Adobe Creative Apps Go Cloud Only

[Fatalv]

I'm surprised how many people are against the subscription model here. I'm also a little surprised how little this announcement bothers me. I suppose for my purposes, Affinity is becoming an increasingly competent editing option, and there's nothing I'm all that bothered about them adding to Lr in a future version that would make me upgrade anyway. I'll keep running Lr 6 until it no longer works by which time I'll assess what's best (to me) for replacing it.

I personally prefer to buy, rather than rent software (though I've done both), but the writing's been on the wall with regard to Adobe for some time. They have every right to choose the most profitable path, and consumers have the right to be annoyed and move to other products. Interesting that Affinity is quite the opposite - I paid a very small sum (something like £30?) for the original download, and updates are free, including the addition of substantial new features. Who knows how long that will last, however.

As for those talking on 50 year timescales, I don't think you can expect any technology option to last that long, especially proprietory services. I certainly wouldn't expect Lightroom to exist by then! Eventually I think we have to convert files to a widely-supported format and hope for the best.

The interesting thing is that with virtual machine technology we can recreate an entire operating system and software stack in a way that's archivable. With a perpetual copy of LR6 (or any software for that matter) I could guarantee my workflow will be preserved. This will not be possible with any software that requires online validation (short of current hacks to turn off CC's validation).

 

[privatebydesign]

What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada. That doesn't sit well with me. If I've paid over 350 dollars I sure want something to show for it.

That is simply not true.

If you stop paying for CC you still keep Lightroom, in perpetuity. It stays on your drive and opens just fine. You can use the Library, Slideshow, Web, Book and Print modules, you can export any of your images either with their LR development settings (made prior to deactivation) or without. You lose the Develop and Map modules.

Correct you have access to your images... for now. Is there any guarantee Adobe doesn't change the EULA at a moments notice? change the structure of the Lightroom catalog?

If you have any photos you deem valuable you likely cannot trust a deactivated copy of LR. I know I wouldn't. For me that would mean exporting to TIFF/DNG & .xmp/etc. Luckily I have a perpetual license of LR6.

You guys really are being ridiculous.

First off, I am not trying to 'say' anything other than correct an entirely false statement, that has since been repeated. If you stop paying you do not lose you images, your work, or the ability to export your files.

Secondly, anybody with an ounce of intelligence or care of their work/images has an export backup and storage strategy that doesn't rely on one program. You can store your images with sidecar files now, you can write the adjustments to the file, you can export your image to anywhere, you can export the entirety of your image collection with all adjustments to a multitude of file types.

I understand peoples reluctance to sign on to a subscription service, particularly if you are an amateur that doesn't see the value in software from a business software supplier, but I do wish these threads could try and limit their hyperbole to actual facts.

Furthering outright inaccuracies helps nobody.

 

[Fatalv]

What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access. No more Lightroom. Nada. That doesn't sit well with me. If I've paid over 350 dollars I sure want something to show for it.

That is simply not true.

If you stop paying for CC you still keep Lightroom, in perpetuity. It stays on your drive and opens just fine. You can use the Library, Slideshow, Web, Book and Print modules, you can export any of your images either with their LR development settings (made prior to deactivation) or without. You lose the Develop and Map modules.

Correct you have access to your images... for now. Is there any guarantee Adobe doesn't change the EULA at a moments notice? change the structure of the Lightroom catalog?

If you have any photos you deem valuable you likely cannot trust a deactivated copy of LR. I know I wouldn't. For me that would mean exporting to TIFF/DNG & .xmp/etc. Luckily I have a perpetual license of LR6.

You guys really are being ridiculous.

First off, I am not trying to 'say' anything other than correct an entirely false statement, that has since been repeated. If you stop paying you do not lose you images, your work, or the ability to export your files.

Secondly, anybody with an ounce of intelligence or care of their work/images has an export backup and storage strategy that doesn't rely on one program. You can store your images with sidecar files now, you can write the adjustments to the file, you can export your image to anywhere, you can export the entirety of your image collection with all adjustments to a multitude of file types.

I understand peoples reluctance to sign on to a subscription service, particularly if you are an amateur that doesn't see the value in software from a business software supplier, but I do wish these threads could try and limit their hyperbole to actual facts.

Furthering outright inaccuracies helps nobody.

