what on earth are you talking about? you really arent a mac user, are you? apple wasnt late to the party when they implemented a native fullscreen mode for apps... it's not the same as maximizing an app on your windows box. trust us.
Perhaps a random Google search result from 2005 will convince you I'm not making this up:
In the mean time, all the people holding out are missing out on the new improved apps.
so what? why is that idea so offensive? i work at a Fortune 10 corp, and guess what version of Office we're running? 2007! eight years old, man! why? because it does the job to be done. the corp decided they dont need every new feature every year.
you pay for what you need. that there is something newer doesnt mean you need it.
I feel personally offended (yes, you read that right) by your stance on the matter.
I used to be a pretty loyal Adobe customer, even after they bought Macromedia and killed off FreeHand (hey, that's one of the reasons I really don't have much faith in the US system; either there aren't enough checks and balances against anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours, or they plainly just don't work)… Call me cheapskate if you will, but I happen to be a rather honest, freelance designer (do you even know what those are?) living on a debt-bound, crisis-laden country from southern Europe (I used to have one fixed job in the private sector, for one year, and another in the public education sector, for two years, but in between I've had and will have to live off of small jobs and pay obscene amounts of taxes), and was happy enough to plunk down €300 on an Adobe CS5 Standard for Education licence, in the hopes I could maybe buy a full upgrade to CS6 (no, Adobe cut us off, on account of its ridiculous CS5.5 scheme – seriously? That was a minor update to InDesign!)…
Then, when I was *still* waiting to buy another education or even full version of CS7, along comes this CC crap. To add insult to injury, now you have CC2013, CC2014, CC2015, CC[n+1]… Which is the same to say “CS7-9”, am I right? So no, you are probably not getting better and faster software updates than you would otherwise be getting if not for the jump into subscriptions. In fact, it's quite the contrary; Adobe, as of now, has NO *internal* incentive to push forward with updates, as they've become the software equivalent of the complacent, pre-Tesla GM (minus the whole bankruptcy ordeal, that is, though I'm ultimately vying for that, as Adobe, right now, is probably as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft during the dark ages of the '90s and early '00s).
As for cost: NO, CC is NOT cheaper than the old princing scheme, and skipping a version is not being a “cheapskate”, it's just exerting some customer freedom and common business and financial sense. Being a cheapskate is, IMHO, outright bootlegging it, and you should be ashamed to even think of lumping both kinds of users in the same category just because they are saving some money in the process… And no amount of that “holier-than-thou” attitude will convince honest people like me that CC was a good idea. It just creates artificial boundaries (yes, even compatibility boundaries) between freelancers and more established design shops, as they operate, financially-wise, on very different terms. And I can assure you, I have more than 12 years of experience as a designer and do pretty high-profile projects, but can't really afford to pay *yet* another monthly bill (or maybe I could, but I'd rather save a bit on unnecessary software that don't make me the least bit more competitive and invest in, say, hardware upgrades, writing supplies, etc.). Oh, and that's all that “being held hostage” thing. No matter how you spin it, owning your software beats renting it any day of the week (with perpetually-licensed software I could still open my old files in their original form and without any conversion shenanigans, say, 10 years from now, using an older machine or an emulator/VM, whereas if I was using a rental-model software I'd have either to risk losing some information on the process or having to resort to piracy).
My money, right now, is figuratively and *literally* on Serif. Watch out for them; there will come a day when your studio may have to buy Affinity licenses just to open files created by “lowly” designers like me, much like I sometimes long for a Mac-compatible Corel version (Affinity will probably come to Windows before Corel gets around to doing the opposite), not to use it for day-to-day work but for that end alone. And even though I personally loathe that and wouldn't generally wish that kind of burden upon anybody, since you started with the elitist attitude, I don't give a rat's a$$ about your feelings on that. Besides, Serif is playing on a much higher level than Corel, Pixelmator, Acorn et. al., so it wouldn't be that farfetched to assume that at least some studios – yours included – would be taken into the fold through that vector, trojan-horse-wise.
I think you are missing the point.
I'm sure mstone (and myself) will happily buy Serif if (when?) it becomes a thing in our industry. I have never heard of this application. I've certainly never come across the file format.
The difference between a successful professional and a hobbyist is that the professional can afford his tools by doing enough work to support his business.
I'm sorry you can't do that.
It's not Adobe's fault you can't afford CC. Its not their fault you aren't finding success. Don't externalize.
I know it's hard for you to believe. Perhaps you haven't been using Photoshop and other adobe applications on mac, or windows for the last 20 years.
There has been a Full Screen (not maximized window) implementation in Photoshop on Mac practically forever. That mean pre-OSX days, as well as OSX. adgnostic.
guess what? ive been using adobe crap for twenty years, too. we all have here. we fucking know adobe products have a fullscreen mode. that isnt the same thing.
so im trying to explain to you what native fullscreen mode is because you dont seem to understand (or are playing dumb about) what it is or why it has value. to suggest Apple was "late" in introducing it is foolish, especially since Windows doesnt have a universal fullscreen, so im not sure who theyre "late" compared to...
I feel personally offended (yes, you read that right) by your stance on the matter.
I used to be a pretty loyal Adobe customer, even after they bought Macromedia and killed off FreeHand (hey, that's one of the reasons I really don't have much faith in the US system; either there aren't enough checks and balances against anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours, or they plainly just don't work)… Call me cheapskate if you will, but I happen to be a rather honest, freelance designer (do you even know what those are?) living on a debt-bound, crisis-laden country from southern Europe (I used to have one fixed job in the private sector, for one year, and another in the public education sector, for two years, but in between I've had and will have to live off of small jobs and pay obscene amounts of taxes), and was happy enough to plunk down €300 on an Adobe CS5 <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Standard for Education licence, in the hopes I could maybe buy a full upgrade to CS6 (no, Adobe cut us off, on account of its ridiculous CS5.5 scheme – seriously? That was a minor update to InDesign!)…</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Then, when I was *still* waiting to buy another education or even full version of CS7, along comes this CC crap. To add insult to injury, now you have CC2013, CC2014, CC2015, CC[n+1]… Which is the same to say “CS7-9”, am I right? So no, you are probably not getting better and faster software updates than you would otherwise be getting if not for the jump into subscriptions. In fact, it's quite the contrary; Adobe, as of now, has NO *internal* incentive to push forward with updates, as t</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">hey've become the software equivalent of the complacent, pre-Tesla GM (minus the whole bankruptcy ordeal, that is, though I'm ultimately vying for that, as Adobe, right now, is probably as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft during the dark ages of the '90s and early '00s).</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">As for cost: NO, CC is NOT cheaper than the old princing scheme, and skipping a version is not being a “cheapskate”, it's just exerting some customer freedom and common business and financial sense. Being a cheapskate is, IMHO, outright bootlegging it, and you should be ashamed to even think of lumping both kinds of users in the same category just because they are saving some money in the process… And no amount of that “holier-than-thou” attitude will convince honest people like me that CC was a good idea. It just creates artificial boundaries (yes, even compatibility boundaries) between freelancers and more established design shops, as they operate, financially-wise, on very different terms. And I can assure you, I have more than 12 years of experience as a designer and do pretty high-profile projects, but can't really afford to pay *yet* another monthly bill (or maybe I could, but I'd rather save a bit on unnecessary software that don't make me the least bit more competitive and invest in, say, hardware upgrades, writing supplies, etc.). Oh, and that's all that “being held hostage” thing. No matter how you spin it, owning your software beats renting it any day of the week (with perpetually-licensed software I could still open my old files in their original form and without any conversion shenanigans, say, 10 years from now, using an older machine or an emulator/VM, whereas if I was using a rental-model software I'd have either to risk losing some information on the process or having to resort to piracy).</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">My money, right now, is figuratively and *literally* on Serif. Watch out for them; there will come a day when your studio may have to buy Affinity licenses just to open files created by “lowly” designers like me, much like I sometimes long for a Mac-compatible Corel version (Affinity will probably come to Windows before Corel gets around to doing the opposite), not to use it for day-to-day work but for that end alone. And even though I personally loathe that and wouldn't generally wish that kind of burden upon anybody, since you started with the elitist attitude, I don't give a rat's a$$ about your feelings on that. Besides, Serif is playing on a much higher level than Corel, Pixelmator, Acorn et. al., so it wouldn't be that farfetched to assume that at least some studios – yours included – would be taken into the fold through that vector, trojan-horse-wise.</span>
I've been a full time freelancer using Macs and Adobe tools for almost 30 years. If you're not making enough with your work to easily afford $50/mo you need to either spend a lot less time whining and moaning about Adobe and a lot more time learning the tools and honing your skills, or you need to find another career.
but id argue there are a lot more customers who arent in your position, and for whom a version of Photoshop or Illustrator from several years ago still does the job perfectly.
Definitely true, except in today's fast paced collaboration environment, you need to be able to share files. This was always a problem before with CS. We didn't usually rush to upgrade as soon as a new version came out. We would wait until we received a file that we couldn't open, which unfortunately, usually didn't take that long. To me, it was just unprofessional to ask the sender to save it to a lower version. When you are working as a design industry professional, you do whatever you have to and if that means upgrading to the latest version, that is what you do. That is why we purchased the entire Adobe font catalog, first Postscript and then later OpenType, as well as the catalogs for some other high end foundries. You are not supposed to share fonts with others who you collaborate with, only with printers so they can output the file, so if collaborators send us fonts anyway, we have a license.
so what? why is that idea so offensive? i work at a Fortune 10 corp, and guess what version of Office we're running? 2007! eight years old, man! why? because it does the job to be done. the corp decided they dont need every new feature every year.
you pay for what you need. that there is something newer doesnt mean you need it.
