Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 07 May 2013 (Tuesday) 07:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Photoshop - Subscription Only from now on

 
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 14, 2013 17:02 |  #76

elrey2375 wrote in post #15931898 (external link)
$30 a month. Is that a huge outlay? We probably waste that much in a week on lattes and gum and other crap. This is a product that will be updated and is a part of many people's workflow. I know that change scares most people but I don't see it as bad for me personally.

But is it relevant how much you spend on gum and other crap? The fact is that it represents a doubling of cost for lots of people. And the upgrades may result in people needing to get a new computer instead of staying with an older version of the software. And what about all the other disadvantages? Why focus just on $30/month?


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ThreeGuysPhoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,401 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Texas
     
May 14, 2013 17:32 |  #77

elrey2375 wrote in post #15931898 (external link)
$30 a month. Is that a huge outlay? We probably waste that much in a week on lattes and gum and other crap. This is a product that will be updated and is a part of many people's workflow. I know that change scares most people but I don't see it as bad for me personally.

It is $20 / month (yearly subscription) for PS on CC. Forget the 1st year special pricing, etc...

1. Double the cost we were paying if we bought the PS upgrade each time (18-24 months).
2. If you want to skip an upgrade you are SOL.
3. If you stop paying you have nothing (before you had the last version you had upgraded)

I'm keeping CS6 for heavy lifting and keeping my LR up to date as long as they keep releasing it with a perpetual license. And $20 a month adds up when the months never end.


-Wayne
three guys (external link) | flickr (external link) | gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
May 14, 2013 17:34 |  #78

elrey2375 wrote in post #15931898 (external link)
$30 a month. Is that a huge outlay? We probably waste that much in a week on lattes and gum and other crap. This is a product that will be updated and is a part of many people's workflow. I know that change scares most people but I don't see it as bad for me personally.

Cost of Photoshop for next 10 years:

With subscription plan = US$2,280 (includes first year discount, as I already bought Photoshop).

Projected cost under traditional system: No more than three updates at US$200* each=US$600.

Subscription's additional cost: US$1,680

Is this a significant amount? Absolutely! I ain't no rich boy.

Kicker. Should I stop funding Adobe: Under traditional system, I have a copy of Photoshop that could last for years. Under subscription system, I'm left with NOTHING.

If there was at least some rent-to-buy option, than I wouldn't be so opposed to the move.

So no, I will not applaud Adobe's new system, and I will be hoping that the next time I need to upgrade, Adobe will offer more payment options or, if not, comparable software will be available as current offerings are a bit thin.

And why should I have to sacrifice anything, even if just a latte, under the new plan when I didn't have to under the old plan?

If it's OK for you, fine, but realize that it is not for everyone else, and for very good reasons.

*To be sure, the cost of updates, had they continued, could have increased, but so could Adobe's monthly subscription rate.


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Manual Focus; only for street photography amateurs...
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
May 14, 2013 19:43 |  #79

pwm2 wrote in post #15932170 (external link)
But is it relevant how much you spend on gum and other crap? The fact is that it represents a doubling of cost for lots of people. And the upgrades may result in people needing to get a new computer instead of staying with an older version of the software. And what about all the other disadvantages? Why focus just on $30/month?

Because the price seems to be a sticking point. You're getting value from PS was my point

ThreeGuysPhoto wrote in post #15932250 (external link)
It is $20 / month (yearly subscription) for PS on CC. Forget the 1st year special pricing, etc...

1. Double the cost we were paying if we bought the PS upgrade each time (18-24 months).
2. If you want to skip an upgrade you are SOL.
3. If you stop paying you have nothing (before you had the last version you had upgraded)

I'm keeping CS6 for heavy lifting and keeping my LR up to date as long as they keep releasing it with a perpetual license. And $20 a month adds up when the months never end.

Why wouldn't you want the upgrades? Time marches on. If you have a computer that can't handle it then its time for an upgrade. Its not a company's problem to be concerned with.

sjones wrote in post #15932257 (external link)
Cost of Photoshop for next 10 years:

With subscription plan = US$2,280 (includes first year discount, as I already bought Photoshop).

Projected cost under traditional system: No more than three updates at US$200* each=US$600.

Subscription's additional cost: US$1,680

Is this a significant amount? Absolutely! I ain't no rich boy.

