If rental becomes the norm for Adobe...maybe it's time for someone else to step up to the plate...
I, for one, am not enamored with the idea of paying someone a fee for life, if you want to use their products. Haven't liked the concept from the first time that I heard about it.
If you never own the product, you can't stop paying. It's their way of having your pay for using the product...on and on and on.
The better the Adobe products get, the longer their shelf life..., until they reach a point of diminishing return, and I think Adobe is seeing this. CS5 is very capable...so, it leaves me wondering if CS5.5 was a low earner...with little or few people upgrading...and, even though CS6 will, undoubtedly, have some innovations, I've found that in the past, those upgrades/innovations aren't all directed toward photographers needs...leaving me, in the past, to skip some upgrades. If Adobe goes Cloud, then they'll require you to pay a fee, or not be able to use their product...and they'll undoubtedly spin the new cloud product as always keeping you up to date, the best bang for your buck...whether you enjoy the benefits from those upgrades, or not.
Just my two cents.
While I agree with most of what you said, I'd point out that Adobe said that they would continue to offer the perpetual license option as well (see post above). They're not forcing the cloud option on us, at least, not yet. And I believe they have also backed off a bit on upgrade cost for those not on CS5. So stay tuned.
With Corel (yeah, I know ) making AfterShot available, and with 16-bit layer support, there might be a push by the company to begin a higher-end PaintShopPro with real RAW capabilities, in the near future. At least, I hope so. Since AfterShot is also a Mac program, I am forever hopeful they can make PSP jump to the Mac platform. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
With Corel (yeah, I know ) making AfterShot available, and with 16-bit layer support, there might be a push by the company to begin a higher-end PaintShopPro with real RAW capabilities, in the near future. At least, I hope so. Since AfterShot is also a Mac program, I am forever hopeful they can make PSP jump to the Mac platform. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Corel also just acquired Bibble, so perhaps there's some hope there. It would be good for everyone if Adobe had some serious competition.
Corel also just acquired Bibble, so perhaps there's some hope there. It would be good for everyone if Adobe had some serious competition.
While the acquisition was just recently formally announced, Corel actually purchased Bibble some time ago and the Bibble team was (reportedly) brought over to Corel shortly after the purchase. Corel AfterShot Pro is reportedly the first product from Corel to use the Bibble code.
I've never paid for Adobe software, and personally I think the whole thing is hilarious. Adobe has a long history of screwing its customers, and after each battery of insults they ask, "Why is piracy of our products so high?". Thanks for driving a couple more over to our side, Adobe
Regarding the fears of a cloud-only model, I seriously doubt that will ever happen (at least not until the internet is truly ubiquitous). I can think of so many situations where not having offline access to Photoshop would be a huge inconvenience, and forcing their customers online would simply make many refuse to upgrade (Not to mention creating a huge gap for a competitor to steal Adobe's crown).
I've never paid for Adobe software, and personally I think the whole thing is hilarious. Adobe has a long history of screwing its customers, and after each battery of insults they ask, "Why is piracy of our products so high?". Thanks for driving a couple more over to our side, Adobe
Regarding the fears of a cloud-only model, I seriously doubt that will ever happen (at least not until the internet is truly ubiquitous). I can think of so many situations where not having offline access to Photoshop would be a huge inconvenience, and forcing their customers online would simply make many refuse to upgrade (Not to mention creating a huge gap for a competitor to steal Adobe's crown).
You don't pay to have CS5? I hope that's not the case because your screwing the rest of us!
Mark
If you don't agree with me then your wrong.
I can't be held accountable for what I say, I'm bipolar.
The rental versions of Adobe software don't "run in the cloud", at least not Premiere. They are installed on your computer just like the copies you own. The only difference is that the license expires unless renewed before expiration. You only need internet access to download the software and when times come to renew the license.