Sure, and I pointed out the truth, you have access now and there are no guarantees in the future. Is anything in that statement false?

 

[Orangutan]

I understand peoples reluctance to sign on to a subscription service, particularly if you are an amateur that doesn't see the value in software from a business software supplier

It's a safe bet that most people who buy a 1D-series body and L-glass are not pros. It would be interesting to know what fraction of the Adobe CC customer base use it for purposes that are exclusively personal vs. educational vs. business vs. mixed. Adobe is not exclusively a "business" software supplier, they're a software supplier, and probably don't care who buys their products so long as they pay.

 

[marklaing]

Agreed. I hate, HATE, HATE the subscription model. I'm looking at Capture One to replace Lightroom and found Luminar for the Mac, an absolutely superb little program. Not all the features of Lightroom but the subscription model works for Adobe it doesn't work for photographers. You are paying for something for the rest of your life. "Yeah but it's like only $20 a month." Sure, for 30 years. This is why you can't buy a phone outright on Verizon anymore.

 

[Orangutan]

If you stop paying for CC you still keep Lightroom, in perpetuity.

<snip>

Furthering outright inaccuracies helps nobody.

Sure, and I pointed out the truth, you have access now and there are no guarantees in the future. Is anything in that statement false?

There are three different issues here:

1. Full use of the software: this degrades to limited use after the subscription ends.

2. Keeping original image files. Nothing here is lost when the subscription ends. Obviously, anyone with any sense would make backups anyhow.

3. Preserving work done. I had not previously heard that edits were preserved in a condition that could be moved to any other platform, I had assumed edits would be lost, and I'm not aware of a generic metadata format that would allow all LR edits to transfer. However, PBD usually does a good job researching his assertions, so I'll take his word on that.

#1 is enough to annoy me, all by itself. Suppose Canon decided that, starting with the 1DX3, they would only lease the product in a way similar to Adobe's, with reduced function when you stop paying. How do you feel?

Software companies want us to think of software as a service rather than a product. They're wrong -- it's a product that I should be able to buy once, then keep and use as long as it suits my needs.

 

[unfocused]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

 

[JMZawodny]

Even when you "buy" the SW instead of renting it, it still can be a subscription model in disguise. Older versions won't get the Camera Raw support for new bodies. In the case of Quicken, they simply decide to turn off functionality after three years. The subscription model is favored by SW companies since it provides a steady and reliable stream of income and they are not forced to crank out new versions on a regular schedule.

Personally, I don't like Lightroom and rarely use Photoshop. I stopped buying and relying on Adobe products a few years ago. Most of my post-processing is done in DXO Optics Pro. The only reason I use Photo$hop is to gain access to a couple of 3rd party plug-ins. PSe is a non-starter because of limited 16-bit support.

As we are seeing, the discontent arising from this forced subscription is giving rise to opportunities for new SW to enter the market. I hope those that enter will flourish.

 

[Fatalv]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

I find it equally hilarious that others expect me to needlessly throw money down the drain on a monthly subscription model when my upgrade path clearly shows it's more cost effective for a perpetual license...

The reality is that every situation is different. The subscription model isn't the magical solution for all needs despite what is often rampantly pushed by so many on these forums. The subscription model is great for some and terrible for others. To say that one or the other is the end all be all solution is ludicrous.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

This got a chuckle out of me! ;D I don't have another penny left to support my habit.

Jack

 

[Fatalv]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

This got a chuckle out of me! ;D I don't have another penny left to support my habit.

Jack

+1

Having just had our first baby Christmas eve all my disposable income is now in diapers, baby gear, and soon to be daycare

I'm happy I have the gear and software I do without tacking anything onto the monthly budget. If anything, I'm still looking to trim the budget somehow :-\

 

[Orangutan]

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

It would be nice to have the option, but not the requirement.

 

[Maiaibing]

Maiaibing, you've got to be pulling our legs.

? Its certainly not a laughing matter to me. I spent almost 6 months getting what I paid for. Where's the joke?

 

[unfocused]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

I find it equally hilarious that others expect me to needlessly throw money down the drain on a monthly subscription model when my upgrade path clearly shows it's more cost effective for a perpetual license...

The reality is that every situation is different. The subscription model isn't the magical solution for all needs despite what is often rampantly pushed by so many on these forums. The subscription model is great for some and terrible for others. To say that one or the other is the end all be all solution is ludicrous.