Kicker. Should I stop funding Adobe: Under traditional system, I have a copy of Photoshop that could last for years. Under subscription system, I'm left with NOTHING.

If there was at least some rent-to-buy option, than I wouldn't be so opposed to the move.

So no, I will not applaud Adobe's new system, and I will be hoping that the next time I need to upgrade, Adobe will offer more payment options or, if not, comparable software will be available as current offerings are a bit thin.

And why should I have to sacrifice anything, even if just a latte, under the new plan when I didn't have to under the old plan?

If it's OK for you, fine, but realize that it is not for everyone else, and for very good reasons.

*To be sure, the cost of updates, had they continued, could have increased, but so could Adobe's monthly subscription rate.

Numbers are a little faulty. You're assuming they've purchased PS already. If they havent, the difference isn't as great and doesn't help your point but I get it. I'd rather just pay the money each month. Its what I do now and its what I'll continue to do. The fascination with owning software is something people won't understand 50 years from now.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vsg28
Senior Member
493 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
May 14, 2013 20:07 |  #80

Correct me if I am wrong but what's stopping someone from paying for just the month(s) you want the service?


Canon 7D w/grip, Canon SX30 IS (modified for IR), Rokinon 14mm, Canon 24-105 L IS, Sigma 50mm, Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS II, Canon 100mm L IS, Kenko 1.4x Pro DG, Canon 2x II extender, Yongnuo YN-565EX, Induro CT414 with Induro BHL-3 and GHB-A

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 14, 2013 20:15 |  #81

elrey2375 wrote in post #15932655 (external link)
Because the price seems to be a sticking point. You're getting value from PS was my point

But price is only one of multiple points debated in this thread. So why focus on price while seemingly miss all the other points?

Why wouldn't you want the upgrades? Time marches on. If you have a computer that can't handle it then its time for an upgrade. Its not a company's problem to be concerned with.

Don't you think the one with the purse - the customer - should be the one who decides when that computer should be updated?

Don't you think it is you - not the car manufacturer - that should decide when you should switch to a new car? Or you like the tail wagging the dog, having the seller decide when you must buy? Maybe a robot program on ebay that decides what to buy, for how much and when, instead of you making such decisions?

Numbers are a little faulty. You're assuming they've purchased PS already. If they havent, the difference isn't as great and doesn't help your point but I get it.

No, you only pay once for a perpetual license. Then you switch to update fees. So it's just a question of how long time you run that update plan that decides how big part of the total cost that comes from the initial purchase. In the end, the total cost of ownership will asymptotically go towards the update fee divided by the frequency of updates, removing the initial cost from the equation.

I'd rather just pay the money each month. Its what I do now and its what I'll continue to do. The fascination with owning software is something people won't understand 50 years from now.

If you read this thread, you can find a large number of comments that says it is fine if some people wants to pay a monthly subscription fee. But the question is: Why do you see an issue with people preferring the alternative - buying a license and then pay for upgrades? Lots of companies manages to have both these schemes available, letting the customer chose.

The fascination with having perpetual license to things will hardly be impossible to understand for people 50 years from now. You just have to realize that software as service isn't always a good model - sometimes software as product is a better model.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sjones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,224 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
     
May 14, 2013 20:21 |  #82

elrey2375 wrote in post #15932655 (external link)
...Numbers are a little faulty. You're assuming they've purchased PS already. If they havent, the difference isn't as great and doesn't help your point but I get it. I'd rather just pay the money each month. Its what I do now and its what I'll continue to do. The fascination with owning software is something people won't understand 50 years from now.

NO...my numbers are for me, what affects ME, because that's what matters. Actually, there was a five, not three year, gap between my last upgrade, so I was giving Photoshop the benefit of the doubt. And while my example refers to MY experience, I'm sure it's applicable to other folks on this site (hint: lots of people have already bought Photoshop over the last couple of decades, believe it or not).

So no, my numbers do not hurt my point one bit. And even if I hadn't bought Photoshop, we're still looking at around US$1,000 difference for the first decade, and keep adding for the following decades. And really, who are you to say what is not "that big of a difference," you're financial comfort/priorities don't apply to everyone else.

Fascination with owning software...what!? There are lots of things I prefer to own instead of rent; why should software be any different. If it is software that I was only going to use for a month or even just a year, or perhaps sporadically, maybe, but that's not the case.