I've never paid for Adobe software, and personally I think the whole thing is hilarious. Adobe has a long history of screwing its customers, and after each battery of insults they ask, "Why is piracy of our products so high?". Thanks for driving a couple more over to our side, Adobe
Regarding the fears of a cloud-only model, I seriously doubt that will ever happen (at least not until the internet is truly ubiquitous). I can think of so many situations where not having offline access to Photoshop would be a huge inconvenience, and forcing their customers online would simply make many refuse to upgrade (Not to mention creating a huge gap for a competitor to steal Adobe's crown).
I've never paid for Adobe software, and personally I think the whole thing is hilarious. Adobe has a long history of screwing its customers, and after each battery of insults they ask, "Why is piracy of our products so high?". Thanks for driving a couple more over to our side, Adobe
You seem to be suggesting that pirating software is OK. I disagree. If you think CS products are overpriced, there are cheaper (PSE & PSP) and free (GIMP) alternatives. Aside from the legal and ethical issues, you should keep in mind that pirated software (including Photoshop) is a well-known source of malware. By installing any program from an untrusted source, you run the risk of sending all your keystrokes to Estonia. It's just not a smart thing to do.
The biggest misconception I've seen from these companies, game companies included, is they cry about all the money they lose from pirated software. I bet that more then 95% of the pirates wouldn't buy anyway because they can't afford the high cost. So they really lose almost nothing.
I bet that more then 95% of the pirates wouldn't buy anyway because they can't afford the high cost. So they really lose almost nothing.
I don't know it's a matter of money. Some people just don't want to pay. Period.
As far as losses go, I don't know what the number of pirated copies is but it's probably significant. If you stole it, you have all the benefit of the software without any the cost. To me, that's a loss. More so if that copy makes someone money off of it.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
You seem to be suggesting that pirating software is OK. I disagree. If you think CS products are overpriced, there are cheaper (PSE & PSP) and free (GIMP) alternatives.
Everyone has their own beliefs Personally, I have qualms about giving any money to Adobe.
Aside from the legal and ethical issues, you should keep in mind that pirated software (including Photoshop) is a well-known source of malware. By installing any program from an untrusted source, you run the risk of sending all your keystrokes to Estonia. It's just not a smart thing to do.
Yeah, I've heard that story before. But honestly, it's too much work to infect a software package with a trojan when you can use a simple web exploit and reach a much larger audience.
Yeah, I've heard that story before. But honestly, it's too much work to infect a software package with a trojan when you can use a simple web exploit and reach a much larger audience.
Which is why there are no trojans out there, right?
You seem to be suggesting that pirating software is OK. I disagree. If you think CS products are overpriced, there are cheaper (PSE & PSP) and free (GIMP) alternatives. Aside from the legal and ethical issues, you should keep in mind that pirated software (including Photoshop) is a well-known source of malware. By installing any program from an untrusted source, you run the risk of sending all your keystrokes to Estonia. It's just not a smart thing to do.
Not to mention that we don't tolerate this talk AT ALL on Dgrin. The poster of that post is on notice.
The biggest misconception I've seen from these companies, game companies included, is they cry about all the money they lose from pirated software. I bet that more then 95% of the pirates wouldn't buy anyway because they can't afford the high cost. So they really lose almost nothing.
There are a lot of problems with that statement. If they're a student, the educational discount is quite steep. If they could afford the level of camera, lens, and computer that only Photoshop can do those images justice, they have the ability to work it into their budget, or on at least one of their credit cards. If they can't afford that equipment, one of the many cheaper alternatives will work.
There have been threads ranting about prospective clients who say "Shoot our event, we can't pay but it will be a great opportunity for you and you'll get a lot of exposure." Do you shoot that event because they wouldn't have paid anyway? Do you shoot that event after you look around and see that they clearly had the budget for a band, a venue, a publicist, travel, lawyers, etc. but they won't budget for your professional services?
And finally, the biggest problem with the statement is when you flip it around like this:
The biggest misconception I've seen from these photographers is they cry about all the money they lose from pirated pictures. I bet that more then 95% of the pirates wouldn't buy anyway because I would never pay that much for a photograph. So they really lose almost nothing.
