Adobe to Show Next Creative Cloud on June 18

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/adobe-to-announce-next-creative-cloud-on-june-18/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/adobe-to-announce-next-creative-cloud-on-june-18/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>“Everything new is new again”, or so says Adobe. If you’re a Creative Cloud person, you may want to mark June 18, 2014 on your calendar, as that’s the day Adobe will announce and show their latest and greatest suite of applications.</p>
<p>We’ll see new desktop and mobile apps, as well as some hardware. Adobe plans to stream the keynote and give us a peak at the hundreds of new features.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.creativepro.com/article/find-out-whats-coming-soon-to-adobe-creative-cloud" target="_blank">CP</a>] via [<a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/05/27/adobe-will-revealing-next-evolution-creative-cloud-june-18th-keynote/" target="_blank">PP</a>]</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://creativecloud.adobeevents.com/ccnext/" target="_blank">Visit Adobe</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[m]

So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.

 

[expatinasia]

So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.

I am sure they could, but even the biggest companies need a little drama, anticipation, PR and marketing!!

 

[IWLP]

So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.

Oh, sure they can do that, but it's a little more difficult to get people to pay attention to you that way.

Especially when most of your attention-getting communication is something like, "Hey, uh, we had someone hack our servers and your account may have been compromised. If you could change your password, that would probably be a good idea," or, "We would like to apologize that our servers are down ..."

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I must be the only photographer who relly doesn't care much for Adobe's newest releases. Their recent products have fallen foul of bloat ware and I really don't expect any new headline features to grab me.
I'm a use of Lightroom, but their latest release doesn't work on Windows Vista....which is still supported by Microsoft. So why should I have to upgrade my OS just for an Adobe product?
I have various machines, Vista 64x, Win 7 64x and Win 8 64x...but the newest Adobe LR installer won't run on my Vista box....sigh....I'm bored of this....

 

[Joe M]

I too don't really care for any new CC announcements. I'm the sort that sticks to what I know until I'm forced to change. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I value solid performance over flashy good looks. Spending time figuring out what went where with programs that get updated and refreshed all the time just sucks time out of my day. So when I actually commit, for example, to fire up PS CS6 finally, I stick with it until I have to change. Reasons to do so include dramatically improved ACR and/or unsupported cameras or worse still, unsupported O/S. Not to rehash the old CC vs. everyone else, but when the time comes next, I'll likely go the DXO route and keep CS6 for layer work.

 

[COBRASoft]

I'm a happy owner of DxO Optics Pro and haven't used PhotoShop since (except for some occasional plugins and effects).

 

[Harry Muff]

I wonder what video and 3D stuff they are going to add to PHOTOshop this time...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I must be the only photographer who relly doesn't care much for Adobe's newest releases. Their recent products have fallen foul of bloat ware and I really don't expect any new headline features to grab me.
I'm a use of Lightroom, but their latest release doesn't work on Windows Vista....which is still supported by Microsoft. So why should I have to upgrade my OS just for an Adobe product?
I have various machines, Vista 64x, Win 7 64x and Win 8 64x...but the newest Adobe LR installer won't run on my Vista box....sigh....I'm bored of this....

Vista??? You are not missing much. Vista was just a step ahead of WindowsME... On the turd meter, Vista was a double flush... Seriously... Compared to Vista, Windows 7 is a dream... There is a reason Windows 98 lasted a decade and Vista was flushed as soon as they could. Granted Vista was slightly better than Windows ME, but that is not saying much

Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.
Vista was Win NT 6.0, Win 7 is Win NT 6.1 and Win 8 is Win NT 6.2
There hasn't been a new OS since Vista, all the new ones are shell cometics and a few functional updates. Plus marketing and branding. If microsoft wanted to, they could easily have released a service pack to update Vista to either or the new Operating Systems. There is more commonality between them then there are differences.

 

[2n10]

I must be the only photographer who relly doesn't care much for Adobe's newest releases. Their recent products have fallen foul of bloat ware and I really don't expect any new headline features to grab me.
I'm a use of Lightroom, but their latest release doesn't work on Windows Vista....which is still supported by Microsoft. So why should I have to upgrade my OS just for an Adobe product?
I have various machines, Vista 64x, Win 7 64x and Win 8 64x...but the newest Adobe LR installer won't run on my Vista box....sigh....I'm bored of this....