Because it's just plain stupid. But if that's what you're comfortable with, so be it.
The difference between a successful professional and a hobbyist is that the professional can afford his tools by doing enough work to support his business.
I'm sorry you can't do that.
It's not Adobe's fault you can't afford CC. Its not their fault you aren't finding success. Don't externalize.
in order to prevent making yourself looking judgemental, you may wish to pull back on the assumptions. for instance, you dont know that he cant afford CC. but only a fool would want to spend money he doesnt need to spend -- so there is nothing shameful or unsuccessful about saying "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
like i said -- my client right now is a worldwide household name, and its running MS Office 2007. by your worldview, theyre not successful and deserve your pity.
Because it's just plain stupid. But if that's what you're comfortable with, so be it.
like i said, my client, whose skyscraper im sitting in right now, is a word-wide household name. they are more successful than you or your entire genetic line will ever be. there is nothing "stupid" about their decision to use Office 2007. rather, paying annual upgrade licenses and labor for tools they dont need would be the only stupid thing i can think of.
just because somebody is selling you something doesnt mean you need it....contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.
I feel personally offended (yes, you read that right) by your stance on the matter.
I used to be a pretty loyal Adobe customer, even after they bought Macromedia and killed off FreeHand (hey, that's one of the reasons I really don't have much faith in the US system; either there aren't enough checks and balances against anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours, or they plainly just don't work)… Call me cheapskate if you will, but I happen to be a rather honest, freelance designer (do you even know what those are?) living on a debt-bound, crisis-laden country from southern Europe (I used to have one fixed job in the private sector, for one year, and another in the public education sector, for two years, but in between I've had and will have to live off of small jobs and pay obscene amounts of taxes), and was happy enough to plunk down €300 on an Adobe CS5 Standard for Education licence, in the hopes I could maybe buy a full upgrade to CS6 (no, Adobe cut us off, on account of its ridiculous CS5.5 scheme – seriously? That was a minor update to InDesign!)…
Then, when I was *still* waiting to buy another education or even full version of CS7, along comes this CC crap. To add insult to injury, now you have CC2013, CC2014, CC2015, CC[n+1]… Which is the same to say “CS7-9”, am I right? So no, you are probably not getting better and faster software updates than you would otherwise be getting if not for the jump into subscriptions. In fact, it's quite the contrary; Adobe, as of now, has NO *internal* incentive to push forward with updates, as they've become the software equivalent of the complacent, pre-Tesla GM (minus the whole bankruptcy ordeal, that is, though I'm ultimately vying for that, as Adobe, right now, is probably as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft during the dark ages of the '90s and early '00s).
As for cost: NO, CC is NOT cheaper than the old princing scheme, and skipping a version is not being a “cheapskate”, it's just exerting some customer freedom and common business and financial sense. Being a cheapskate is, IMHO, outright bootlegging it, and you should be ashamed to even think of lumping both kinds of users in the same category just because they are saving some money in the process… And no amount of that “holier-than-thou” attitude will convince honest people like me that CC was a good idea. It just creates artificial boundaries (yes, even compatibility boundaries) between freelancers and more established design shops, as they operate, financially-wise, on very different terms. And I can assure you, I have more than 12 years of experience as a designer and do pretty high-profile projects, but can't really afford to pay *yet* another monthly bill (or maybe I could, but I'd rather save a bit on unnecessary software that don't make me the least bit more competitive and invest in, say, hardware upgrades, writing supplies, etc.). Oh, and that's all that “being held hostage” thing. No matter how you spin it, owning your software beats renting it any day of the week (with perpetually-licensed software I could still open my old files in their original form and without any conversion shenanigans, say, 10 years from now, using an older machine or an emulator/VM, whereas if I was using a rental-model software I'd have either to risk losing some information on the process or having to resort to piracy).
My money, right now, is figuratively and *literally* on Serif. Watch out for them; there will come a day when your studio may have to buy Affinity licenses just to open files created by “lowly” designers like me, much like I sometimes long for a Mac-compatible Corel version (Affinity will probably come to Windows before Corel gets around to doing the opposite), not to use it for day-to-day work but for that end alone. And even though I personally loathe that and wouldn't generally wish that kind of burden upon anybody, since you started with the elitist attitude, I don't give a rat's a$$ about your feelings on that. Besides, Serif is playing on a much higher level than Corel, Pixelmator, Acorn et. al., so it wouldn't be that farfetched to assume that at least some studios – yours included – would be taken into the fold through that vector, trojan-horse-wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy
in order to prevent making yourself look judgemental, you may wish to pull back on the assumptions. for instance, you dont know that he cant afford CC. but only a fool would want to spend money he doesnt need to spend -- so there is nothing shameful or unsuccessful about saying "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
like i said -- my client right now is a worldwide household name, and its running MS Office 2007. by your dim worldview, theyre not successful and deserve your pity.
Try reading Mainyehc's comment, I've included it above for you with a sentence highlighted. He said himself he doesn't have the money to spend as a seasoned (12 year) professional freelancer for one of his tools.
If you want to be a software activist, be a software activist. If you want to be a professional freelancer, be a professional freelancer.
But if I were paying a freelancer to work on a project with me and he gave me that whole sob story I'd move on to the next freelancer.
I've never hired anyone who bills less than $50/hr.
At that point the money complaints are stupid.
And if he is trying his hardest to be a professional freelancer, but after 12 years is finding so little success, perhaps he needs to stop externalizing. It's not Adobe's fault he isn't successful.
I thought I might be a professional guitar player in a rock band when I was 19. I was over that by the age of 22 after making perhaps $500 split four ways with my bandmates. Did I complain to Fender about how much the guitar cost?
so what? why is that idea so offensive? i work at a Fortune 10 corp, and guess what version of Office we're running? 2007! eight years old, man! why? because it does the job to be done. the corp decided they dont need every new feature every year.
you pay for what you need. that there is something newer doesnt mean you need it.
So did your corporation decide to purchase extended support in case of security vulnerabilities? Office 2007 mainstream support ended in 2012. To me your company's continued use of 2007 seems more like an IT upgrade nightmare and they postponed doing it rather than a "it just works, why fix it" scenario. I know that is often the case at our IT department. Fortunately I have my own IT guys because our department is mostly Mac. Those Windows IT guys won't touch a Mac.
You know, for a long time I was on the side of not wanting to "rent" my software from Adobe or anyone including Apple. I had always owned all of my software especially video and graphic software. A few months ago I had a change of heart. I had been an Aperture user since it was first released and Apple just let it go. Apple has a way of doing this with professional software. PS I love FCPX but it took a while and several updates. I purchased a copy of Lightroom 5 and continued my practice of purchasing all my software. No monthly charge for me. Several months later, Adobe released Lightroom CC and 6. I took a long look at the economics and how Adobe was going to update Lightroom and the timing in the future. Lightroom 6 is just going to stay Lightroom 6 and that is it. I have over 60,000 photos and growing, I could not afford to just stay with Lightroom 6 as a stagnant product pay $149 for each upgrade providing they where to come out with Lightroom 7, which they are not. So $149 vs $9.99 a month and getting mobile and all of the future upgrades as they are released plus Photoshop and and its' updates was just to much for me to continue my over 20 year tradition.
This morning I got up and both the Photoshop and Lightroom updates where ready for me to download. In just a few minutes, I was back to work. If you are going to use these two products, I can see no other good way to go. I didn't mind it one bit this morning. My hope is that Adobe will just continue to send out product updates as there software updates and new features are finished. That is their promise and I hope they continue to keep it. To those that continue to think like I did, give it another look. Especially if your a Lightroom user, you have to go this way.
guess what? ive been using adobe crap for twenty years, too. we all have here. we fucking know adobe products have a fullscreen mode. that isnt the same thing.
so im trying to explain to you what native fullscreen mode is because you dont seem to understand (or are playing dumb about) what it is or why it has value. to suggest Apple was "late" in introducing it is foolish, especially since Windows doesnt have a universal fullscreen, so im not sure who theyre "late" compared to...
Actually, you haven't yet explained what I'm missing with the Native Full Screen mode.
Convince me that I'm missing out on something and perhaps I will understand your point belaboring the semantics between Apple's Native Full Screen and Adobe's Custom Full Screen.
There is no need to use so many cuss words and dial up the hostility. Though I do enjoy a good fck whenever possible, it's just not polite in public.
in order to prevent making yourself looking judgemental, you may wish to pull back on the assumptions. for instance, you dont know that he cant afford CC. but only a fool would want to spend money he doesnt need to spend -- so there is nothing shameful or unsuccessful about saying "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
like i said -- my client right now is a worldwide household name, and its running MS Office 2007. by your worldview, theyre not successful and deserve your pity.
And to address the point about: "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
Adobe never stopped your perpetual products from working. CS6 still works the same as the day you bought it.
You will eventually have to maintain your own Mac 'Time Capsule' to give the old software an appropriate environment to run in, but if you care enough, it can certainly be done.
You are welcome to keep doing that. I'll have no problem reading your CS6 files.
It's only the new products that are subscription only.
Try reading Mainyehc's comment, I've included it above for you with a sentence highlighted. He said himself he doesn't have the money to spend as a seasoned (12 year) professional freelancer for one of his tools.
If you want to be a software activist, be a software activist. If you want to be a professional freelancer, be a professional freelancer.
But if I were paying a freelancer to work on a project with me and he gave me that whole sob story I'd move on to the next freelancer.
I've never hired anyone who bills less than $50/hr.
At that point the money complaints are stupid.
And if he is trying his hardest to be a professional freelancer, but after 12 years is finding so little success, perhaps he needs to stop externalizing. It's not Adobe's fault he isn't successful.
