Adobe goes Subscription only

Given that if it calls home from a country not on the approved list (and there are many), it will refuse to run; you can bet it is pissing off plenty of professionals who travel. I for one will never be purchasing it for that reason. This is a much bigger reason than the cost. I simply won't be able to use a service/software that I pay for simply because of where I am locatedUtter nonsense.

They have recently updated the list of countries, but until the other day there wasn't even a country in South America or Africa where it would work; places I travel to for work frequently.
_______________

drvnbysound wrote in post #15908127
You are right, at the end you don't own anything... but what does it matter? If you've factored in the same amount of time that you expect to use the product... because at day X+1, you don't need to own it, because you don't need it anymore.

That is the point. At day X+1 I may still need it but not have the money to invest in the latest product. I still want to continue to use it without the newest and latest features.

David Arbogast wrote in post #15907969
Canon should leave the locks off their warehouses...just imagine the success Canon would eventually have make if people started stealing their gear. All those thieves would eventually become pros and Canon would become the only camera brand. That's how it works, right: Thieves eventually become honest pros? Sorry, but that's just a make-yourself-feel-good lame excuse to justify piracy.

First of all, I have valid Photoshop CS4 and Creative Suite 5 licenses, and I don't appreciate having to disclose that on account of your re-framing of my comment as justification.

Second, property theft has no legal relation (and arguably no ethical relation) to IP piracy. It will be necessary to overcome that tired simile before we can talk about justification. There is, by the way, no justification - It just happens to work out for Adobe in an unexpected way.

dalto wrote in post #15907784
Unless they alter the file formats. In which case your CS6 won't open the files anymore.

Darn it! If only there was a cheaper, non-cloud version of PhotoShop that could also read PSD files.

Is the existence of PhotoShop Elements some huge secret? Or have people become so paranoid and neurotic that they've totally forgotten its existence?

Oh wait. Of course. Adobe will stop support of the PSD format. It's the only possible solution for the conspiracy theorists.

transcend wrote in post #15908134
Given that if it calls home from a country not on the approved list (and there are many), you can bet it is pissing off plenty of professionals who travel. I for one will never be purchasing it for that reason. This is a much bigger reason than the cost. I simply won't be able to use a service/software that I pay for simply because of where I am locatedUtter nonsense.

They have recently updated the list of countries, but until the other day there wasn't even a country in South America or Africa where it would work; places I travel to for work frequently.
_______________

If you are traveling to areas frequently black listed, then I would strongly suggest setting up a VPN of some sort. Not only does it give you access to home office files, but your computer doesn't 'travel', rather it stays in the home office as far anything on the outside can tell.

OK, banquetbear, we get it, you like the Creative Cloud subscription model, it works for you.

It doesn't work for me. I don't like that a reasonable option, buying one edition of the software and keeping it for as long as I want to, is now no longer available. I would like that option to remain. I don't buy Adobe's claim that this move makes them more efficient and makes it easier for their programmers. So they have the cloud option for those who like it, but why can't they charge me a set fee for a one time eternal download of whatever current version they are providing to their cloud customers? How does that create more work for them? Companies that provide more options to their customers are my friend. Companies that cut back on options to their customers are not my friend.

dalto wrote in post #15908149
That is the point. At day X+1 I may still need it but not have the money to invest in the latest product. I still want to continue to use it without the newest and latest features.

Again, then you haven't factored the TOTAL ownership cost.

You are trying to add the amount of cost (e.g. length of time) that you want to pay for the service...

Similarly, if you choose to never upgrade to another version of PS again. At some day (e.g. 15 years), all of the file formats will be outdated... so what will it matter if you actually own a copy that no longer reads current file formats and runs on an OS that no longer exists?

hollis_f wrote in post #15908152
Darn it! If only there was a cheaper, non-cloud version of PhotoShop that could also read PSD files.

Is the existence of PhotoShop Elements some huge secret? Or have people become so paranoid and neurotic that they've totally forgotten its existence?

What makes you think that once this model starts working for them they will not move their other products over to it as well?

hollis_f wrote in post #15908152
Oh wait. Of course. Adobe will stop support of the PSD format. It's the only possible solution for the conspiracy theorists.

They don't need to get rid of the format. They just need to change it. The PSD format has changed over the years and there is no reason to believe it won't change in the future.

Kent Clark wrote in post #15908158
OK, banquetbear, we get it, you like the Creative Cloud subscription model, it works for you.

It doesn't work for me. I don't like that a reasonable option, buying one edition of the software and keeping it for as long as I want to, is now no longer available. I would like that option to remain. I don't buy Adobe's claim that this move makes them more efficient and makes it easier for their programmers. So they have the cloud option for those who like it, but why can't they charge me a set fee for a one time eternal download of whatever current version they are providing to their cloud customers? How does that create more work for them? Companies that provide more options to their customers are my friend. Companies that cut back on options to their customers are not my friend.

If I'm reading this right... you'd just want a one time, LIFETIME subscription option?

I can't imagine what that would cost!

drvnbysound wrote in post #15908168
Again, then you haven't factored the TOTAL ownership cost.

I don't upgrade every version and my current average cost is far less than $50/month, so for me the total cost of ownership is less in the current model.

drvnbysound wrote in post #15908168
You are trying to add the amount of cost (e.g. length of time) that you want to pay for the service...

Not really, I am considering the amount of time in which I can afford to pay it.

drvnbysound wrote in post #15908168
Similarly, if you choose to never upgrade to another version of PS again. At some day (e.g. 15 years), all of the file formats will be outdated... so what will it matter if you actually own a copy that no longer reads current file formats and runs on an OS that no longer exists?

