Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

[RLPhoto]

Perhaps people will now start using in-camera processing and that never used print button! No need for a computer!!!! Or we could all just go back to shooting film!

What's funny is that I do use the process in camera and Print button quite a bit now with the 5D3. 

[camlars]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

[Forceflow]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

[gary samples]

I don't have all the info on what Adobe is going to do with Photoshop  so  I will  just have to wait and see but I will NEVER sign up for CC.  I buy the update Avery time it comes out  since Elements I Now have CS6   would cost ME 150.00 Avery 1 1/2 - 2 years or so to me that's 6.25 per month and I own it !   
I really like Adobe products but if they go this way I'm done !!
sorry Adobe hope you wake up before it's to late .

[Ladislav]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse engineered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

[RLPhoto]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse enginnered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

Who said anything about photo's? What about designs? Painted Artwork? 

[Ladislav]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse enginnered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

Who said anything about photo's? What about designs? Painted Artwork? 

Well I'm on the forum about photography so I'm talking mainly about photos. Are you a professional making money by Photoshop? In such case $240 per year should be really small investment for you which you can easily put to your costs. Even as hobbyist from much poorer country I can imagine paying that if I really need Photoshop to get the best from my hobby.

The rant about Adobe's business decission reminds me all rants about Canon vs. Nikon, about Canon not releasing something, etc. The core of these rants is to make some disappointment look like a global problem where there is actually no problem at all.

Nothing has changed for people who already own any Photoshop license. They don't need to subscribe if they don't want to. Their product still works and its lifetime will one day end in the same way as it would end for any other SW product. They will just don't have any option to upgrade without subscription. Not choosing to subscribe will not invalidate their existing license or existing PSD files. Those who don't have licence yet can either quickly buy CS6, use subscription or simly don't care.

[RLPhoto]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse enginnered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

Who said anything about photo's? What about designs? Painted Artwork? 

Well I'm on the forum about photography so I'm talking mainly about photos. Are you a professional making money by Photoshop? In such case $240 per year should be really small investment for you which you can easily put to your costs. Even as hobbyist from much poorer country I can imagine paying that if I really need Photoshop to get the best from my hobby.

The rant about Adobe's business decission reminds me all rants about Canon vs. Nikon, about Canon not releasing something, etc. The core of these rants is to make some disappointment look like a global problem where there is actually no problem at all.

Nothing has changed for people who already own any Photoshop license. They don't need to subscribe if they don't want to. Their product still works and its lifetime will one day end in the same way as it would end for any other SW product. They will just don't have any option to upgrade without subscription. Not choosing to subscribe will not invalidate their existing license or existing PSD files. Those who don't have licence yet can either quickly buy CS6, use subscription or simly don't care.

Money isn't the main issue, It's the transfer of power from end users to adobe. It's a principle that after spending thousands for software, its not enough for adobe, we must pay the same $$$$ and now own nothing.

[Ladislav]

In response to other postings regarding Scott Kelby's Q&A - Scott says that at some point in the future if you don't like an increase in price you can simply stop paying.  This is utter nonsense since you then lose access to your data!

That is utter nonsense. If you decide to stop your subscription just batch convert your PSD's to an open format.

Could you tell me which open format supports everything the PS does and an converter that will actually convert my psd into that? I would seriously love to have that

The point is: It is not about the format. The format itself is described on Adobe developers portal. I'm not sure if it is a complete specification but if it is not it will be fairly quickly reverse enginnered. But the PSD file is nothing without Photoshop. PSD is just set of data about layers, masks and their configuration. If you want to load that data and make changes you need Photoshop or software implementing the same algorithms (some of them can be Adobe's intellectual property). If you don't want to make changes, you don't need to store your photos in PSD format.

Who said anything about photo's? What about designs? Painted Artwork? 

Well I'm on the forum about photography so I'm talking mainly about photos. Are you a professional making money by Photoshop? In such case $240 per year should be really small investment for you which you can easily put to your costs. Even as hobbyist from much poorer country I can imagine paying that if I really need Photoshop to get the best from my hobby.

The rant about Adobe's business decission reminds me all rants about Canon vs. Nikon, about Canon not releasing something, etc. The core of these rants is to make some disappointment look like a global problem where there is actually no problem at all.

Nothing has changed for people who already own any Photoshop license. They don't need to subscribe if they don't want to. Their product still works and its lifetime will one day end in the same way as it would end for any other SW product. They will just don't have any option to upgrade without subscription. Not choosing to subscribe will not invalidate their existing license or existing PSD files. Those who don't have licence yet can either quickly buy CS6, use subscription or simly don't care.