I thought I might be a professional guitar player in a rock band when I was 19. I was over that by the age of 22 after making perhaps $500 split four ways with my bandmates. Did I complain to Fender about how much the guitar cost?
The thing is: I *am* sort of successful-ish by portuguese standards. I wouldn't go so far as saying that I own my own place, but I am almost halfway through my mortgage and had the luck (yes, you read it: luck) of having worked as a public servant with a more-than-decent healthcare plan for two years straight. I also had the luck (yes, luck) of earning upwards of €700/mo (also with social and healthcare benefits) for a year working in a medical event company (though it is a small-to-medium-sized company, they organize multiple national and sometimes even international events a year, with upwards of 1.000 people each, just so you can get an idea of the scale of their operation). I earned LESS than €10/h, and I considered myself lucky: that's the definition of a effed-up country with an economy of 1%ers treating everybody else like modern-day slaves. I was actually *happy* for having been laid off and finally having the time to do my own freelance and personal stuff and properly finish my master's degree with decent grades (though that happiness probably also comes from not having to deal anymore with the totally botched work and social dynamic there, but I digress).
You see, I am also lucky enough to be, once again after a one-year hiatus, responsible for the communication of a local cultural event (but pretty big, nonetheless, with all the big national orchestras and whatnot… I could say an issue of 30.000 japanese sketchbook-style leaflets and almost as much A5 booklets probably also counts as “big” by anyone's standards) on the third biggest city, Coimbra (a very upscale place, not unlike Cambridge, Oxford or Bologna), and I am only earning €1.500 for the equivalent of 1 and 1/2 months of work (pretty sad, too, if you ask me, but this year, since I was given the commission halfway through the project, I wasn't the one responsible for the visual identity – supposedly, as I had to tweak it more than slightly – , so I had to scrap that from the service quote and am not pushing them too much anyway as I would very much like to run the whole show and hit the €2.000+ mark once again next year). And I am not undercharging, by any means… Not in a country where young, naïve designers enter consecutive, endless and abusive unpaid internships to “gain experience”!
So, I am not changing careers; I am probably changing countries instead, and very, very soon at that (and join the ranks of the already tens of thousands of young portuguese people scattered around Europe and abroad)… Modesty be damned, I am a fine designer, thank you very much. And, while I'm at it, though having to see “designs” made by “somebody's niece” pains me to no end, I am confident enough in my own skills not to see those as too threatening and I know how to “sell my fish” – as we say here – around just fine, mmkay? So, if you wish to discuss politics, economics, demographics, etc., we may do so, but you will *not* enjoy it nor come out on top looking good. I would personally refrain from having that kind of talk here and now so, please, I urge you not to force me any further into the subject, for our collective sake.
Back to the subject matter proper; I am fine with everyone here who likes the CC subscription plans, really! If it works for you, great. More power to you… What I can't fathom is why the hell did Adobe had to scrap perpetual licences altogether? It just reeks of greed and lazyness, which, when combined their recent acquisition policies screams anticompetitiveness. Also, constantly dealing with people who can't look past their bubble and keep blindly praising Adobe for their great business decisions, without any regard for huge swaths of the creative market (that includes The Rest of the World™) is Just. Plain. Hard. And I am both referring to Adobe and their evangelists, and (sorry, not sorry) take a bit of offence from both. I might be externalizing, but I am doing so on behalf of thousands of people who pretty much *HAVE* to resort to piracy to even finish their design studies on a competitive standing with their fellow foreign colleagues (you wouldn't want to emigrate to the UK right after finishing your course – an increasingly common occurrence – and draw a blank stare from a potential employer when answering “Corel” or “Inkscape” as your software of choice, now, would you?).
Anyway, and since I'm not here to attack other people, or defend myself and my fellow countrymen or whatever, I would like to elaborate my point further… Take Lightroom, for instance: I strongly believe that Adobe hasn't yet scrapped the perpetual licence because the professional and prosumer photography market is way too big, valuable and competitive for Adobe to risk alienating a sizeable chunk of their userbase. Sure, with Aperture out of the picture (ha!) they might have more incentive to do so, but it's probably quicker to come up with a decent photo library manager (it's only a database on steroids, coupled with a fast picture renderer and plugin support and RAW profiles, am I right?) than a full-blown DTP package, let alone a Master-Collection-sized portfolio… Serif, as I could glean from their user/developer forums, has already tasted the blood and is half-admittedly working on a new Lightroom contender, so there's that. Whereas in the case of DTP, Quark was relegated to a distant second place (and is also waaay too expensive to be a viable alternative as far as cost is concerned anyway) and Scribus is, well, Scribus; Corel [especially Draw, but not limited to, though I've heard good things about Painter] is scorned by most professional designers, Inkscape is, well, Inkscape, and most other contenders are puny by comparison and better suited for general UI work; and Photoshop is the 800 lb, invencible behemoth… which even being the giant that it undoubtedly is, could be easily decapitated with, you're guessing, feature-[near]parity, raw performance, some novel features sprinkled here and there and proper plugin support.
Guess who's coming up with a comprehensive solution? Yep: Serif. While I am aware that a) Affinity is not yet cross-platform and b) it's limited to the DTP market, well… a) a Windows version *is* coming (though probably only after the whole suite is completed, maybe after v.2 comes out and even *after* another also half-admitted iOS version for iPad – great on an iPad Pro, I'm guessing) and b) DTP is a big enough niche for it to succeed and force Adobe's hand. Hence my comparison with Tesla, which seems to have been lost on all of you… Oh well. Oh, and don't forget about that big, gaping void Aperture left behind, so… who knows whether they come up with motion graphics editors, Macaw-esque WYSIWYG coding tools, etc., right? If they do hit their promised deadlines, they would have come up with a viable contender to the old Design Standard suite in under 5 years, which tells much about their coding skills and bodes really well for their future.
Anyway, to get back to Adobe and close off my argument, Adobe should've followed Apple's example and done some necessary code-cleaning, while treating their customers at least half-decently and giving them shiny new toys to play with without really imposing any taxes on them (while Apple likes to discontinue support for older machines, having CC updating itself or forcing you to do it regardless may either prevent you from using older but still functional machines – or peripherals! – to do your work, or become a waste of money if you are, in fact, allowed to run older versions of it while still paying for updates you can't benefit from); instead, they first rested on their laurels, bloating their software to no end and acquiring giant competitors and startups alike, left and right, and decided price-gouging their loyal supporters and treating them as pirates and thieves (*cough* by using activation schemes that make their software harder to use legally than otherwise *cough*) was the way of the future. That, my friends, is Shantanu Narayen's doing. He may not have come from a strictly financial/business/marketing background, but he surely let the bean counters run afoul and ru[i]n the company…
The thing is: I *am* sort of successful-ish by portuguese standards. I wouldn't go so far as saying that I own my own place, but I am almost halfway through my mortgage and had the luck (yes, you read it: luck) of having worked as a public servant with a more-than-decent healthcare plan for two years straight. I also had the luck (yes, luck) of earning upwards of €700/mo (also with social and healthcare benefits) for a year working in a medical event company (though it is a small-to-medium-sized company, they organize multiple national and sometimes even international events a year, with upwards of 1.000 people each, just so you can get an idea of the scale of their operation). I earned LESS than €10/h, and I considered myself lucky: that's the definition of a effed-up country with an economy of 1%ers treating everybody else like modern-day slaves. I was actually *happy* for having been laid off and finally having the time to do my own freelance and personal stuff and properly finish my master's degree with decent grades (though that happiness probably also comes from not having to deal anymore with the totally botched work and social dynamic there, but I digress).
You see, I am also lucky enough to be, once again after a one-year hiatus, responsible for the communication of a local cultural event (but pretty big, nonetheless, with all the big national orchestras and whatnot… I could say an issue of 30.000 japanese sketchbook-style leaflets and almost as much A5 booklets probably also counts as “big” by anyone's standards) on the third biggest city, Coimbra (a very upscale place, not unlike Cambridge, Oxford or Bologna), and I am only earning €1.500 for the equivalent of 1 and 1/2 months of work (pretty sad, too, if you ask me, but this year, since I was given the commission halfway through the project, I wasn't the one responsible for the visual identity – supposedly, as I had to tweak it more than slightly – , so I had to scrap that from the service quote and am not pushing them too much anyway as I would very much like to run the whole show and hit the €2.000+ mark once again next year). And I am not undercharging, by any means… Not in a country where young, naïve designers enter consecutive, endless and abusive unpaid internships to “gain experience”!
So, I am not changing careers; I am probably changing countries instead, and very, very soon at that (and join the ranks of the already tens of thousands of young portuguese people scattered around Europe and abroad)… Modesty be damned, I am a fine designer, thank you very much. And, while I'm at it, though having to see “designs” made by “somebody's niece” pains me to no end, I am confident enough in my own skills not to see those as too threatening and I know how to “sell my fish” – as we say here – around just fine, mmkay? So, if you wish to discuss politics, economics, demographics, etc., we may do so, but you will *not* enjoy it nor come out on top looking good. I would personally refrain from having that kind of talk here and now so, please, I urge you not to force me any further into the subject, for our collective sake.
