train AI. An article said people were threatening to drop Adobe who responded by saying computers are not scanned and AI is trained only using licensed stock photos. They are scanning files in the cloud to flag for things like child pornography. So now that this has been settled how many actually left Adobe. Was it in droves?

Not as much traffic on this one. Only about 40 posts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67705423

I'm talking about all of it. Dropping support for older perpetual software that was sold with a "lifetime" license. Revoking serial numbers. Not allowing downloads of older CC versions. Their huge advertising/data collection business. The huge AI push that threatens many of the creative customers. Adobe has TERRIBLY abusive business practices.

 

[Zeee]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

What parts are you talking about? In 2018 LR6 went subscription and based on the members here that complained it was supposed to be Adobe's last nail in the coffin. Turned out to be the opposite.

Pretty mild for the last several years until the lawsuit. Complaints again but I wonder how many actually really dropped their subscription because of that. We won't see the results of that the lawsuit for a few years. If they are found guilty they will pay and move on. They are not the first and won't be the last. Amazon is going to court next year for the similar thing.

The cloud issue. People thought their computers were being scanned and their files in the cloud were used to train AI. An article said people were threatening to drop Adobe who responded by saying computers are not scanned and AI is trained only using licensed stock photos. They are scanning files in the cloud to flag for things like child pornography. So now that this has been settled how many actually left Adobe. Was it in droves?

Not as much traffic on this one. Only about 40 posts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67705423

I'm talking about all of it. Dropping support for older perpetual software that was sold with a "lifetime" license. Revoking serial numbers. Not allowing downloads of older CC versions. Their huge advertising/data collection business. The huge AI push that threatens many of the creative customers. Adobe has TERRIBLY abusive business practices.

So Adobe is the only company utilizing AI? If you don't like AI you better buckle up because you definitely will not like what's coming. All companies collect data on you every day. If you use your credit card, loyalty cards, etc. Uber lost money but venture capitalists kept it afloat for the data it collects. Data is more valuable than oil.

Adobe will go court which is good for consumers. If they are as terrible as you say I would have stopped using their products long ago. They have been very accommodating when I had any issues. They have not ticked me off yet. I dropped from Amazon a few months ago because Bezos can afford his own rocket ship and they wanted to charge me another $2 a month for ad free TV.

 

[Liquid Light]

And finally, as I´ve said already: I´d have ZERO issues with Adobe´s business model if they offered both, or at least some way to opt out of CC while keeping the software used up until that point as a perpetual license.

Given the tight integration of the cloud functionality and the simple presence of the network functionality mandating time sensitive development of security fixes I do not longer see the perpetual license model as viable. As a company you can not leave old libraries like OpenSSL or sFTP providers unmaintained. So they could offer a perpetual license but that would be accompanied by a mandatory maintenance agreement. Sorry to burst your bubble but current OS environments make a solely perpetual license a liability for the customer.

And yet there are companies that offer perpetual license only, and perpetual license and subscription models simultaneously. Besides, I, as the paying customer, prefer to make that choice myself, without some company telling me it´s in my best interest if they chose for me.

That said, you raise interesting points, both from a legal and a technical POV, and I will look into them. From all the discussions I´ve had in the past about this issue, your arguments appear to offer more meat to the bone, to the extend I´m able to understand the underlying issues without delving deeper into the matter.

But for now I´d say we´ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Zeee]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

What parts are you talking about? In 2018 LR6 went subscription and based on the members here that complained it was supposed to be Adobe's last nail in the coffin. Turned out to be the opposite.

Pretty mild for the last several years until the lawsuit. Complaints again but I wonder how many actually really dropped their subscription because of that. We won't see the results of that the lawsuit for a few years. If they are found guilty they will pay and move on. They are not the first and won't be the last. Amazon is going to court next year for the similar thing.

The cloud issue. People thought their computers were being scanned and their files in the cloud were used to train AI. An article said people were threatening to drop Adobe who responded by saying computers are not scanned and AI is trained only using licensed stock photos. They are scanning files in the cloud to flag for things like child pornography. So now that this has been settled how many actually left Adobe. Was it in droves?

Not as much traffic on this one. Only about 40 posts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67705423

I'm talking about all of it. Dropping support for older perpetual software that was sold with a "lifetime" license. Revoking serial numbers. Not allowing downloads of older CC versions. Their huge advertising/data collection business. The huge AI push that threatens many of the creative customers. Adobe has TERRIBLY abusive business practices.

So Adobe is the only company utilizing AI? If you don't like AI you better buckle up because you definitely will not like what's coming. All companies collect data on you every day. If you use your credit card, loyalty cards, etc. Uber lost money but venture capitalists kept it afloat for the data it collects. Data is more valuable than oil.

Adobe will go court which is good for consumers. If they are as terrible as you say I would have stopped using their products long ago. They have been very accommodating when I had any issues. They have not ticked me off yet. I dropped from Amazon a few months ago because Bezos can afford his own rocket ship and they wanted to charge me another $2 a month for ad free TV.

Just to add have two perpetual licences that are unusable. PL3 and Affinity v1. Neither support my cameras. So far Adobe kept its promise to me. No price increases since 2018 even though I did expect it to happen..

 

[Jacques Cornell]

"Skip the photoshoot."