Money isn't the main issue, It's the transfer of power from end users to adobe. It's a principle that after spending thousands for software, its not enough for adobe, we must pay the same $$$$ and now own nothing.

Idea of software ownership is quite fragile anyway. It is similar to owning movie on HD DVD. You paid for it, you own the license but buying a player to use your license is more and more complicated. Subscription model gives you always the last version with all features and fixes and for the operating system you are using at the moment (moreover I read somewhere that it gives you license for two computers - good if you have a workstation and laptop).

People don't like changes and subscription model is a big change in the way how we get SW. It will become more common in the future and people will accept it eventually.

[RLPhoto]

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

[Ladislav]

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

If I have the money, need the sw and have the choice to own it, I would pay the whole sum and keep the sw. Who doesn't? But in any other case renting doesn't seem so bad as people are trying to pretend here.

[RLPhoto]

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

If I have the money, need the sw and have the option to own it, I would pay the whole sum and keep the sw. Who doesn't? But in any other case renting doesn't seem so bad as people are trying to pretend here.

Who doesn't? Adobe doesn't want you to own those retail CD's. It's less money in their pockets because you, the consumer, will decide if the next upgrade is worth buying. You own the copies, you have the power to decide if and when you will invest more into adobe.

In turn, Adobe has to provide good solid updates to each version to get your cash. It's incentive for them to try harder. A subscription model will dull that edge and adobe will have less incentive to do so.

I think a Subscription model alongside side a perpetual license is a good thing. People will little cash can subscribe and heavy users can get the retail copies they need. If enough users petition adobe (which I have), I believe they'll let both co-exist.

[Hobby Shooter]

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

If I have the money, need the sw and have the option to own it, I would pay the whole sum and keep the sw. Who doesn't? But in any other case renting doesn't seem so bad as people are trying to pretend here.

Who doesn't? Adobe doesn't want you to own those retail CD's. It's less money in their pockets because you, the consumer, will decide if the next upgrade is worth buying. You own the copies, you have the power to decide if and when you will invest more into adobe.

In turn, Adobe has to provide good solid updates to each version to get your cash. It's incentive for them to try harder. A subscription model will dull that edge and adobe will have less incentive to do so.

I think a Subscription model alongside side a perpetual license is a good thing. People will little cash can subscribe and heavy users can get the retail copies they need. If enough users petition adobe (which I have), I believe they'll let both co-exist.

+1
I think it's alot about giving up control. You can jump versions like you can with the hardware. Imagine if Canon would try to force people to go througj every hardware release, how silly wouldn't that be.

[ksagomonyants]

^Ok, Lets simplify.

Would you rather pay adobe 600$ and keep the software or not? The prices are about the same.

If I have the money, need the sw and have the option to own it, I would pay the whole sum and keep the sw. Who doesn't? But in any other case renting doesn't seem so bad as people are trying to pretend here.

Who doesn't? Adobe doesn't want you to own those retail CD's. It's less money in their pockets because you, the consumer, will decide if the next upgrade is worth buying. You own the copies, you have the power to decide if and when you will invest more into adobe.

In turn, Adobe has to provide good solid updates to each version to get your cash. It's incentive for them to try harder. A subscription model will dull that edge and adobe will have less incentive to do so.

I think a Subscription model alongside side a perpetual license is a good thing. People will little cash can subscribe and heavy users can get the retail copies they need. If enough users petition adobe (which I have), I believe they'll let both co-exist.

My guess is that if Adobe lowered the cost of the monthly fees, a lot more people would be happy to switch to CC. It's the price which makes many people frustrated about Adobe.

[unfocused]

There are lots of ways Adobe could have made this more attractive to consumers.

Instead of a one-year rental, they could have offered longer terms at discount. $20/month is actually not a bad deal.  But that's their "special introductory" pricing for CS6 owners. That creates uncertainty and Adobe has pretty much said they intend to jack up the price next year. If I could lock in for $20/month over 3-5 years it would be much easier to swallow.

No reason they had to base it on unlimited usage. Allow persons who don't use every program every day to  pay a small fee when they are using a program.

No reason why the model had to be based on unlimited programs. They could offer a plan where people would pay for their choice of 3, 5, or 8 programs for example. You want Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver. Somebody else needs Fireworks, InDesign and Dreamweaver, etc.

Point is, Adobe adopted a very narrow profit-maximizing model, rather than a customer-based model. Scott Kelby and others who owe their living to Adobe can talk to their blue in the face about what a great deal this is, but the customers know otherwise.

If you offer a choice and people take you up on it, it's a good deal.

If you don't offer a choice and force people to take something, it's not going to be a good deal.

Adobe, sadly, didn't have enough confidence in their own product to try to win customers by attracting them to the product, instead they chose a forced model.