Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software

[camlars]

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

Who said anything about a format that supports everything that PSD does? You claimed you would lose access to your data, which is false. You can easily export all the layers to individual PNG files and open them in pretty much whatever software you want to use.

If you want other software that can read PSD files and will let you work with layers, you could try for example:

- Pixelmator, $15
- Photoshop Elements 11, $60 at Amazon at the moment, with free shipping

I can't believe the amount of whining over a $20 a month subscription to Photoshop, $10 the first year if you already have an earlier version...

[preppyak]

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

Who said anything about a format that supports everything that PSD does? You claimed you would lose access to your data, which is false. You can easily export all the layers to individual PNG files and open them in pretty much whatever software you want to use.

This is a major paradigm change from the previous versions. If I own CS5, my files don't become obselete if I dont want to pay for CS6, right? Now they do within the Adobe realm. People can still use CS2 even though it was released in 2005 (they'd pay $1000's for that in CC)...yet the day Adobe checks my license and its not paid, I lose it now. Sure, I might be able to pay for another program that can handle the files, but before this change, I would just keep using Photoshop forever if I wanted.

Now, there might be advantages (more frequent upgrades, cloud storage, etc), but, none of us have actually experienced those yet. We've just seen the price hike and a major shift in how things work. It's understandable people are unhappy, even if it ends up being brilliant. Adobe has to deliver a significantly better experience for the change to be worth it.

I can't believe the amount of whining over a $20 a month subscription to Photoshop, $10 the first year if you already have an earlier version...

Because that $120 I spent in the first year is a good way to the price of an upgrade from the previous year's model (usually $199). I usually go 3 years between upgrades, so I now would spend $360 for that instead of $199...and I might get more updates in the process.

If that $20 was a locked in rate I think people might be less mad, but, it's definitely gonna go up after that first year. So, that $250/yr becomes

[zim]

Photoshop Elements does not meet the requirements of the large group of amateur photographers who have graduated from point and shoots and only use RAW files.  PSE is more for JPG users.

How'd you work that one out? I only shoot RAW and happily use Elements

It's great that Elements works for you.  My point is that Adobe clearly aims at the family photographer producing JPGs.  The almost complete lack of 16 bit support (why bother when JPGs are 8 bit), ACR with many features disabled, restrictions on curves and adjustment layers, etc, etc, and the whole template scheme for thngs such as greeting cards and albums support the conclusion about its intended market.  Once again, it's great that it works for you and maybe you're better off than the rest of us who have become used to making extensive use of these features.

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!

Now imagine if you are renting Lightroom and then stop paying.  Now you are completely locked out of all adjustments that you have made while paying over perhaps years.  Scary stuff.

Please don't think I'm in agreement with Adobe on this I'm not I really hope they get burnt.

Your right I don’t (think) I have the need to work in 16bit. I enjoy prints, maybe I'm missing a trick and should be working 16bit?
LR4 isn’t CC and used by many pros I assume that does allow you to work in 16bit?

As for the advanced manipulation tools, for photographers? maybe some of those amateur photographers who have graduated from point and shoots should go back and hone their photopgaphic skills rather than their PS skills or maybe that's me just being a synical old git, anyway that’s another debate not for this thread! 

[cayenne]

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.

I sincerely hope not.

By having a consumer revolt, and not just letting this 'go' as many seem to want to do.....we might just let the corporations know this is not a path the consumer wants to be forced down.

Believe it or not, the one thing even large companies listen to is....the loud voice of the consumer pocketbook opening or closing.

If enough people unite against this....the voice will be heard.

A recent example, is the latest release of the game Sim City, which required an always 'on' internet connection to play what is essentially at its heart, a single player game.

Sales of that game were WAY below what was projected. People simply refused to be forced down that road on that game. Possibly EA will listen next time? If this type thing happens enough, well, they DO want to make $$ off you and that's the bottom line.

If you simple take it as a given and roll over, then sure...Adobe and other will go down this path.

Vote with your wallet, it is plain and simple.

C

[Ladislav]

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.

I sincerely hope not.

By having a consumer revolt, and not just letting this 'go' as many seem to want to do.....we might just let the corporations know this is not a path the consumer wants to be forced down.

Believe it or not, the one thing even large companies listen to is....the loud voice of the consumer pocketbook opening or closing.

If enough people unite against this....the voice will be heard.

A recent example, is the latest release of the game Sim City, which required an always 'on' internet connection to play what is essentially at its heart, a single player game.

Sales of that game were WAY below what was projected. People simply refused to be forced down that road on that game. Possibly EA will listen next time? If this type thing happens enough, well, they DO want to make $$ off you and that's the bottom line.

If you simple take it as a given and roll over, then sure...Adobe and other will go down this path.

Vote with your wallet, it is plain and simple.

C

You chose probably the worst example. EA is the symbol of companies not looking at customers feedback. Just go through their releases in past few years. A lot of them were disappointments with pretty negative feedback - Orgin included. The sales problem of Sim City was not in the "always online" but in the quality of the game. Gamers already showed many times that "always on" is not actually a problem (even you can read about it all over the internet).  We can put another example - Diablo III which shows that even with such "a big problem" like always on the game can have a huge commercial success.

As a side note I own about two hundreds games for PC (physical media and Steam) and XBox360. I really wish I could get them through some sort of subscription instead. It would save me a lot of $$$. End of off-topic ...

Subscription model is already visible in business environment where whole products are offered as a service and it slowly creeps into customer environment with different subscription based services or even products - for example Office 365. There are also subscription based products where you own the product at the end of the subscription but then you generally pay almost the whole product (or upgrade) every release cycle so its more like software assurance then a real subscription. So far I see subscription as more affordable way to get an expensive software even if it means paying more in the long term.