The issues around piracy are interesting because they look totally different when viewpoints/media are switched. Having thought about this, there are times when I have asked a friend what music was playing and they've said "It's great, isn't it? Would you like me to burn a CD of it for you?" (And this might be in a photographer's studio!) I have actually said no on more than one occasion, because on principle I had made a personal decision that if I didn't want people to copy my photos without paying, then if I liked that album enough, I'd better buy my own copy.
Of course, I only use that example because we all know how hard photographers work to protect their work from even the most casual copiers, exasperated that people would rather live with or erase a watermark than pay a reasonable fee. Well...they weren't going to pay anyway, so is that a loss? Hmmm...
I don't think it is all that complicated regarding licensing agreement and policy.
They have to honer the agreements that are in place at the time you purchased a product.
If they change their agreements and policy in midstream it only applies to the new product that the new agreements and policy fall under.
Comments
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
While the acquisition was just recently formally announced, Corel actually purchased Bibble some time ago and the Bibble team was (reportedly) brought over to Corel shortly after the purchase. Corel AfterShot Pro is reportedly the first product from Corel to use the Bibble code.
http://support.bibblelabs.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=19655
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Regarding the fears of a cloud-only model, I seriously doubt that will ever happen (at least not until the internet is truly ubiquitous). I can think of so many situations where not having offline access to Photoshop would be a huge inconvenience, and forcing their customers online would simply make many refuse to upgrade (Not to mention creating a huge gap for a competitor to steal Adobe's crown).
You don't pay to have CS5? I hope that's not the case because your screwing the rest of us!
If you don't agree with me then your wrong.
I can't be held accountable for what I say, I'm bipolar.
http://www.danalphotos.com
http://www.pluralsight.com
http://twitter.com/d114
You seem to be suggesting that pirating software is OK. I disagree. If you think CS products are overpriced, there are cheaper (PSE & PSP) and free (GIMP) alternatives. Aside from the legal and ethical issues, you should keep in mind that pirated software (including Photoshop) is a well-known source of malware. By installing any program from an untrusted source, you run the risk of sending all your keystrokes to Estonia. It's just not a smart thing to do.
My Website index | My Blog
I don't know it's a matter of money. Some people just don't want to pay. Period.
As far as losses go, I don't know what the number of pirated copies is but it's probably significant. If you stole it, you have all the benefit of the software without any the cost. To me, that's a loss. More so if that copy makes someone money off of it.
Yeah, I've heard that story before. But honestly, it's too much work to infect a software package with a trojan when you can use a simple web exploit and reach a much larger audience.
Not to mention that we don't tolerate this talk AT ALL on Dgrin. The poster of that post is on notice.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
There are a lot of problems with that statement. If they're a student, the educational discount is quite steep. If they could afford the level of camera, lens, and computer that only Photoshop can do those images justice, they have the ability to work it into their budget, or on at least one of their credit cards. If they can't afford that equipment, one of the many cheaper alternatives will work.
There have been threads ranting about prospective clients who say "Shoot our event, we can't pay but it will be a great opportunity for you and you'll get a lot of exposure." Do you shoot that event because they wouldn't have paid anyway? Do you shoot that event after you look around and see that they clearly had the budget for a band, a venue, a publicist, travel, lawyers, etc. but they won't budget for your professional services?
And finally, the biggest problem with the statement is when you flip it around like this:
The issues around piracy are interesting because they look totally different when viewpoints/media are switched. Having thought about this, there are times when I have asked a friend what music was playing and they've said "It's great, isn't it? Would you like me to burn a CD of it for you?" (And this might be in a photographer's studio!) I have actually said no on more than one occasion, because on principle I had made a personal decision that if I didn't want people to copy my photos without paying, then if I liked that album enough, I'd better buy my own copy.
Of course, I only use that example because we all know how hard photographers work to protect their work from even the most casual copiers, exasperated that people would rather live with or erase a watermark than pay a reasonable fee. Well...they weren't going to pay anyway, so is that a loss? Hmmm...
They have to honer the agreements that are in place at the time you purchased a product.
If they change their agreements and policy in midstream it only applies to the new product that the new agreements and policy fall under.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/