No one is suggesting you have to buy from Adobe. One company is offering a product. You don't want to buy that product in the form they offer it. That's fine.

But, complaining about it makes as much sense as a certain other perennial participant on this forum who consistently whines and moans and calls Canon "stupid" simply because they aren't offering a product in exactly the format he desires.

 

[Orangutan]

Older versions won't get the Camera Raw support for new bodies.

That's OK. When I get a new body I'll get a new version of LR. Or maybe I'll use a raw converter.

The subscription model is favored by SW companies since it provides a steady and reliable stream of income and they are not forced to crank out new versions on a regular schedule.

Which makes it bad for consumers: we keep paying for the same features and the company feels no urgency to create useful improvements.

the discontent arising from this forced subscription is giving rise to opportunities for new SW to enter the market. I hope those that enter will flourish.

I certainly hope so.

 

[Orangutan]

No one is suggesting you have to buy from Adobe. One company is offering a product. You don't want to buy that product in the form they offer it. That's fine.

Yup.

But, complaining about it makes as much sense as a certain other perennial participant on this forum who consistently whines and moans and calls Canon "stupid" simply because they aren't offering a product in exactly the format he desires.

Huge difference: many of us accept that the subscription model works great for many people, just not for us. We further observe that it would take nearly zero effort to make a perpetual license option available. With hardware, decisions have to be made regarding R&D, tooling, support, price, etc. With software, there's almost zero effort needed to make both options available. Count me among those looking for alternatives: if there is no standalone LR7 I'll run with LR6 as long as I can and then switch to a non-Adobe product.

 

[Mr. Shakes]

My biggest beef with Adobe PhotoShop & LR is that they have abandoned the real "Help Files" for vapid videos that seem to function more for the Marketing Department than the customer base.

The main reason I would dump Adobe would be for an alternative that has really good Help Files (and also supports the NIK Collection).

 

[Stichus III]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I don't own $10,000-$20,000 of equipment.

 

[Fatalv]

I think these Adobe threads are among my all time favorites. It's hilarious to read the comments and follow the twisted reasoning. My favorites are the people who so proudly list $10,000-$20,000 of equipment as part of their tag lines and the whine about paying $10/month for two of the world's premiere software programs, all constantly updated with the latest available features.

I wish Canon would start a subscription program for cameras and lenses with the same discount and opportunity to have the cameras and lenses updated constantly.

I find it equally hilarious that others expect me to needlessly throw money down the drain on a monthly subscription model when my upgrade path clearly shows it's more cost effective for a perpetual license...

The reality is that every situation is different. The subscription model isn't the magical solution for all needs despite what is often rampantly pushed by so many on these forums. The subscription model is great for some and terrible for others. To say that one or the other is the end all be all solution is ludicrous.

No one is suggesting you have to buy from Adobe. One company is offering a product. You don't want to buy that product in the form they offer it. That's fine.

But, complaining about it makes as much sense as a certain other perennial participant on this forum who consistently whines and moans and calls Canon "stupid" simply because they aren't offering a product in exactly the format he desires.

Correct, which is why I stated I'd run LR6 until forced to switch.

I'm totally fine with Adobe doing whatever Adobe wants to do. They are a business. By designed they could care less about me or any other user for that matter. They answer to shareholders which means profit trumps making the majority of users happy. As long as they make enough users happy to sustain profits that's all they likely care about.

This is a forum, voicing opinions is large part of that, even if it is a dissenting opinion. I'm not calling Adobe 'stupid' like the member in question My objection was the blanket statement made by CR that subscription software saves you money. That statement is largely false. It may save for some but it doesn't for everyone.

 

[Botts]

Perpetual licensing was costing Adobe huge cash in piracy. I'm not surprised they are switching to the subscription model.

The photographer subscription option is likely attracted a huge number of hobbyists who couldn't afford the initial cash outlay, but ignore the minimal monthly payments hitting their card.

I have also found since switching to CC, I'm always up to date on features, and it feels like there's updates every 6 months. Previously, I was always a year or two behind on CS.

I still export my final images to a non-proprietary format, typically TIFF, and burn them to 100GB BD-Rs, so I'm not worried about losing access if I ever unsubscribe to CC.