This fascination for paying for updates that one doesn't need, and paying perhaps tens of thousands of dollars for something that vanishes the second the monthly payment stops is one that I hope doesn't spread to other products.

Moreover, you're missing the point; you're projecting your interests on to everyone else...I CAN understand why you want to do what you want, but you can't seem to understand why other people might not like it, even after they have proven that your preferred way is disadvantageous to their needs and finances.

Not everyone needs the latest upgrade, especially with software, whether it be operating systems (check how many folks are still on XP), office programs, or imaging software, so spare me the "time marches on" dictate, once again, trying to impose your preference on everyone else.

In the end, it's a matter of options. Most people griping, including me, wouldn't have an issue if there was an option. I'm not saying they shouldn't do their subscription thing, but, as I already stated, it would be preferable to me and many others---FOR VERY GOOD AND LEGITIMATE REASONS!!!---if they offered a means of purchasing a perpetual license.

Why are you so opposed to choice?

Anyway, I'm done...obviously like talking to a wall in this discussion.
PMs are, however, always welcome.


Sept 2017-July 2018 (external link)
Manual Focus; only for street photography amateurs...
It's the Photographer (external link) | God Loves Photoshop (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
May 14, 2013 23:50 |  #83

pwm2 wrote in post #15932753 (external link)
But price is only one of multiple points debated in this thread. So why focus on price while seemingly miss all the other points?


Don't you think the one with the purse - the customer - should be the one who decides when that computer should be updated?

Don't you think it is you - not the car manufacturer - that should decide when you should switch to a new car? Or you like the tail wagging the dog, having the seller decide when you must buy? Maybe a robot program on ebay that decides what to buy, for how much and when, instead of you making such decisions?


No, you only pay once for a perpetual license. Then you switch to update fees. So it's just a question of how long time you run that update plan that decides how big part of the total cost that comes from the initial purchase. In the end, the total cost of ownership will asymptotically go towards the update fee divided by the frequency of updates, removing the initial cost from the equation.


If you read this thread, you can find a large number of comments that says it is fine if some people wants to pay a monthly subscription fee. But the question is: Why do you see an issue with people preferring the alternative - buying a license and then pay for upgrades? Lots of companies manages to have both these schemes available, letting the customer chose.

The fascination with having perpetual license to things will hardly be impossible to understand for people 50 years from now. You just have to realize that software as service isn't always a good model - sometimes software as product is a better model.

Of course, the customer may decide when to upgrade. By the same token, you can't expect companies to wait around for you or continue to cater to you. At some point, they have to move on and service newer models, etc.
Same goes with the car analogy. It's the right thing for Adobe to do from a business standpoint and that's the only thing that mattered to them when making this decision. They make more money this way, that's what companies are in business to do. They don't make money, they can't innovate.

sjones wrote in post #15932771 (external link)
NO...my numbers are for me, what affects ME, because that's what matters. Actually, there was a five, not three year, gap between my last upgrade, so I was giving Photoshop the benefit of the doubt. And while my example refers to MY experience, I'm sure it's applicable to other folks on this site (hint: lots of people have already bought Photoshop over the last couple of decades, believe it or not).

So no, my numbers do not hurt my point one bit. And even if I hadn't bought Photoshop, we're still looking at around US$1,000 difference for the first decade, and keep adding for the following decades. And really, who are you to say what is not "that big of a difference," you're financial comfort/priorities don't apply to everyone else.

Fascination with owning software...what!? There are lots of things I prefer to own instead of rent; why should software be any different. If it is software that I was only going to use for a month or even just a year, or perhaps sporadically, maybe, but that's not the case.

This fascination for paying for updates that one doesn't need, and paying perhaps tens of thousands of dollars for something that vanishes the second the monthly payment stops is one that I hope doesn't spread to other products.

Moreover, you're missing the point; you're projecting your interests on to everyone else...I CAN understand why you want to do what you want, but you can't seem to understand why other people might not like it, even after they have proven that your preferred way is disadvantageous to their needs and finances.

Not everyone needs the latest upgrade, especially with software, whether it be operating systems (check how many folks are still on XP), office programs, or imaging software, so spare me the "time marches on" dictate, once again, trying to impose your preference on everyone else.

In the end, it's a matter of options. Most people griping, including me, wouldn't have an issue if there was an option. I'm not saying they shouldn't do their subscription thing, but, as I already stated, it would be preferable to me and many others---FOR VERY GOOD AND LEGITIMATE REASONS!!!---if they offered a means of purchasing a perpetual license.

