Adobe Creative Apps Go Cloud Only

[COBRASoft]

I have PhotoShop CC, DxO Optics Pro, Affinity and Topaz

I don't use LightRoom, I just don't like it. DxO Optics Pro is my main tool, followed by PhotoShop (export from DxO).
Affinity is great, but still has a lot of bugs. I bought it to support its development.

Topaz works in PhotoShop and Affinity.

 

[Orangutan]

What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing.

That is simply not true.

If you stop paying for CC you...lose the Develop and Map modules.

This is close enough to true for my purposes.

 

[privatebydesign]

What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing.

That is simply not true.

If you stop paying for CC you...lose the Develop and Map modules.

This is close enough to true for my purposes.

That is your opinion for your situation and that is entirely fine by me, but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated "What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."

 

[Hill Benson]

Why can't they maintain both versions as options for the customer?

 

[privatebydesign]

Why can't they maintain both versions as options for the customer?

Because it costs them too much money to do that. They don't want to. They are fed up trying to support legacy products. The people that endlessly berate them about their practices are not, generally, their core customers.

They are probably praying somebody makes a similar product to LR well enough and cheaply enough that all the 'anti Adobe users' just migrate to it so they can concentrate on their core business, a corporate supplier of business software to creative professionals and companies who unanimously like the leasing model for many reasons that happen to dovetail with Adobe's need to do it.

 

[Orangutan]

but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated "What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."

It depends on how you interpret the statement: I did not interpret to mean he would lose his data, but that he would lose major function of the software. My interpretation is that he was saying that putting that much money into software rental should be rent-to-own, not rent in perpetuity. By that interpretation the statement is substantially correct, though perhaps a little hyperbolic.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Ive stopped using adobe products about 2 years ago and moved on to better work flows. Never liked their subscription model and have no reason to be forced to jump on that hay ride.

 

[privatebydesign]

but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated "What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."

It depends on how you interpret the statement: I did not interpret to mean he would lose his data, but that he would lose major function of the software. My interpretation is that he was saying that putting that much money into software rental should be rent-to-own, not rent in perpetuity. By that interpretation the statement is substantially correct, though perhaps a little hyperbolic.

I think you are playing the "alternative facts" game on this one.

"What do I have? Nothing. No access."

He has "access", stating he has "No access" is an entire and unambiguous falsehood.

"Nothing"? He doesn't have "Nothing", he has access to all his files within the program as he always did (obviously outside the program too). He has the ability to print his files and export them however he always did, he can make slideshows and books too. So the claim of having "Nothing" is also entirely false.

 

[Orangutan]

Why can't they maintain both versions as options for the customer?

Because it costs them too much money to do that.

Nonsense. Right now they offer the option to rent monthly or annually, with multi-year rental available. Just set the "paid-through" variable to C.E. 3000 and set a flag that no free major updates are available, just bug fixes and RAW updates. Done.

They don't want to.

This is the real reason.

They are fed up trying to support legacy products.

How so? They typically dropped support for prior products after about 3 years.

The people that endlessly berate them about their practices are not, generally, their core customers.

Maybe so, but maybe they could expand their customer base and increase profit. This is the same argument we make about Canon: a certain small crowd wants Canon to cater to pros and high-end enthusiasts, while money is raked in from Rebels. Likewise, Adobe could sell a slimmer version of CS as a consumer product, and sell expensive add-ons to pros and enthusiasts. These days volume often beats margin.

They are probably praying somebody makes a similar product to LR well enough and cheaply enough that all the 'anti Adobe users'

I really doubt this; if it's true they're insane -- no business should want competition. If they want a low-end version why not just produce LR Elements -- it worked for PS and Premier.

 

[Orangutan]

but the statement I was replying to is entirely false. You do not lose your work and you do not lose access to your work as cpeak66 falsely stated "What happens after 3 years and I don't want to pay anymore? What do I have? Nothing. No access."

It depends on how you interpret the statement: I did not interpret to mean he would lose his data, but that he would lose major function of the software. My interpretation is that he was saying that putting that much money into software rental should be rent-to-own, not rent in perpetuity. By that interpretation the statement is substantially correct, though perhaps a little hyperbolic.

I think you are playing the "alternative facts" game on this one.

Not intentionally. I really did read it that way.

"What do I have? Nothing. No access."

He has "access", stating he has "No access" is an entire and unambiguous falsehood.

No, it's hyperbole...a very common rhetorical device in a post that was clearly rhetoric.

"Nothing"? He doesn't have "Nothing", he has access to all his files within the program as he always did
(obviously outside the program too). He has the ability to print his files and export them however he always did, he can make slideshows and books too. So the claim of having "Nothing" is also entirely false.

Again, this is just hyperbole. Of course, I really should let the poster speak for himself.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only

If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.

Same here, both at home and at work...

I have 2 work computers.... one for email, corporate stuff, and surfing..... and a second one for the real work. For security reasons, it is not net accessible, and that means NO CLOUD! Goodbye Adobe.....