Back to the subject matter proper; I am fine with everyone here who likes the CC subscription plans, really! If it works for you, great. More power to you… What I can't fathom is why the hell did Adobe had to scrap perpetual licences altogether? It just reeks of greed and lazyness, which, when combined their recent acquisition policies screams anticompetitiveness. Also, constantly dealing with people who can't look past their bubble and keep blindly praising Adobe for their great business decisions, without any regard for huge swaths of the creative market (that includes The Rest of the World™) is Just. Plain. Hard. And I am both referring to Adobe and their evangelists, and (sorry, not sorry) take a bit of offence from both. I might be externalizing, but I am doing so on behalf of thousands of people who pretty much *HAVE* to resort to piracy to even finish their design studies on a competitive standing with their fellow foreign colleagues (you wouldn't want to emigrate to the UK right after finishing your course – an increasingly common occurrence – and draw a blank stare from a potential employer when answering “Corel” or “Inkscape” as your software of choice, now, would you?).
Anyway, and since I'm not here to attack other people, or defend myself and my fellow countrymen or whatever, I would like to elaborate my point further… Take Lightroom, for instance: I strongly believe that Adobe hasn't yet scrapped the perpetual licence because the professional and prosumer photography market is way too big, valuable and competitive for Adobe to risk alienating a sizeable chunk of their userbase. Sure, with Aperture out of the picture (ha!) they might have more incentive to do so, but it's probably quicker to come up with a decent photo library manager (it's only a database on steroids, coupled with a fast picture renderer and plugin support and RAW profiles, am I right?) than a full-blown DTP package, let alone a Master-Collection-sized portfolio… Serif, as I could glean from their user/developer forums, has already tasted the blood and is half-admittedly working on a new Lightroom contender, so there's that. Whereas in the case of DTP, Quark was relegated to a distant second place (and is also waaay too expensive to be a viable alternative as far as cost is concerned anyway) and Scribus is, well, Scribus; Corel [especially Draw, but not limited to, though I've heard good things about Painter] is scorned by most professional designers, Inkscape is, well, Inkscape, and most other contenders are puny by comparison and better suited for general UI work; and Photoshop is the 800 lb, invencible behemoth… which even being the giant that it undoubtedly is, could be easily decapitated with, you're guessing, feature-[near]parity, raw performance, some novel features sprinkled here and there and proper plugin support.
Guess who's coming up with a comprehensive solution? Yep: Serif. While I am aware that a) Affinity is not yet cross-platform and b) it's limited to the DTP market, well… a) a Windows version *is* coming (though probably only after the whole suite is completed, maybe after v.2 comes out and even *after* another also half-admitted iOS version for iPad – great on an iPad Pro, I'm guessing) and b) DTP is a big enough niche for it to succeed and force Adobe's hand. Hence my comparison with Tesla, which seems to have been lost on all of you… Oh well. Oh, and don't forget about that big, gaping void Aperture left behind, so… who knows whether they come up with motion graphics editors, Macaw-esque WYSIWYG coding tools, etc., right? If they do hit their promised deadlines, they would have come up with a viable contender to the old Design Standard suite in under 5 years, which tells much about their coding skills and bodes really well for their future.
Anyway, to get back to Adobe and close off my argument, Adobe should've followed Apple's example and done some necessary code-cleaning, while treating their customers at least half-decently and giving them shiny new toys to play with without really imposing any taxes on them (while Apple likes to discontinue support for older machines, having CC updating itself or forcing you to do it regardless may either prevent you from using older but still functional machines – or peripherals! – to do your work, or become a waste of money if you are, in fact, allowed to run older versions of it while still paying for updates you can't benefit from); instead, they first rested on their laurels, bloating their software to no end and acquiring giant competitors and startups alike, left and right, and decided price-gouging their loyal supporters and treating them as pirates and thieves (*cough* by using activation schemes that make their software harder to use legally than otherwise *cough*) was the way of the future. That, my friends, is Shantanu Narayen's doing. He may not have come from a strictly financial/business/marketing background, but he surely let the bean counters run afoul and ru[i]n the company…
Look, man. This doesn't sound like a huge success story by any standard I am familiar with. I'm not trying to pile on, but that's how it sounds to me. Despite my assessment, you are welcome to keep on keeping on if that's what you want to do. I eventually decided to relegate guitar playing to a hobby because while I was achieving some small measure of local success, I was clearly not going to turn it into a viable livelihood.
Once again, if Serif, or whatever application, becomes relevant in my field, I'll buy it in a second. I will make sure I always have the software my clients expect me to use in their workflow.
Politics, economics, demographics and all the rest are not at all interesting to me.]
You say I obviously don't use a Mac, and were rather snotty about it.
I guess I've been using adobe's full screen mode for years. I didn't realize there was something wrong with it.
Adobe's full screen mode in Photoshop for example - the useful one which has menus and options bar at the top doesn't have tabbed view of the often 15 images I am working on, doesn't have a status bar at the bottom giving me useful data and has the left hand ruler partly obscured by the tools.
It is a mangled version of the windowed desktop version.
The complete full screen mode doesn't even have the menus or options bar accessible, nor a status bar, nor tabs and the panels shudder in and out in a most unseemly way and basically make using layers, palettes, image processing and other such essentials a loathsome pain.
It is worse than mangled, or I should rephrase that as it is slightly unfair - it suits a Wacom Cintiq tablet for direct painting of artworks and while I wish I had one of those I do not.
If they used Apple's full screen mode the application would retain all of the features of the windowed desktop version and not this strange crippled thing that Adobe offers.
As others have noted you were being obnoxious and it amazes me that you have used Adobe's full screen mode for years and yet have no idea of the differences between the modes and what they are for.
I really hope Adobe does implement Apple's full screen mode and combines it with their own de-cluttering modes so that designers can have the absolute best experience
Edit: (Sorry I took a while to respond, I waited till i returned to work so i could double check a few things before making my claim of why I don't think Adobe's full screen mode is the same)
not from my experience, it is not the same as the on desktop windowed mode. it is more functionally a display view with limited editing
Adobe's full screen mode in Photoshop for example - the useful one which has menus and options bar at the top doesn't have tabbed view of the often 15 images I am working on, doesn't have a status bar at the bottom giving me useful data and has the left hand ruler partly obscured by the tools.
It is a mangled version of the windowed desktop version.
The complete full screen mode doesn't even have the menus or options bar accessible, nor a status bar, nor tabs and the panels shudder in and out in a most unseemly way and basically make using layers, palettes, image processing and other such essentials a loathsome pain.
It is worse than mangled, or I should rephrase that as it is slightly unfair - it suits a Wacom Cintiq tablet for direct painting of artworks and while I wish I had one of those I do not.
If they used Apple's full screen mode the application would retain all of the features of the windowed desktop version and not this strange crippled thing that Adobe offers.
As others have noted you were being obnoxious and it amazes me that you have used Adobe's full screen mode for years and yet have no idea of the differences between the modes and what they are for.
I really hope Adobe does implement Apple's full screen mode and combines it with their own de-cluttering modes so that designers can have the absolute best experience
Edit: (Sorry I took a while to respond, I waited till i returned to work so i could double check a few things before making my claim of why I don't think Adobe's full screen mode is the same)
The things you describe do not particularly bother me, though, there is some room for improvement. Interesting you bring up Wacom, because I am an Intous user.
First off, anyone who often works in multiple windows must know `-Command to switch between windows within an app. No tabs needed. This is a Mac OS system-wide convention, not Adobe-specific.
The Adobe Full-Full screen mode doesn't have a menu bar, indeed. Not even one that slides out. That is certainly a place where Adobe could benefit by adopting Apples convention. The way I work, I generally only go into Full Screen mode when I know I can do what I need to do with my pen/mouse, the keyboard and the buttons on the Wacom. I can do an awful lot without the palettes and everything else. It seems to defeat the purpose of going full screen yet have all kinds of palettes, tools & menus popping up at every turn. The Tab key calls up the palettes that were formerly floating over your document. A second monitor is another indulgence I afford myself, though, which makes getting at palettes off the full screen canvas rather trivial. Palettes that live on the 2nd monitor don't disappear in Full-Screen mode.
I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the Adobe full screen modes and maybe I've been happily living in a box all this time, but I have found the full screen modes quite usable. I'd say that I probably only use full screen about 20% of the time I spend in Photoshop, though. Maybe with improvement I'd use it more?
Thanks for at least discussing the pros and cons of the different full screen modes with me. Though I still object to being called obnoxious. Maybe uninformed? I can live with that.
Convince me that I'm missing out on something and perhaps I will understand your point belaboring the semantics between Apple's Native Full Screen and Adobe's Custom Full Screen.
Without swearing *at you*, I'd like to point out that as someone who's been using Photoshop since 1.0, Adobe's UI situation has been a steaming pile of shit for quite some time now, their full-screen mode included. Or rather, I don't find their full screen mode less shitty than any other aspect of their UI. I used to take breaks whenever I'd get frustrated and visit http://adobegripes.tumblr.com just to remind myself that I wasn't alone. Sadly, that Tumblr isn't updated as often as it used to be, but has many great examples of WTF moments in Adobe UI history.
Hell, I can give one annoying example right now after loading Photoshop CC 2015 for the first time. I just moved it to another Space, and when I swipe back to my other Space, all of the Photoshop UI (application bar/toolbar/panels) are present on screen for a full second before it realizes it's not supposed to be there, and goes away. It's a little thing, but piled on with the thousand other little annoyances in nearly all of Adobe's apps in a normal work day, it can drive one insane.
Even ignoring the difference from OS X's native full screen controls, how about this — the green button on a Photoshop window toggles between two window sizes, or does nothing at all if you haven't drag-resized your window since opening a document... Actually just testing this, if you command-+ to increase your doc size, the green button still doesn't do anything. Never mind the fact that this works sort of the "old way" before Apple changed the green button behavior, I'm not even sure this works how it "used to" across OS X correctly.
My next check is going to see if when I disconnect my external monitor, if the Files panel in Dreamweaver will finally resize to fit on my MBP's screen when it switches displays. As it has been, I'd have to "reset" the workspace every fucking time as there's no way to grab the bottom of the panel that's extended past the bottom of my display.