Why are you so opposed to choice?

Anyway, I'm done...obviously like talking to a wall in this discussion.
PMs are, however, always welcome.

Everything you've both said is exactly what I've said, but the opposite. I'm projecting my interests onto everyone else. You're projecting your interests onto me, etc. I see why it might not work for some people. I'm not opposed to choice. I simply don't care. It currently works for me and it will continue to work for me. I'm not Adobe, I didn't come up with this and I didn't decide to have it forced upon you. Take out your anger on the appropriate parties. Subscription, no subscription, updates, forced updates, it's all just crap that I don't have the time to be upset about. There are real things in life to be upset about. A software company changing things around isn't one of them, IMO. A family member I've known all my life who no longer recognizes my face or remembers my name. Those are things to be upset about, not this petty crap. Perspective, gentlemen. No one is making you use PS. There are many other programs out there.

PS. - when I make a case or state my opinion, it's from my perspective, as it's the only one I have. While I understand that others feel differently, the bottom line is it's just not something worth getting upset about. Time does in fact march on, there's no way to deny that fact, it's marched on since I started typing this sentence and this is the technology and software field we're talking about. Time marching on isn't my mandate, it's the universe that's mandating it.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 01:21 |  #84

elrey2375 wrote in post #15933380 (external link)
Of course, the customer may decide when to upgrade. By the same token, you can't expect companies to wait around for you or continue to cater to you. At some point, they have to move on and service newer models, etc.
Same goes with the car analogy.

Sorry, but I totally fail to understand what you are trying to say here.

The car manufacturer isn't exactly changing their time line based on my purchase preferences. They do release their models, and I chose to decide if I upgrade my car or not.

Who have suggested that Adobe should "wait around"?

Software companies don't ship patches for old versions of their software. They ship patches for new versions of their software. But they leave it up to the customer to decide if the patches (if available) should be installed or not.

And Adobe have made a huge amount of money while letting the customer decide when/if it is time to upgrade their CS2. Or their CS3. Adobe doesn't have any maintainance costs for customers using CS2. They don't need to dedicate staff to "wait in" these customers.

It is the normal business model that the seller waits for the customer to decide if they buy or not. Not that the seller makes the decision when the customer should buy.

It's the right thing for Adobe to do from a business standpoint and that's the only thing that mattered to them when making this decision. They make more money this way, that's what companies are in business to do. They don't make money, they can't innovate.

It might be the right thing for Adobe to do. And the might make more money this way. The important thing is that the change must be good enough for enough numbers of customers too. A business model that isn't good enough for lots of customers is a failed business model. Because Adobe needs customers. Lots of customers. Lots and lots of customers. If each customer pays $40/month in average, then they need about 7 million customers to sign their subscriptions to break even. If only 5 million customers jumps on the bandwagon, then Adobe either needs to step up the subscription fees higher or kick parts of their management before starting a campaign to try to recover lost customers.

Next thing: you imply that they need to do this because else they don't make money and can't innovate. So that indirectly imply that you feel Adobe hasn't been making money the last 10 years, and hasn't innovated the last 10 years. How come you imply that? Have you checked the financial statements, and compared how much money they make, with the costs Adobe have for their R&D? Could you please tell me how you see Adobe lacking money to innovate. Does the financial statements indicate to you that a huge percent of the sales volume is claimed just to manage their R&D?

Everything you've both said is exactly what I've said, but the opposite. I'm projecting my interests onto everyone else. You're projecting your interests onto me, etc.

Wrong. I don't project my views onto others. I don't have any issues with people seeing subscriptions as best for them. If you notice, subscriptions have been available for a while.

I just wonder why people seem to argue that perpetual licenses - as complement to subscriptions - is wrong, or why people who prefer perpetual licenses are wrong.

Why do you see a need to defend Adobe for dropping perpetual licenses? What do you have to gain by Adobe not having both options? What made it different for you today, than last week where both options existed?

I see why it might not work for some people. I'm not opposed to choice. I simply don't care.

But still you make posts that indicates that you do care. Because you explicitly question why people don't like the subscription model - which is a very strange thing to do in a thread where people have already spent a lot of time telling why they prefer perpetual licenses.