[unfocused]

...So far I see subscription as more affordable way to get an expensive software even if it means paying more in the long term.

Except that with the "Creative Cloud" system it is not a more affordable way to get expensive software. The "affordable" model Adobe instituted and followed for at least two decades was the "upgrade" path. Make your initial investment in the software and then, over time, you can receive discounted upgrades and expansions, until ultimately, you have a full suite of software available to you at a substantial savings.

The trade off was clear – you got rewarded for being a loyal customer and Adobe had a built-in base of customers for software upgrades. One of the frustrations with the new Cloud system is that Adobe is changing the rules on users who have played by their rules.

I've done the math every which way and even with the special introductory pricing, customers end up paying more. But, as others have said, the money is only a part of the problem. Many long-time users felt some loyalty to Adobe and were their best advocates. There are many other issues as well. 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

I sincerely hope not.

By having a consumer revolt, and not just letting this 'go' as many seem to want to do.....we might just let the corporations know this is not a path the consumer wants to be forced down.

Believe it or not, the one thing even large companies listen to is....the loud voice of the consumer pocketbook opening or closing.

If enough people unite against this....the voice will be heard.

A recent example, is the latest release of the game Sim City, which required an always 'on' internet connection to play what is essentially at its heart, a single player game.

Sales of that game were WAY below what was projected. People simply refused to be forced down that road on that game. Possibly EA will listen next time? If this type thing happens enough, well, they DO want to make $$ off you and that's the bottom line.

If you simple take it as a given and roll over, then sure...Adobe and other will go down this path.

Vote with your wallet, it is plain and simple.

C

You chose probably the worst example. EA is the symbol of companies not looking at customers feedback. Just go through their releases in past few years. A lot of them were disappointments with pretty negative feedback - Orgin included. The sales problem of Sim City was not in the "always online" but in the quality of the game. Gamers already showed many times that "always on" is not actually a problem (even you can read about it all over the internet).  We can put another example - Diablo III which shows that even with such "a big problem" like always on the game can have a huge commercial success.

As a side note I own about two hundreds games for PC (physical media and Steam) and XBox360. I really wish I could get them through some sort of subscription instead. It would save me a lot of $$$. End of off-topic ...

Subscription model is already visible in business environment where whole products are offered as a service and it slowly creeps into customer environment with different subscription based services or even products - for example Office 365. There are also subscription based products where you own the product at the end of the subscription but then you generally pay almost the whole product (or upgrade) every release cycle so its more like software assurance then a real subscription. So far I see subscription as more affordable way to get an expensive software even if it means paying more in the long term.

And as soon as the company goes under good luck every playing your game (or protected music) again.
Or if the companies get into a rights battle.

subscription/streaming stinks

[Meh]

...So far I see subscription as more affordable way to get an expensive software even if it means paying more in the long term.

Except that with the "Creative Cloud" system it is not a more affordable way to get expensive software. The "affordable" model Adobe instituted and followed for at least two decades was the "upgrade" path. Make your initial investment in the software and then, over time, you can receive discounted upgrades and expansions, until ultimately, you have a full suite of software available to you at a substantial savings.

You could not possibly have missed Ladislav's point any more, which was it's a more affordable way to get into the software since there is no one time outlay for the first purchase... the monthly payment plan spreads out your total cost in even predictable amounts at regular intervals which is more manageable even though the total cost over a longer period of time is higher.  Like leasing a car.

I haven't read every single post on this topic, but has anyone considered the tax benefit of the subscription model.  If you make any money at all from photography, I presume you write off expenses.  The monthly payments would be fully deductible each year.

The other thing I've noticed is many people are comparing the sum of monthly payments compared to upgrading at $199 every 24 months.  First of all, the upgrade cycle was not always 24 months it was closer to 18-20 month on average I believe.  Second, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it only the CS6 upgrade that was $199 and previous upgrade prices were around $300?  Regardless of that, there is no certainty that if Adobe continued to sell boxed upgrades that it would have been $199 in the future, eventually the price would go up.  So it's hard to say what the long term cost of maintaining a current version of PS would cost over the next 10 years.

[ksagomonyants]

Even Hitler hates Adobe CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU

[Click]

Ha ha ha  hilarious 

[Hobby Shooter]

Even Hitler hates Adobe CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU

There's also a good one where he hates Nikon.

[pwp]

Here's an alternative to Photoshop, Photoshop Elements with this $50 plugin:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/04/02/elementsxxl-plug-in-promises-photoshop-features-without-the-pricetag

It looks like this useful plugin unlocks a LOT of the functionality of the full PS right there in Elements.

-PW

[Quasimodo]

Even Hitler hates Adobe CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU

There's also a good one where he hates Nikon.

Hillarious! I've seen many other versions, but this one is funny.

[M.ST]

I hate cloud software. I have a PC only for the internet and not willing to go online with a pc with all my images on the harddisc.

If Adobe is not willing to bring offline software like Photoshop CS6 Extended on the market and enables the download for the new camera raw updates then I change to another product.

Adobe, you are loosing a lot of money in the future if you have only cloud software.

[Dick]

I'm not really sure why this matters though. Can't people just use CS6? I bet that most people could do their photoshopping using the old & now free CS2.

If Adobe is not willing to bring offline software like Photoshop CS6 Extended on the market and enables the download for the new camera raw updates then I change to another product.

Why? Why not just use CS6? Is there something superior offered by another company?