Hell, just trying to resize something last night by entering a new pixel dimension in a width box... hit return and a totally random number replaces it (and transforms the object to the wrong size). Highlight it again, type the number I wanted, hit return and the correct number finally appears. WTF?
Copying color in hex in one app includes the #, in another it doesn't. WTF?
Adobe's fake Mac UI stuff has laughably bad, or at least incredibly inconsistent, for a long time now. I don't know anyone who would waste any breath defending it.
As far as subscriptions go, I'll say this... I am happy that they've been rolling out as many updates and bug fixes as they have been. I used to tear my hair out when stuck with consistent and easily-reproduced bugs in Flash and other programs that caused MANY hours of lost work that Adobe must have been aware of, because they'd eventually fix it in the next MAJOR revision, but never with any of the minor point releases/bug fixes. I feel like they've been addressing these kinds of things more readily now with CC, or at least it seems like it. Their UI is still shit though, and they FAKE their way through mimicking all the native Mac UI stuff across the board, or ignore it where it's not convenient for them (supporting native full screen mode for example).
Looking forward to seeing if Illustrator still beachballs every time you move a simple rectangle with a drop shadow. Or if Dreamweaver still triggers a switch to my discrete GPU even when only using the code editor. Or if any messed up panel or dialog with cut off text or malfunctioning value sliders or broken resize controls has been improved anywhere at all.
The things you describe do not particularly bother me, though, there is some room for improvement. Interesting you bring up Wacom, because I am an Intous user. First off, anyone who often works in multiple windows must know `-Command to switch between windows within an app. No tabs needed. This is a Mac OS system-wide convention, not Adobe-specific. The Adobe Full-Full screen mode doesn't have a menu bar, indeed. Not even one that slides out. That is certainly a place where Adobe could benefit by adopting Apples convention. The way I work, I generally only go into Full Screen mode when I know I can do what I need to do with my pen/mouse, the keyboard and the buttons on the Wacom. I can do an awful lot without the palettes and everything else. It seems to defeat the purpose of going full screen yet have all kinds of palettes, tools & menus popping up at every turn. The Tab key calls up the palettes that were formerly floating over your document. A second monitor is another indulgence I afford myself, though, which makes getting at palettes off the full screen canvas rather trivial. Palettes that live on the 2nd monitor don't disappear in Full-Screen mode. I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the Adobe full screen modes and maybe I've been happily living in a box all this time, but I have found the full screen modes quite usable. I'd say that I probably only use full screen about 20% of the time I spend in Photoshop, though. Maybe with improvement I'd use it more? Thanks for at least discussing the pros and cons of the different full screen modes with me. Though I still object to being called obnoxious. Maybe uninformed? I can live with that.
now all becomes clear. You use an Intuous, well of course you like Adobe's full screen mode, it is designed specially for you.
you don't really need menus for most of what you are doing with the tablet and you have hardware buttons and overlays for anything else you really need access to.
you probably keep your keyboard to one side and use it as a menuing system via short cuts.
for the record tabbing through windows isn't all that efficient but sure.
one thing I have thought of during our chat which I shall try next week is putting each Adobe app in its own Space and sort of simulating the full screen story
Comments
what on earth are you talking about? you really arent a mac user, are you? apple wasnt late to the party when they implemented a native fullscreen mode for apps... it's not the same as maximizing an app on your windows box. trust us.
Perhaps a random Google search result from 2005 will convince you I'm not making this up:
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.aspx?p=415187&seqNum=10
so what? why is that idea so offensive? i work at a Fortune 10 corp, and guess what version of Office we're running? 2007! eight years old, man! why? because it does the job to be done. the corp decided they dont need every new feature every year.
you pay for what you need. that there is something newer doesnt mean you need it.
I feel personally offended (yes, you read that right) by your stance on the matter.
I used to be a pretty loyal Adobe customer, even after they bought Macromedia and killed off FreeHand (hey, that's one of the reasons I really don't have much faith in the US system; either there aren't enough checks and balances against anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours, or they plainly just don't work)… Call me cheapskate if you will, but I happen to be a rather honest, freelance designer (do you even know what those are?) living on a debt-bound, crisis-laden country from southern Europe (I used to have one fixed job in the private sector, for one year, and another in the public education sector, for two years, but in between I've had and will have to live off of small jobs and pay obscene amounts of taxes), and was happy enough to plunk down €300 on an Adobe CS5 Standard for Education licence, in the hopes I could maybe buy a full upgrade to CS6 (no, Adobe cut us off, on account of its ridiculous CS5.5 scheme – seriously? That was a minor update to InDesign!)…
Then, when I was *still* waiting to buy another education or even full version of CS7, along comes this CC crap. To add insult to injury, now you have CC2013, CC2014, CC2015, CC[n+1]… Which is the same to say “CS7-9”, am I right? So no, you are probably not getting better and faster software updates than you would otherwise be getting if not for the jump into subscriptions. In fact, it's quite the contrary; Adobe, as of now, has NO *internal* incentive to push forward with updates, as they've become the software equivalent of the complacent, pre-Tesla GM (minus the whole bankruptcy ordeal, that is, though I'm ultimately vying for that, as Adobe, right now, is probably as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft during the dark ages of the '90s and early '00s).
As for cost: NO, CC is NOT cheaper than the old princing scheme, and skipping a version is not being a “cheapskate”, it's just exerting some customer freedom and common business and financial sense. Being a cheapskate is, IMHO, outright bootlegging it, and you should be ashamed to even think of lumping both kinds of users in the same category just because they are saving some money in the process… And no amount of that “holier-than-thou” attitude will convince honest people like me that CC was a good idea. It just creates artificial boundaries (yes, even compatibility boundaries) between freelancers and more established design shops, as they operate, financially-wise, on very different terms. And I can assure you, I have more than 12 years of experience as a designer and do pretty high-profile projects, but can't really afford to pay *yet* another monthly bill (or maybe I could, but I'd rather save a bit on unnecessary software that don't make me the least bit more competitive and invest in, say, hardware upgrades, writing supplies, etc.). Oh, and that's all that “being held hostage” thing. No matter how you spin it, owning your software beats renting it any day of the week (with perpetually-licensed software I could still open my old files in their original form and without any conversion shenanigans, say, 10 years from now, using an older machine or an emulator/VM, whereas if I was using a rental-model software I'd have either to risk losing some information on the process or having to resort to piracy).
My money, right now, is figuratively and *literally* on Serif. Watch out for them; there will come a day when your studio may have to buy Affinity licenses just to open files created by “lowly” designers like me, much like I sometimes long for a Mac-compatible Corel version (Affinity will probably come to Windows before Corel gets around to doing the opposite), not to use it for day-to-day work but for that end alone. And even though I personally loathe that and wouldn't generally wish that kind of burden upon anybody, since you started with the elitist attitude, I don't give a rat's a$$ about your feelings on that. Besides, Serif is playing on a much higher level than Corel, Pixelmator, Acorn et. al., so it wouldn't be that farfetched to assume that at least some studios – yours included – would be taken into the fold through that vector, trojan-horse-wise.
I think you are missing the point.
I'm sure mstone (and myself) will happily buy Serif if (when?) it becomes a thing in our industry. I have never heard of this application. I've certainly never come across the file format.
The difference between a successful professional and a hobbyist is that the professional can afford his tools by doing enough work to support his business.
I'm sorry you can't do that.
It's not Adobe's fault you can't afford CC. Its not their fault you aren't finding success. Don't externalize.
guess what? ive been using adobe crap for twenty years, too. we all have here. we fucking know adobe products have a fullscreen mode. that isnt the same thing.
so im trying to explain to you what native fullscreen mode is because you dont seem to understand (or are playing dumb about) what it is or why it has value. to suggest Apple was "late" in introducing it is foolish, especially since Windows doesnt have a universal fullscreen, so im not sure who theyre "late" compared to...
I've been a full time freelancer using Macs and Adobe tools for almost 30 years. If you're not making enough with your work to easily afford $50/mo you need to either spend a lot less time whining and moaning about Adobe and a lot more time learning the tools and honing your skills, or you need to find another career.
but id argue there are a lot more customers who arent in your position, and for whom a version of Photoshop or Illustrator from several years ago still does the job perfectly.
Definitely true, except in today's fast paced collaboration environment, you need to be able to share files. This was always a problem before with CS. We didn't usually rush to upgrade as soon as a new version came out. We would wait until we received a file that we couldn't open, which unfortunately, usually didn't take that long. To me, it was just unprofessional to ask the sender to save it to a lower version. When you are working as a design industry professional, you do whatever you have to and if that means upgrading to the latest version, that is what you do. That is why we purchased the entire Adobe font catalog, first Postscript and then later OpenType, as well as the catalogs for some other high end foundries. You are not supposed to share fonts with others who you collaborate with, only with printers so they can output the file, so if collaborators send us fonts anyway, we have a license.
so what? why is that idea so offensive? i work at a Fortune 10 corp, and guess what version of Office we're running? 2007! eight years old, man! why? because it does the job to be done. the corp decided they dont need every new feature every year.
you pay for what you need. that there is something newer doesnt mean you need it.
Because it's just plain stupid. But if that's what you're comfortable with, so be it.
in order to prevent making yourself looking judgemental, you may wish to pull back on the assumptions. for instance, you dont know that he cant afford CC. but only a fool would want to spend money he doesnt need to spend -- so there is nothing shameful or unsuccessful about saying "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
like i said -- my client right now is a worldwide household name, and its running MS Office 2007. by your worldview, theyre not successful and deserve your pity.
like i said, my client, whose skyscraper im sitting in right now, is a word-wide household name. they are more successful than you or your entire genetic line will ever be. there is nothing "stupid" about their decision to use Office 2007. rather, paying annual upgrade licenses and labor for tools they dont need would be the only stupid thing i can think of.
just because somebody is selling you something doesnt mean you need it....contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.