Actually, Adobe does offer stand-Alone versions for companies in that situation. Whats going away is the sale to the general public, Corporations still have pull.

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only

If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.

Same here, both at home and at work...

I have 2 work computers.... one for email, corporate stuff, and surfing..... and a second one for the real work. For security reasons, it is not net accessible, and that means NO CLOUD! Goodbye Adobe.....

Actually, Adobe does offer stand-Alone versions for companies in that situation. Whats going away is the sale to the general public, Corporations still have pull.

I believe it requires volume purchase. https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/packager.html

 

[Mancubus]

Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only

If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.

Same here, both at home and at work...

I have 2 work computers.... one for email, corporate stuff, and surfing..... and a second one for the real work. For security reasons, it is not net accessible, and that means NO CLOUD! Goodbye Adobe.....

Sorry to say that but that's how the technology rolls now and it will get worse. They want everything online, and will force you to do so. Subscriptions, cloud storage, authentications, passwords. This is way more profitable for them than selling something once and having to spend resources to update it for free later.

Also much easier to control piracy and watch your activity to be able to sell you more stuff later on.

Those who resist will be isolated from the rest of the world with outdated software and incompatible stuff.

What will you do when that new camera you bought is incompatible with your current LR? Capture One? What happens when they decide they move to subscription only too?

 

[monkey44]

Just to tag on at the end here ... with an opinion.

We're often in the field for extended periods (months) and often with no access to the web. so, if we were forced to the Cloud, we'll not be able to process our work until we get out and get online.

In addition: I have my main photo work PC that never, ever goes online - for security reasons. It stores all my files, and I use a Hard transfer when necessary to other PC's when 'stuff' goes online ... So, in that case, our main work computer will not ever get PS once this one 'becomes obsolete" ... And, in addition, I don't like the Cloud / Rent system because it feels like we're held hostage to whatever Adobe decides to do with it now, and later as far as fees and update charges etc. That's not for us... as long as an alternative exists, subscriptions services like this will never get us ...

I happen to like DPP, and use it often for the basic editing and crops, etc. preliminary peeks ... Then support that process with PS ... but we can support that with other programs too, and will once we lose use of PS we have now...

 

[Chaitanya]

The aversion to subscription model pricing is that for those of us in the long haul, we AREN'T saving money.

Lightroom CC is 9.99 a month, which yes, is not bad. Lightroom 6 to purchase outright is about $150 give or take.

After 12 months of paying $9.99 for CC I will have shelled out 119.88. Cheaper than standalone.
After 24 months of paying $9.99 for CC I will have shelled out 239.76.
After 36 months its over $350 I've spent.

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.

Are there upsides to CC? Yes, new features, but I'm still happily running Lightroom 5 with no issues. Thats 4 years for about $3 a month.

Well you do get Photoshop too

So pay for additional bloatware which I or any Lightroom user may not be using more than once every couple of months. That sounds like an awesome f-ed up deal to me. Also when I am in Himalayas or western ghats I dont get internet connection for weeks on end, Adobe can take their CC model shove up their rear side for all I care.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Will Photoshop Elements continue to be offered as a stand alone? I have no need to ever update my current version (PE 12) as long as my laptop computer lasts. But if it dies I would like to buy a replacement version (unless I can use the CD to load it onto a new computer, but I have a feeling the registration code would not work to avoid piracy).

 

[monkey44]

I just bought PS Elements 15 one minute ago, just in case Adobe does this with other programs too ... it will do everything we need. It should last as long as the new PC we just bought.

 

[Otara]

For LR+PS, its a good deal, in Australia anyhow. What Ive realised over time though, is that I hardly use PS now, and for LR alone, the deal isnt so great. One reason I find myself using it less is that its pretty clunky to switch, the integration isnt exactly smooth.

Im OK to stay with it for now, but its less compelling than it used to be. The market for competitors is rising as their rate of new features slows down.

 

[heptagon]

You guys argue about a little money plus or minus. For professionals this amount doesn't matter. What most of you don't see is that this change is less about money but more about control. Adobe can now can cancel your product at any time and you cannot continue to work from one day to another without prior warning.

You think this won't happen? This happened time and time again in the past when companies were acquired. Top products were dropped, services cancelled, servers shut down.

You think nobody could acquire Adobe? Think about the competitive advantage it would bring Apple, Alphabet or Microsoft in one of their key areas if they were the only ones to offer the creative cloud. Especially since Microsoft released their new surface line, they are attacking Apple key market segments. They have plenty of money for acquisitions.

 

[MintChocs]

Re: Adobe Software Goes Cloud Only

If Adobe is doing the same with Lightroom, they are going to lose me as customer.

+1
As I only update my gear every four years and LR5.7 works well, hoping LR 7 comes out (stand alone). However as more people subscribe to LR/PS subscription I feel investment in LR will go down as there is little need to improve products for subscribers. Plus once you build up your library you are basically held hostage as your edits and tagging would take too long to redo on another software.