If I continued to buy upgrades to perpetual software for 15 years and then kept the last version it is likely I could continue to use this software for some time. Perhaps not another 15 years but probably another 5-10. Look at all the people on this board that are still using CS2 for an example of this.

This is where you TCO formula breaks down for me. If fails to capture the trailing usage of the products that is not available in a subscription model.

So i work for a few companies that currently own a few adobe products, mainly photoshop, dreamweaver and pagemaker. So at one point these people paid $200-500 for each product to install on their computer, as a small business that uses those products a few times a week, but not all the time.

I wonder how this is going to change their potential buying of adobe products in the future. I know for a fact that they will not pay a monthly bill for software. Will they just continue to use their 10 year old software? Will they outsource the work in the future? Does this mean there could potentially be more jobs for graphic/web designers?

For me personally, i don't really NEED to use photoshop or dreamweaver or lightroom anymore, there are alternatives. I will happily use CS5.5 and lightroom 4.0 for multiple years without needing to update, i hope i can do this without having to pay a monthly subscription.

I can see why they would like to do this, to prevent piracy and also let the young people get a chance to afford adobe products, but i really think it's a very dumb move.

drvnbysound wrote in post #15908189
If I'm reading this right... you'd just want a one time, LIFETIME subscription option?

I can't imagine what that would cost!

Its FREE!!!! if your Scott Kelby

You're not reading it right. Not a lifetime subscription. I mean that right now I can go out and buy CS6 and keep it and use it for as long as I want to, it never upgrades, it gets old, but it's mine to keep and use until I decide otherwise. Why can't Adobe sell me the current version of the cloud PS with the same terms? No constant upgrades, features set in place just like CS6, but a set price and usable on my computer for as long as I want, until I decide it's no longer what I need. How is that an insurmountable obstacle? Let me pay, download and use that version for as long as I want to. The cloud still exists, Adobe still upgrades it when they want but I stay with the version I bought. That's an option that seems to have no cost to them but great value to me.

Kent Clark wrote in post #15908158
OK, banquetbear, we get it, you like the Creative Cloud subscription model, it works for you.

It doesn't work for me.

...okay Kent Clark, I get it, you don't like the Creative Cloud subscription model. It doesn't work for you.

You don't have to buy it. But I don't doubt they are speaking the truth. Luckless pointed this out earlier in the thread: but what a subscription model does is provide relatively predictable cashflow. There is no longer the pressure of working to release schedules and worrying about people buying their latest version. When a new feature is completed: they simply release it and it is instantly available to all of their customers. Its a move to embrace agile development.

Because there comes a point that when a company has made a decision to move on a different paradigm they just have to do it. The cost of maintaining two business models is not sustainable. Adobe is providing plenty of options. You just don't like them. That might mean that Adobe has lost a customer: but they were never your friend. They are a business offering services that you can either choose to use or not use.

Kent Clark wrote in post #15908158
...I don't like that a reasonable option, buying one edition of the software and keeping it for as long as I want to, is now no longer available.... I don't buy Adobe's claim that this move makes them more efficient and makes it easier for their programmers.

1. Reasonable for whom exactly?

2. Are you in software development? Have you worked on a major software project in the past?

Ditching future developments of the non-cloud version either eliminates a production branch of code, or greatly simplifies a security feature set. They don't have to test against authentication of Subscription vs authentication of lifetime license on maybe eight versions of Windows (Remember, not good enough to just test software against windows 7, you have service packs and the like!), and a pile of OS X versions. (I'm on a project at work that is on OSX, and I should know how many versions are being tested against, but I can't for the life of me remember how many.)

Oh, and don't forget you need to do localization passes against all those as well, so multiple that by the number of supported languages. Also don't forget to add in your hardware variations to your test matrix!

Dropping one of the two models is going to save them at least $10,000 in direct QA labour based on other projects of this size. And that is Per Build that receives a full test pass. Each patch or upgrade you see as an end user is going to represent many builds. Odds are with software like that you are getting at minimum of 5 builds getting a test pass.

Long story short: Dropping dual purchase methods is going to save them a pile of money. They are a business, they are in business to make money and turn a profit, they are NOT in business to ensure you can edit photos.

As for making it easier on programmers in general: With a subscription model like this, the development cycle is no longer "Version Bound" on features. That is, if I am a programmer and I have a good idea that the team supports, then my new feature doesn't have to be budgeted closely and worked into the project as a whole where it is allotted a tight money and time frame budget. I can be sent off into my corner to program away, and when my feature is done, it is done. That feature doesn't have to wait till the next major in six months time to be included, and my feature can't delay the release of other features. My feature merely gets rolled out in the next content update at the end of the week along with the general bug fixes.

Working under a subscription based model is far nicer, and with a lot less stress.

Under the old system of large monolithic releases with "big version jumps" (ie, CS6 to CS7) the programmer is always under the risk of some delay in the features they are responsible for. Bugs happen, designs fail, things go wrong. If a programmer knows the product is shipping as a whole at the end of a milestone, then they are under a huge amount of pressure when they find some bug or issue a week from release. Crunch time sucks. You don't see your family, you barely get to leave the office, you have managers breathing down your neck constantly asking you what is going wrong, why isn't it working, is it done yet, why wasn't this caught sooner, what kind of idiot are you to have missed this, etc.

Under the new system, it is far more practical to release smaller updates far more often. Programming a new Red Eye reduction system? Is it ready to get to final QA and be included in this week's release on Thursday morning? No? Oh,... well, next release cycle is in a week or two, which is more than enough time to finish it. Since you won't make it this week, and will dig into the next cycle, may as well take the afternoon off, go clear your head, and spend a bit more time looking for issues.

Way more relaxing, and vastly more productive.