[VIDEO]
I feel personally offended (yes, you read that right) by your stance on the matter.
I used to be a pretty loyal Adobe customer, even after they bought Macromedia and killed off FreeHand (hey, that's one of the reasons I really don't have much faith in the US system; either there aren't enough checks and balances against anticompetitive and monopolistic behaviours, or they plainly just don't work)… Call me cheapskate if you will, but I happen to be a rather honest, freelance designer (do you even know what those are?) living on a debt-bound, crisis-laden country from southern Europe (I used to have one fixed job in the private sector, for one year, and another in the public education sector, for two years, but in between I've had and will have to live off of small jobs and pay obscene amounts of taxes), and was happy enough to plunk down €300 on an Adobe CS5 Standard for Education licence, in the hopes I could maybe buy a full upgrade to CS6 (no, Adobe cut us off, on account of its ridiculous CS5.5 scheme – seriously? That was a minor update to InDesign!)…
Then, when I was *still* waiting to buy another education or even full version of CS7, along comes this CC crap. To add insult to injury, now you have CC2013, CC2014, CC2015, CC[n+1]… Which is the same to say “CS7-9”, am I right? So no, you are probably not getting better and faster software updates than you would otherwise be getting if not for the jump into subscriptions. In fact, it's quite the contrary; Adobe, as of now, has NO *internal* incentive to push forward with updates, as they've become the software equivalent of the complacent, pre-Tesla GM (minus the whole bankruptcy ordeal, that is, though I'm ultimately vying for that, as Adobe, right now, is probably as bad, if not worse, than Microsoft during the dark ages of the '90s and early '00s).
As for cost: NO, CC is NOT cheaper than the old princing scheme, and skipping a version is not being a “cheapskate”, it's just exerting some customer freedom and common business and financial sense. Being a cheapskate is, IMHO, outright bootlegging it, and you should be ashamed to even think of lumping both kinds of users in the same category just because they are saving some money in the process… And no amount of that “holier-than-thou” attitude will convince honest people like me that CC was a good idea. It just creates artificial boundaries (yes, even compatibility boundaries) between freelancers and more established design shops, as they operate, financially-wise, on very different terms. And I can assure you, I have more than 12 years of experience as a designer and do pretty high-profile projects, but can't really afford to pay *yet* another monthly bill (or maybe I could, but I'd rather save a bit on unnecessary software that don't make me the least bit more competitive and invest in, say, hardware upgrades, writing supplies, etc.). Oh, and that's all that “being held hostage” thing. No matter how you spin it, owning your software beats renting it any day of the week (with perpetually-licensed software I could still open my old files in their original form and without any conversion shenanigans, say, 10 years from now, using an older machine or an emulator/VM, whereas if I was using a rental-model software I'd have either to risk losing some information on the process or having to resort to piracy).
My money, right now, is figuratively and *literally* on Serif. Watch out for them; there will come a day when your studio may have to buy Affinity licenses just to open files created by “lowly” designers like me, much like I sometimes long for a Mac-compatible Corel version (Affinity will probably come to Windows before Corel gets around to doing the opposite), not to use it for day-to-day work but for that end alone. And even though I personally loathe that and wouldn't generally wish that kind of burden upon anybody, since you started with the elitist attitude, I don't give a rat's a$$ about your feelings on that. Besides, Serif is playing on a much higher level than Corel, Pixelmator, Acorn et. al., so it wouldn't be that farfetched to assume that at least some studios – yours included – would be taken into the fold through that vector, trojan-horse-wise.
in order to prevent making yourself look judgemental, you may wish to pull back on the assumptions. for instance, you dont know that he cant afford CC. but only a fool would want to spend money he doesnt need to spend -- so there is nothing shameful or unsuccessful about saying "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
like i said -- my client right now is a worldwide household name, and its running MS Office 2007. by your dim worldview, theyre not successful and deserve your pity.
Try reading Mainyehc's comment, I've included it above for you with a sentence highlighted. He said himself he doesn't have the money to spend as a seasoned (12 year) professional freelancer for one of his tools.
If you want to be a software activist, be a software activist. If you want to be a professional freelancer, be a professional freelancer.
But if I were paying a freelancer to work on a project with me and he gave me that whole sob story I'd move on to the next freelancer.
I've never hired anyone who bills less than $50/hr.
At that point the money complaints are stupid.
And if he is trying his hardest to be a professional freelancer, but after 12 years is finding so little success, perhaps he needs to stop externalizing. It's not Adobe's fault he isn't successful.
I thought I might be a professional guitar player in a rock band when I was 19. I was over that by the age of 22 after making perhaps $500 split four ways with my bandmates. Did I complain to Fender about how much the guitar cost?
so what? why is that idea so offensive? i work at a Fortune 10 corp, and guess what version of Office we're running? 2007! eight years old, man! why? because it does the job to be done. the corp decided they dont need every new feature every year.
you pay for what you need. that there is something newer doesnt mean you need it.
So did your corporation decide to purchase extended support in case of security vulnerabilities? Office 2007 mainstream support ended in 2012. To me your company's continued use of 2007 seems more like an IT upgrade nightmare and they postponed doing it rather than a "it just works, why fix it" scenario. I know that is often the case at our IT department. Fortunately I have my own IT guys because our department is mostly Mac. Those Windows IT guys won't touch a Mac.
You know, for a long time I was on the side of not wanting to "rent" my software from Adobe or anyone including Apple. I had always owned all of my software especially video and graphic software. A few months ago I had a change of heart. I had been an Aperture user since it was first released and Apple just let it go. Apple has a way of doing this with professional software. PS I love FCPX but it took a while and several updates. I purchased a copy of Lightroom 5 and continued my practice of purchasing all my software. No monthly charge for me. Several months later, Adobe released Lightroom CC and 6. I took a long look at the economics and how Adobe was going to update Lightroom and the timing in the future. Lightroom 6 is just going to stay Lightroom 6 and that is it. I have over 60,000 photos and growing, I could not afford to just stay with Lightroom 6 as a stagnant product pay $149 for each upgrade providing they where to come out with Lightroom 7, which they are not. So $149 vs $9.99 a month and getting mobile and all of the future upgrades as they are released plus Photoshop and and its' updates was just to much for me to continue my over 20 year tradition.
This morning I got up and both the Photoshop and Lightroom updates where ready for me to download. In just a few minutes, I was back to work. If you are going to use these two products, I can see no other good way to go. I didn't mind it one bit this morning. My hope is that Adobe will just continue to send out product updates as there software updates and new features are finished. That is their promise and I hope they continue to keep it. To those that continue to think like I did, give it another look. Especially if your a Lightroom user, you have to go this way.
guess what? ive been using adobe crap for twenty years, too. we all have here. we fucking know adobe products have a fullscreen mode. that isnt the same thing.
so im trying to explain to you what native fullscreen mode is because you dont seem to understand (or are playing dumb about) what it is or why it has value. to suggest Apple was "late" in introducing it is foolish, especially since Windows doesnt have a universal fullscreen, so im not sure who theyre "late" compared to...
Actually, you haven't yet explained what I'm missing with the Native Full Screen mode.
Convince me that I'm missing out on something and perhaps I will understand your point belaboring the semantics between Apple's Native Full Screen and Adobe's Custom Full Screen.
There is no need to use so many cuss words and dial up the hostility. Though I do enjoy a good fck whenever possible, it's just not polite in public.
in order to prevent making yourself looking judgemental, you may wish to pull back on the assumptions. for instance, you dont know that he cant afford CC. but only a fool would want to spend money he doesnt need to spend -- so there is nothing shameful or unsuccessful about saying "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
like i said -- my client right now is a worldwide household name, and its running MS Office 2007. by your worldview, theyre not successful and deserve your pity.
And to address the point about: "Hey, my version works fine. It does what I need it to. I'm not interested in spending more at this point in time. Thanks."
Adobe never stopped your perpetual products from working. CS6 still works the same as the day you bought it.
You will eventually have to maintain your own Mac 'Time Capsule' to give the old software an appropriate environment to run in, but if you care enough, it can certainly be done.
You are welcome to keep doing that. I'll have no problem reading your CS6 files.
It's only the new products that are subscription only.
Try reading Mainyehc's comment, I've included it above for you with a sentence highlighted. He said himself he doesn't have the money to spend as a seasoned (12 year) professional freelancer for one of his tools.
If you want to be a software activist, be a software activist. If you want to be a professional freelancer, be a professional freelancer.
But if I were paying a freelancer to work on a project with me and he gave me that whole sob story I'd move on to the next freelancer.
I've never hired anyone who bills less than $50/hr.
At that point the money complaints are stupid.
And if he is trying his hardest to be a professional freelancer, but after 12 years is finding so little success, perhaps he needs to stop externalizing. It's not Adobe's fault he isn't successful.
I thought I might be a professional guitar player in a rock band when I was 19. I was over that by the age of 22 after making perhaps $500 split four ways with my bandmates. Did I complain to Fender about how much the guitar cost?