Vista??? You are not missing much. Vista was just a step ahead of WindowsME... On the turd meter, Vista was a double flush... Seriously... Compared to Vista, Windows 7 is a dream... There is a reason Windows 98 lasted a decade and Vista was flushed as soon as they could. Granted Vista was slightly better than Windows ME, but that is not saying much

Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.
Vista was Win NT 6.0, Win 7 is Win NT 6.1 and Win 8 is Win NT 6.2
There hasn't been a new OS since Vista, all the new ones are shell cometics and a few functional updates. Plus marketing and branding. If microsoft wanted to, they could easily have released a service pack to update Vista to either or the new Operating Systems. There is more commonality between them then there are differences.

Given the performance gains over Vista they are worthy updates.

 

[Zv]

I almost signed up for CC until I saw what happened to Pye @ SLR Lounge.

Nope. Sorry Adobe, that's unacceptable.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've been using Adobe cc for photographers for a while now. Its $10 a month and is great.

There has been speculation that the new version of Lightroom will arrive in June. Lots of people are wondering if it will be a cc version only. I doubted it, but that might be the case.

 

[distant.star]

.
"Everything new is new again" sounds to me like, "Same shit, different day."

 

[unfocused]

So much for the cloud allowing Adobe to integrate new features continuously without being bound to certain release dates of updates.

My thoughts exactly. CC customers were promised updates as soon as they became available. I guess maybe they are only available once a year.

 

[LDS]

Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.

Don't be deceived by Windows version numbers. Because they're not used in marketing materials, they are used in a more "technical" way. Usually they are bumped when there is some big changes in the underlying kernel. That's why Windows XP and 2003 were still version 5 like Windows 2000, although they were big improvements as well. There are also big improvements in 7 and 8.x over Vista, especially perfromance-wise.
But one reason Vista gets very little support nowadays is it is very little used, its market percentage is in the single digit range. Thereby developers prefer to target 7 and later, and take advantage of some new good features not available before. Even MS Office 2013 requires 7 or better, despite being Vista still supported, but I guess not for too long. Expect most new software drop Vista support soon, especially now XP has reached is end-of-life - what was written to run on XP would have run on Vista also. Especially for graphic intensive applications (but not only), 7 and later are far better than Vista.

 

[Drizzt321]

Actually Win 7 and Win 8 / 8.1 are built on a Vista engine....neither are new products.

Don't be deceived by Windows version numbers. Because they're not used in marketing materials, they are used in a more "technical" way. Usually they are bumped when there is some big changes in the underlying kernel. That's why Windows XP and 2003 were still version 5 like Windows 2000, although they were big improvements as well. There are also big improvements in 7 and 8.x over Vista, especially perfromance-wise.
But one reason Vista gets very little support nowadays is it is very little used, its market percentage is in the single digit range. Thereby developers prefer to target 7 and later, and take advantage of some new good features not available before. Even MS Office 2013 requires 7 or better, despite being Vista still supported, but I guess not for too long. Expect most new software drop Vista support soon, especially now XP has reached is end-of-life - what was written to run on XP would have run on Vista also. Especially for graphic intensive applications (but not only), 7 and later are far better than Vista.

Yea, Vista had a ton of underlying framework changes which were part of the reason why it was pretty Meh. But, it did set the groundwork for Win7, which is what they should have released, except they were on a deadline. Although I bet Win7 launch would have been pretty rough if Vista hadn't had all the hardware/software guys time to shift, at least in part, over to the new frameworks.

Win7 made fixes & improvements on the core services, as well as fixed the UI. Win8/8.1 has added additional core services functionality & tweaks over Win7, as well as a massive UI overhaul. So even so, Vista kernel + core services are quite a bit different than Win8/8.1 kernel + core services, even if the official 'NT version' is the same. They are definitely different products. Vista just set the stage for the newer versions. Kinda like how Win2000 set the stage for WinXP in a huge number of ways.

 

[captainkanji]

I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.

 

[Click]

I like to own the software I purchase. I think I'll pass on CC. If lightroom ever goes CC, I'll just use something else.

+1

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Wait what???? I thought the whole thing about their 'magical' 'cloud' is that it was supposed to have constant and continuous updates and also that is why they couldn't continue with the old version and now they make it sound like well CC1 was CS7 and now we have a new major update CS8 ooppps I mean the magical CC2.

The whole thing is a rip and a sham. It's nothing to do with distributed computing, it's just an obnoxious rental model that does less than nothing (literally so) for their customers.

 

[LarryC]

I've been using Adobe cc for photographers for a while now. Its $10 a month and is great.

+1. As long as it stays at ~$10/mo, I'll remain very glad I made the move to CC.