It currently works for me and it will continue to work for me. I'm not Adobe, I didn't come up with this and I didn't decide to have it forced upon you. Take out your anger on the appropriate parties. Subscription, no subscription, updates, forced updates, it's all just crap that I don't have the time to be upset about. There are real things in life to be upset about. A software company changing things around isn't one of them, IMO. A family member I've known all my life who no longer recognizes my face or remembers my name. Those are things to be upset about, not this petty crap. Perspective, gentlemen. No one is making you use PS. There are many other programs out there.

Perspective? Well, whatever bad things happens in a persons private life doesn't remove the need to keep an eye on what happens in their business life. The business life is what puts food on the table, and food just can't be ignored.

PS. - when I make a case or state my opinion, it's from my perspective, as it's the only one I have. While I understand that others feel differently, the bottom line is it's just not something worth getting upset about. Time does in fact march on, there's no way to deny that fact, it's marched on since I started typing this sentence and this is the technology and software field we're talking about. Time marching on isn't my mandate, it's the universe that's mandating it.

If you are so neutral as you claim, why do you then claim that Adobe needs this to be able to afford to innovate?

By the way - what is your personal view about all the other reasons people have made for preferring perpetual licenses? Have you - or your business - evaluated these factors too when deciding how this affects you?


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adza77
Senior Member
652 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2010
     
May 15, 2013 01:40 |  #85

elrey2375 wrote in post #15933380 (external link)
Of course, the customer may decide when to upgrade. By the same token, you can't expect companies to wait around for you or continue to cater to you. At some point, they have to move on and service newer models, etc.
Same goes with the car analogy. It's the right thing for Adobe to do from a business standpoint and that's the only thing that mattered to them when making this decision.

I can't say I follow your analogy. When I buy a car - I have it for as long as I want it. It doesn't matter if it goes out of warranty, or even if the manufacturer won't service it anymore. I can continue to use it for as long as I want. Seems like cars are more like Perpetual license rather than subscription.

No one is making you use PS. There are many other programs out there.

Not entirely true. Many people need to use Photoshop as it's the industry standard. If I want to send my work to the local lab, have them work on it, and give me back the changes - it's all done in Photoshop. I could go to TIF, but then I wouldn't have the individual layer masks, adjustments layers they've done, etc. I dont' know about where you're located, but in my neck of the world - Photoshop is considered the industry standard.

It's what the education system has been using for it's graphic courses - training people up to use Photoshop. It's actually quite costly (and very risky) for a business to decide they're going with something else that's not a standard in the industry...

Of course, this might all just have a chance of changing now after Adobe's latest move.

While I understand that others feel differently, the bottom line is it's just not something worth getting upset about.


That's easy to say when it's not you who's the one affected negatively. Consider yourself fortunate that you seem to be in the 3% of POTN users (to date) who actually benefit from this move. (Source Poll: https://photography-on-the.net …33&highlight=al​ternatives ) :)

It's worth getting upset about if Adobe hears the outcry, and back flips.

However I don't even know if this will work. I'm wondering if Adobe has lost their way. They seem to have lost innovation, and as such - they don't have as much to put in the next releases of Photoshop to encourage people to upgrade. They want to have the income - but can't think of how to attract people to pay for upgrades.

As I see it, their first move on this was to force everyone to upgrade each time, or pay full price again. I dare say that this backfired / did not work out as well as they had hoped, and more people opted not to upgrade upgrading each time than they catered for.

So they've now decided to go with the Subscription option. Remove the option to buy software and use it perpetually altogether. (Well, at least in the near future when they stop selling CS6). A very bad move.

This is fine, but what they may have failed to see is that they need to not only deliver what works for their account department, but what also works for their customers - which from the polls I've seen - it appears as though they've failed to do for the majority.

I actually think that Adobe are a company in a lot more trouble than people are aware of (glad I don't have shares in them!) - and not just because of this latest move, but because they've lost direction. I'm suspicious that they've put too much focus into bean counting / money - and not enough of getting in touch with both their development team, and their customer base that they're losing their way. Like so many other very successful companies I've seen come and go - they've started to rely on their name, and popularity, and existing success which you just can't afford to do in this day and age.


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 01:57 |  #86

adza77 wrote in post #15933534 (external link)
I'm suspicious that they've put too much focus into bean counting / money - and not enough of getting in touch with both their development team, and their customer base that they're losing their way. Like so many other very successful companies I've seen come and go - they've started to rely on their name, and popularity, and existing success which you just can't afford to do in this day and age.