The thing is: I *am* sort of successful-ish by portuguese standards. I wouldn't go so far as saying that I own my own place, but I am almost halfway through my mortgage and had the luck (yes, you read it: luck) of having worked as a public servant with a more-than-decent healthcare plan for two years straight. I also had the luck (yes, luck) of earning upwards of €700/mo (also with social and healthcare benefits) for a year working in a medical event company (though it is a small-to-medium-sized company, they organize multiple national and sometimes even international events a year, with upwards of 1.000 people each, just so you can get an idea of the scale of their operation). I earned LESS than €10/h, and I considered myself lucky: that's the definition of a effed-up country with an economy of 1%ers treating everybody else like modern-day slaves. I was actually *happy* for having been laid off and finally having the time to do my own freelance and personal stuff and properly finish my master's degree with decent grades (though that happiness probably also comes from not having to deal anymore with the totally botched work and social dynamic there, but I digress).
You see, I am also lucky enough to be, once again after a one-year hiatus, responsible for the communication of a local cultural event (but pretty big, nonetheless, with all the big national orchestras and whatnot… I could say an issue of 30.000 japanese sketchbook-style leaflets and almost as much A5 booklets probably also counts as “big” by anyone's standards) on the third biggest city, Coimbra (a very upscale place, not unlike Cambridge, Oxford or Bologna), and I am only earning €1.500 for the equivalent of 1 and 1/2 months of work (pretty sad, too, if you ask me, but this year, since I was given the commission halfway through the project, I wasn't the one responsible for the visual identity – supposedly, as I had to tweak it more than slightly – , so I had to scrap that from the service quote and am not pushing them too much anyway as I would very much like to run the whole show and hit the €2.000+ mark once again next year). And I am not undercharging, by any means… Not in a country where young, naïve designers enter consecutive, endless and abusive unpaid internships to “gain experience”!
So, I am not changing careers; I am probably changing countries instead, and very, very soon at that (and join the ranks of the already tens of thousands of young portuguese people scattered around Europe and abroad)… Modesty be damned, I am a fine designer, thank you very much. And, while I'm at it, though having to see “designs” made by “somebody's niece” pains me to no end, I am confident enough in my own skills not to see those as too threatening and I know how to “sell my fish” – as we say here – around just fine, mmkay? So, if you wish to discuss politics, economics, demographics, etc., we may do so, but you will *not* enjoy it nor come out on top looking good. I would personally refrain from having that kind of talk here and now so, please, I urge you not to force me any further into the subject, for our collective sake.
Back to the subject matter proper; I am fine with everyone here who likes the CC subscription plans, really! If it works for you, great. More power to you… What I can't fathom is why the hell did Adobe had to scrap perpetual licences altogether? It just reeks of greed and lazyness, which, when combined their recent acquisition policies screams anticompetitiveness. Also, constantly dealing with people who can't look past their bubble and keep blindly praising Adobe for their great business decisions, without any regard for huge swaths of the creative market (that includes The Rest of the World™) is Just. Plain. Hard. And I am both referring to Adobe and their evangelists, and (sorry, not sorry) take a bit of offence from both. I might be externalizing, but I am doing so on behalf of thousands of people who pretty much *HAVE* to resort to piracy to even finish their design studies on a competitive standing with their fellow foreign colleagues (you wouldn't want to emigrate to the UK right after finishing your course – an increasingly common occurrence – and draw a blank stare from a potential employer when answering “Corel” or “Inkscape” as your software of choice, now, would you?).
Anyway, and since I'm not here to attack other people, or defend myself and my fellow countrymen or whatever, I would like to elaborate my point further… Take Lightroom, for instance: I strongly believe that Adobe hasn't yet scrapped the perpetual licence because the professional and prosumer photography market is way too big, valuable and competitive for Adobe to risk alienating a sizeable chunk of their userbase. Sure, with Aperture out of the picture (ha!) they might have more incentive to do so, but it's probably quicker to come up with a decent photo library manager (it's only a database on steroids, coupled with a fast picture renderer and plugin support and RAW profiles, am I right?) than a full-blown DTP package, let alone a Master-Collection-sized portfolio… Serif, as I could glean from their user/developer forums, has already tasted the blood and is half-admittedly working on a new Lightroom contender, so there's that. Whereas in the case of DTP, Quark was relegated to a distant second place (and is also waaay too expensive to be a viable alternative as far as cost is concerned anyway) and Scribus is, well, Scribus; Corel [especially Draw, but not limited to, though I've heard good things about Painter] is scorned by most professional designers, Inkscape is, well, Inkscape, and most other contenders are puny by comparison and better suited for general UI work; and Photoshop is the 800 lb, invencible behemoth… which even being the giant that it undoubtedly is, could be easily decapitated with, you're guessing, feature-[near]parity, raw performance, some novel features sprinkled here and there and proper plugin support.
Guess who's coming up with a comprehensive solution? Yep: Serif. While I am aware that a) Affinity is not yet cross-platform and b) it's limited to the DTP market, well… a) a Windows version *is* coming (though probably only after the whole suite is completed, maybe after v.2 comes out and even *after* another also half-admitted iOS version for iPad – great on an iPad Pro, I'm guessing) and b) DTP is a big enough niche for it to succeed and force Adobe's hand. Hence my comparison with Tesla, which seems to have been lost on all of you… Oh well. Oh, and don't forget about that big, gaping void Aperture left behind, so… who knows whether they come up with motion graphics editors, Macaw-esque WYSIWYG coding tools, etc., right? If they do hit their promised deadlines, they would have come up with a viable contender to the old Design Standard suite in under 5 years, which tells much about their coding skills and bodes really well for their future.
Anyway, to get back to Adobe and close off my argument, Adobe should've followed Apple's example and done some necessary code-cleaning, while treating their customers at least half-decently and giving them shiny new toys to play with without really imposing any taxes on them (while Apple likes to discontinue support for older machines, having CC updating itself or forcing you to do it regardless may either prevent you from using older but still functional machines – or peripherals! – to do your work, or become a waste of money if you are, in fact, allowed to run older versions of it while still paying for updates you can't benefit from); instead, they first rested on their laurels, bloating their software to no end and acquiring giant competitors and startups alike, left and right, and decided price-gouging their loyal supporters and treating them as pirates and thieves (*cough* by using activation schemes that make their software harder to use legally than otherwise *cough*) was the way of the future. That, my friends, is Shantanu Narayen's doing. He may not have come from a strictly financial/business/marketing background, but he surely let the bean counters run afoul and ru[i]n the company…
The thing is: I *am* sort of successful-ish by portuguese standards. I wouldn't go so far as saying that I own my own place, but I am almost halfway through my mortgage and had the luck (yes, you read it: luck) of having worked as a public servant with a more-than-decent healthcare plan for two years straight. I also had the luck (yes, luck) of earning upwards of €700/mo (also with social and healthcare benefits) for a year working in a medical event company (though it is a small-to-medium-sized company, they organize multiple national and sometimes even international events a year, with upwards of 1.000 people each, just so you can get an idea of the scale of their operation). I earned LESS than €10/h, and I considered myself lucky: that's the definition of a effed-up country with an economy of 1%ers treating everybody else like modern-day slaves. I was actually *happy* for having been laid off and finally having the time to do my own freelance and personal stuff and properly finish my master's degree with decent grades (though that happiness probably also comes from not having to deal anymore with the totally botched work and social dynamic there, but I digress).
You see, I am also lucky enough to be, once again after a one-year hiatus, responsible for the communication of a local cultural event (but pretty big, nonetheless, with all the big national orchestras and whatnot… I could say an issue of 30.000 japanese sketchbook-style leaflets and almost as much A5 booklets probably also counts as “big” by anyone's standards) on the third biggest city, Coimbra (a very upscale place, not unlike Cambridge, Oxford or Bologna), and I am only earning €1.500 for the equivalent of 1 and 1/2 months of work (pretty sad, too, if you ask me, but this year, since I was given the commission halfway through the project, I wasn't the one responsible for the visual identity – supposedly, as I had to tweak it more than slightly – , so I had to scrap that from the service quote and am not pushing them too much anyway as I would very much like to run the whole show and hit the €2.000+ mark once again next year). And I am not undercharging, by any means… Not in a country where young, naïve designers enter consecutive, endless and abusive unpaid internships to “gain experience”!
So, I am not changing careers; I am probably changing countries instead, and very, very soon at that (and join the ranks of the already tens of thousands of young portuguese people scattered around Europe and abroad)… Modesty be damned, I am a fine designer, thank you very much. And, while I'm at it, though having to see “designs” made by “somebody's niece” pains me to no end, I am confident enough in my own skills not to see those as too threatening and I know how to “sell my fish” – as we say here – around just fine, mmkay? So, if you wish to discuss politics, economics, demographics, etc., we may do so, but you will *not* enjoy it nor come out on top looking good. I would personally refrain from having that kind of talk here and now so, please, I urge you not to force me any further into the subject, for our collective sake.
Back to the subject matter proper; I am fine with everyone here who likes the CC subscription plans, really! If it works for you, great. More power to you… What I can't fathom is why the hell did Adobe had to scrap perpetual licences altogether? It just reeks of greed and lazyness, which, when combined their recent acquisition policies screams anticompetitiveness. Also, constantly dealing with people who can't look past their bubble and keep blindly praising Adobe for their great business decisions, without any regard for huge swaths of the creative market (that includes The Rest of the World™) is Just. Plain. Hard. And I am both referring to Adobe and their evangelists, and (sorry, not sorry) take a bit of offence from both. I might be externalizing, but I am doing so on behalf of thousands of people who pretty much *HAVE* to resort to piracy to even finish their design studies on a competitive standing with their fellow foreign colleagues (you wouldn't want to emigrate to the UK right after finishing your course – an increasingly common occurrence – and draw a blank stare from a potential employer when answering “Corel” or “Inkscape” as your software of choice, now, would you?).