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

I've got the ten bucks a month, you've got the awesome software. Don't ever go back to $699 Photoshop and $189 Lightroom plus biannual upgrades. You're well rid of the six or eight malcontents venting their spleen to zero effect.

 

[lumigraphics]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

What parts are you talking about? In 2018 LR6 went subscription and based on the members here that complained it was supposed to be Adobe's last nail in the coffin. Turned out to be the opposite.

Pretty mild for the last several years until the lawsuit. Complaints again but I wonder how many actually really dropped their subscription because of that. We won't see the results of that the lawsuit for a few years. If they are found guilty they will pay and move on. They are not the first and won't be the last. Amazon is going to court next year for the similar thing.

The cloud issue. People thought their computers were being scanned and their files in the cloud were used to train AI. An article said people were threatening to drop Adobe who responded by saying computers are not scanned and AI is trained only using licensed stock photos. They are scanning files in the cloud to flag for things like child pornography. So now that this has been settled how many actually left Adobe. Was it in droves?

Not as much traffic on this one. Only about 40 posts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67705423

I'm talking about all of it. Dropping support for older perpetual software that was sold with a "lifetime" license. Revoking serial numbers. Not allowing downloads of older CC versions. Their huge advertising/data collection business. The huge AI push that threatens many of the creative customers. Adobe has TERRIBLY abusive business practices.

So Adobe is the only company utilizing AI? If you don't like AI you better buckle up because you definitely will not like what's coming. All companies collect data on you every day. If you use your credit card, loyalty cards, etc. Uber lost money but venture capitalists kept it afloat for the data it collects. Data is more valuable than oil.

Adobe will go court which is good for consumers. If they are as terrible as you say I would have stopped using their products long ago. They have been very accommodating when I had any issues. They have not ticked me off yet. I dropped from Amazon a few months ago because Bezos can afford his own rocket ship and they wanted to charge me another $2 a month for ad free TV.

Logical fallacy, strawman argument. You lose. Yapping and yammering don't change the facts, either.

 

[ishwanu]

Don't ever go back to $699 Photoshop and $189 Lightroom plus biannual upgrades.

I don't think that particular talking point works for Photoshop anymore. Adobe was able to charge such prices in the past because of less direct competition in that space. One would have to be a very dedicated Photoshop fan to pay that much for a perpetual license today. I think the expectation is that if a perpetual license were offered, it would have to be lower to attract the desired user base.

However, a Lightroom perpetual license deal at around that price could appeal to some users who have no expectations of upgrading.

 

[BillyBobSenna]

Don't ever go back to $699 Photoshop and $189 Lightroom plus biannual upgrades.

I don't think that particular talking point works for Photoshop anymore. Adobe was able to charge such prices in the past because of less direct competition in that space. One would have to be a very dedicated Photoshop fan to pay that much for a perpetual license today. I think the expectation is that if a perpetual license were offered, it would have to be lower to attract the desired user base.

However, a Lightroom perpetual license deal at around that price could appeal to some users who have no expectations of upgrading.

I think there are a lot of professionals that depend on photoshop and would have no problem paying $700.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Don't ever go back to $699 Photoshop and $189 Lightroom plus biannual upgrades.

I don't think that particular talking point works for Photoshop anymore. Adobe was able to charge such prices in the past because of less direct competition in that space. One would have to be a very dedicated Photoshop fan to pay that much for a perpetual license today.

That might be the first software anywhere to lower their previous price, especially since DXO and C1 also cost a lot with nowhere near the features.

I think the expectation is that if a perpetual license were offered, it would have to be lower to attract the desired user base.

It certainly attracted the desired user base ten years ago, not to mention an insane amount of piracy.

However, a Lightroom perpetual license deal at around that price could appeal to some users who have no expectations of upgrading.

An interesting speculation perhaps, but it will never happen.

 

[LongTimeNikonUser]

Abandonware or companies no longer being in business is not the issue here.

That's why previously to going subscription Adobe has had a 2 year cycle and for example anything except new camera support was relegated to this schedule. Now they can freely publish major feature updates whenever they are ready for public consumption - so your "speed of innovation" no longer is forced into a paid update every 2 year cycle.

In effect, Adobe can now innovate FASTER than they could with the old purchase model.

 

[LongTimeNikonUser]

Adobe has changed from an engineering-focused company to a bunch of corporate moneygrubbers. Same thing that happened to Boeing, and similar result. Adobe is screwing a lot of its customers with its business practices and surprise! Its causing a lot of complaints.

They are a publicly traded company, so they have to answer to the shareholders, who are the real owners. If a publicly traded company screws up, then there is usually a takeover attempt or an effort to replace the board of directors. Adobe is not a non-profit or public benefit corporation, like PBS (in the US).

Interesting that I as the OP am getting favorable comments from other people in IT. They get good, well-paying jobs only in companies that are profitable.

If a company is not profitable, that's bad for the employees. I've been through several shutdowns and downsizings. Ugly for everyone, including the survivors.

Like it or not, Adobe is owned by shareholders. Of course, if you don't like this business model, AND you have the requisite software skills, you can always start a project to do an Open Source non-destructive RAW editor. (Forget the DAM and other parts.) After all GIMP exists as a Photoshop workalike. Why not a Lightroom workalike.