I don't know how many remembers the company Borland. They had very good development tools and also decent products in other niches (spreadsheets, databases, ...)

But they got run by accountants. They suddenly made a management decision to never publicly discuss bugs in their tools.

Before that decision was made, they had a list with known bugs and possible workarounds and version where bug was fixed. If I reported a bug, I could later find myself represented in that list, meaning other developers could know about it and not need to suffer lots of time figuring out what was wrong.

After the decision, a large percent of all developers decided that we couldn't trust them anymore. So me and millions of other customers switched to other tool vendors. Within maybe two years they had lost a huge amount of sales of their development tools. At the same time, they managed to do bad business decisions about their database product lines. It didn't take long for a company that had a huge percent of the software market in their niches to suddenly be just a company among others with a large amount of customers lost.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
goldboughtrue
Goldmember
1,857 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Colorado
     
May 15, 2013 01:58 |  #87
bannedPermanent ban

vsg28 wrote in post #15932725 (external link)
Correct me if I am wrong but what's stopping someone from paying for just the month(s) you want the service?

Nothing. But the point is that there is no option. If one could rent the software or buy it outright we wouldn't be having this argument. But since Adobe says the only way to access new versions is to rent by the month people are upset.

Would you like to rent your computer? If you don't want it that month, just take it back to the store and then a month or two later pick one up again. You buy a computer and you own it. Unless you go to a rent-to-own store which are total rip-offs.


http://www.pbase.com/g​oldbough (external link)

5D II, Canon 100 macro, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 24-105 L, Canon TS-E 45, Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adza77
Senior Member
652 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2010
     
May 15, 2013 02:16 |  #88

pwm2 wrote in post #15933558 (external link)
I don't know how many remembers the company Borland. They had very good development tools and also decent products in other niches

I cut my teeth in Paradox in the days of DOS :)

And you give a very good example of how a company with a brilliant product and customer base can undermine itself not by producing bad product, but by bad management in other areas. (Well, at least the products I used of theirs were brilliant)

Just wondering roughly when they decided not to publish bugs, as I wasn't aware of that? (Or maybe that was for product(s) that I wasn't using?)


Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
May 15, 2013 04:01 |  #89

adza77 wrote in post #15933574 (external link)
I cut my teeth in Paradox in the days of DOS :)

And you give a very good example of how a company with a brilliant product and customer base can undermine itself not by producing bad product, but by bad management in other areas. (Well, at least the products I used of theirs were brilliant)

Just wondering roughly when they decided not to publish bugs, as I wasn't aware of that? (Or maybe that was for product(s) that I wasn't using?)

It was mainly for development tools.

So if there was a bug in the runtime library (like calloc() failing to check if the memory allocation failed before clearing the allocated memory block), that meant that the developers building software using that runtime library also go the bugs in their program. So spending lots of time debugging their own code before realizing the bug was in Borland support code. And then realize that the bug had been known for some months but no longer posted - you had to locate some net news channel where someone else had discussed this bug (remember Internet wasn't as large then, you hadn't good search, web forums etc).

The only times in my life I have spent a full week hunting a bug in software it has been when the bugs have been in the compiler and/or the runtime libraries. So you get situations where the code doesn't do what it looks like it should do - and you may not have source code to actually debug the part that fails.

I just googled and noted I could use my name to still locate the last bug report list sent out by Borland for their C++ compiler tools many moons ago. While other bugs reported aren't in the list because they were only handled internally by Borland - without even a history file mentioning they had been fixed when next release was shipped.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThreeGuysPhoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,401 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Texas
     
May 15, 2013 13:15 |  #90

elrey2375 wrote in post #15932655 (external link)
Why wouldn't you want the upgrades? Time marches on. If you have a computer that can't handle it then its time for an upgrade. Its not a company's problem to be concerned with.

I do want the upgrades. But, some may not want every upgrade. I always get them so that isn't my main issue. I said NOTHING about the computer handling the upgrades...

What you fail to address is the fact that they are doubling my cost as well taking away the perpetual license. Want to try and sell those as good things to me?


-Wayne
three guys (external link) | flickr (external link) | gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

23,187 views & 0 likes for this thread
Photoshop - Subscription Only from now on
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dayuan99
1783 guests, 204 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.