Anyway, and since I'm not here to attack other people, or defend myself and my fellow countrymen or whatever, I would like to elaborate my point further… Take Lightroom, for instance: I strongly believe that Adobe hasn't yet scrapped the perpetual licence because the professional and prosumer photography market is way too big, valuable and competitive for Adobe to risk alienating a sizeable chunk of their userbase. Sure, with Aperture out of the picture (ha!) they might have more incentive to do so, but it's probably quicker to come up with a decent photo library manager (it's only a database on steroids, coupled with a fast picture renderer and plugin support and RAW profiles, am I right?) than a full-blown DTP package, let alone a Master-Collection-sized portfolio… Serif, as I could glean from their user/developer forums, has already tasted the blood and is half-admittedly working on a new Lightroom contender, so there's that. Whereas in the case of DTP, Quark was relegated to a distant second place (and is also waaay too expensive to be a viable alternative as far as cost is concerned anyway) and Scribus is, well, Scribus; Corel [especially Draw, but not limited to, though I've heard good things about Painter] is scorned by most professional designers, Inkscape is, well, Inkscape, and most other contenders are puny by comparison and better suited for general UI work; and Photoshop is the 800 lb, invencible behemoth… which even being the giant that it undoubtedly is, could be easily decapitated with, you're guessing, feature-[near]parity, raw performance, some novel features sprinkled here and there and proper plugin support.
Guess who's coming up with a comprehensive solution? Yep: Serif. While I am aware that a) Affinity is not yet cross-platform and b) it's limited to the DTP market, well… a) a Windows version *is* coming (though probably only after the whole suite is completed, maybe after v.2 comes out and even *after* another also half-admitted iOS version for iPad – great on an iPad Pro, I'm guessing) and b) DTP is a big enough niche for it to succeed and force Adobe's hand. Hence my comparison with Tesla, which seems to have been lost on all of you… Oh well. Oh, and don't forget about that big, gaping void Aperture left behind, so… who knows whether they come up with motion graphics editors, Macaw-esque WYSIWYG coding tools, etc., right? If they do hit their promised deadlines, they would have come up with a viable contender to the old Design Standard suite in under 5 years, which tells much about their coding skills and bodes really well for their future.
Anyway, to get back to Adobe and close off my argument, Adobe should've followed Apple's example and done some necessary code-cleaning, while treating their customers at least half-decently and giving them shiny new toys to play with without really imposing any taxes on them (while Apple likes to discontinue support for older machines, having CC updating itself or forcing you to do it regardless may either prevent you from using older but still functional machines – or peripherals! – to do your work, or become a waste of money if you are, in fact, allowed to run older versions of it while still paying for updates you can't benefit from); instead, they first rested on their laurels, bloating their software to no end and acquiring giant competitors and startups alike, left and right, and decided price-gouging their loyal supporters and treating them as pirates and thieves (*cough* by using activation schemes that make their software harder to use legally than otherwise *cough*) was the way of the future. That, my friends, is Shantanu Narayen's doing. He may not have come from a strictly financial/business/marketing background, but he surely let the bean counters run afoul and ru[i]n the company…
Look, man. This doesn't sound like a huge success story by any standard I am familiar with. I'm not trying to pile on, but that's how it sounds to me. Despite my assessment, you are welcome to keep on keeping on if that's what you want to do. I eventually decided to relegate guitar playing to a hobby because while I was achieving some small measure of local success, I was clearly not going to turn it into a viable livelihood.
Once again, if Serif, or whatever application, becomes relevant in my field, I'll buy it in a second. I will make sure I always have the software my clients expect me to use in their workflow.
Politics, economics, demographics and all the rest are not at all interesting to me.]
Best of luck.
not from my experience, it is not the same as the on desktop windowed mode. it is more functionally a display view with limited editing
Adobe's full screen mode in Photoshop for example - the useful one which has menus and options bar at the top doesn't have tabbed view of the often 15 images I am working on, doesn't have a status bar at the bottom giving me useful data and has the left hand ruler partly obscured by the tools.
It is a mangled version of the windowed desktop version.
The complete full screen mode doesn't even have the menus or options bar accessible, nor a status bar, nor tabs and the panels shudder in and out in a most unseemly way and basically make using layers, palettes, image processing and other such essentials a loathsome pain.
It is worse than mangled, or I should rephrase that as it is slightly unfair - it suits a Wacom Cintiq tablet for direct painting of artworks and while I wish I had one of those I do not.
If they used Apple's full screen mode the application would retain all of the features of the windowed desktop version and not this strange crippled thing that Adobe offers.
As others have noted you were being obnoxious and it amazes me that you have used Adobe's full screen mode for years and yet have no idea of the differences between the modes and what they are for.
I really hope Adobe does implement Apple's full screen mode and combines it with their own de-cluttering modes so that designers can have the absolute best experience
Edit: (Sorry I took a while to respond, I waited till i returned to work so i could double check a few things before making my claim of why I don't think Adobe's full screen mode is the same)
not from my experience, it is not the same as the on desktop windowed mode. it is more functionally a display view with limited editing
Adobe's full screen mode in Photoshop for example - the useful one which has menus and options bar at the top doesn't have tabbed view of the often 15 images I am working on, doesn't have a status bar at the bottom giving me useful data and has the left hand ruler partly obscured by the tools.
It is a mangled version of the windowed desktop version.
The complete full screen mode doesn't even have the menus or options bar accessible, nor a status bar, nor tabs and the panels shudder in and out in a most unseemly way and basically make using layers, palettes, image processing and other such essentials a loathsome pain.
It is worse than mangled, or I should rephrase that as it is slightly unfair - it suits a Wacom Cintiq tablet for direct painting of artworks and while I wish I had one of those I do not.
If they used Apple's full screen mode the application would retain all of the features of the windowed desktop version and not this strange crippled thing that Adobe offers.
As others have noted you were being obnoxious and it amazes me that you have used Adobe's full screen mode for years and yet have no idea of the differences between the modes and what they are for.
I really hope Adobe does implement Apple's full screen mode and combines it with their own de-cluttering modes so that designers can have the absolute best experience
Edit: (Sorry I took a while to respond, I waited till i returned to work so i could double check a few things before making my claim of why I don't think Adobe's full screen mode is the same)
The things you describe do not particularly bother me, though, there is some room for improvement. Interesting you bring up Wacom, because I am an Intous user.
Convince me that I'm missing out on something and perhaps I will understand your point belaboring the semantics between Apple's Native Full Screen and Adobe's Custom Full Screen.
Without swearing *at you*, I'd like to point out that as someone who's been using Photoshop since 1.0, Adobe's UI situation has been a steaming pile of shit for quite some time now, their full-screen mode included. Or rather, I don't find their full screen mode less shitty than any other aspect of their UI. I used to take breaks whenever I'd get frustrated and visit http://adobegripes.tumblr.com just to remind myself that I wasn't alone. Sadly, that Tumblr isn't updated as often as it used to be, but has many great examples of WTF moments in Adobe UI history.
Hell, I can give one annoying example right now after loading Photoshop CC 2015 for the first time. I just moved it to another Space, and when I swipe back to my other Space, all of the Photoshop UI (application bar/toolbar/panels) are present on screen for a full second before it realizes it's not supposed to be there, and goes away. It's a little thing, but piled on with the thousand other little annoyances in nearly all of Adobe's apps in a normal work day, it can drive one insane.
Even ignoring the difference from OS X's native full screen controls, how about this — the green button on a Photoshop window toggles between two window sizes, or does nothing at all if you haven't drag-resized your window since opening a document... Actually just testing this, if you command-+ to increase your doc size, the green button still doesn't do anything. Never mind the fact that this works sort of the "old way" before Apple changed the green button behavior, I'm not even sure this works how it "used to" across OS X correctly.
My next check is going to see if when I disconnect my external monitor, if the Files panel in Dreamweaver will finally resize to fit on my MBP's screen when it switches displays. As it has been, I'd have to "reset" the workspace every fucking time as there's no way to grab the bottom of the panel that's extended past the bottom of my display.
Hell, just trying to resize something last night by entering a new pixel dimension in a width box... hit return and a totally random number replaces it (and transforms the object to the wrong size). Highlight it again, type the number I wanted, hit return and the correct number finally appears. WTF?
Copying color in hex in one app includes the #, in another it doesn't. WTF?
Adobe's fake Mac UI stuff has laughably bad, or at least incredibly inconsistent, for a long time now. I don't know anyone who would waste any breath defending it.
As far as subscriptions go, I'll say this... I am happy that they've been rolling out as many updates and bug fixes as they have been. I used to tear my hair out when stuck with consistent and easily-reproduced bugs in Flash and other programs that caused MANY hours of lost work that Adobe must have been aware of, because they'd eventually fix it in the next MAJOR revision, but never with any of the minor point releases/bug fixes. I feel like they've been addressing these kinds of things more readily now with CC, or at least it seems like it. Their UI is still shit though, and they FAKE their way through mimicking all the native Mac UI stuff across the board, or ignore it where it's not convenient for them (supporting native full screen mode for example).
Looking forward to seeing if Illustrator still beachballs every time you move a simple rectangle with a drop shadow. Or if Dreamweaver still triggers a switch to my discrete GPU even when only using the code editor. Or if any messed up panel or dialog with cut off text or malfunctioning value sliders or broken resize controls has been improved anywhere at all.
now all becomes clear. You use an Intuous, well of course you like Adobe's full screen mode, it is designed specially for you.
you don't really need menus for most of what you are doing with the tablet and you have hardware buttons and overlays for anything else you really need access to.
you probably keep your keyboard to one side and use it as a menuing system via short cuts.
for the record tabbing through windows isn't all that efficient but sure.
one thing I have thought of during our chat which I shall try next week is putting each Adobe app in its own Space and sort of simulating the full screen story