I guess some of you will disagree, but I welcome this change to some extend.
I have bought CS3 and CS 5.5 because I occasionally needed them for projects. Every time I had to pay the full price or comparable high upgrade fee which I had to calculate somehow into the project costs.
Looking at my cost calculation I don't see a disadvantage to "my old way" skipping one or two update cycles. If one or more employees need it for a project I add them. The only thing I have to put some additional effort in is to save / export the data additionally in a standard format for the case I want or have to skip the subscription, something I try in general in order to limit migration costs or having to keep outdated software just for opening some old stuff I rarely need.
I'm aware that e.g for old, complex data this can spell some trouble. I currently cover this occasionally by taking VM snapshots with old software configurations and blocked internet access.
It's clear that this additional afford has to be priced-in somehow and this will not be possible with the new versions. It's something that will have to be communicated or addressed.
In my experience it's cheaper to plan your software / hardware update cycles than keeping the old stuff as long as possible and jumping through hoops in order to fulfill modern tasks with old stuff.
(enterprise customers still struggling with upgrading from XP and IE6 should know about the pain.)
If it turns out that I need those pro apps on a daily base I'll gladly pay for a yearly subscription because this means I'm sufficiently booked for this type of work. It's less then my monthly phone bill, the cost of my fibre internet line or the additional backup storage in a remote data center for disaster recovery.
This doesn't mean that I think the subscription model works in general. It's great for pro software you'd otherwise have to cover a comparable big calculation risk.
For e.g. Office apps I'm skeptic that I'll follow the subscription model simply because those aren't referenced to projects in my cost accounting, but are common tools included in the fixed costs.
Being forced to renew a subscription just for a letter or a presentation isn't something I feel comfortable with.
Where I also think that this model might not fit is for those who use the tools for secondary income and some SMBs.
For them it's pretty hard to forecast their income and they'd prefer to determine the right time to invest.
The question for them is whether they can replace some parts of the CS suites with other tools like the express line, Coda, Acorn, etc. and only subscribe e.g. for PS or DW for the things they need more functionality.
For freelancers the cloud sharing and backup options should be a win.
Finally some words from the dev point of view. Subscriptions are the inevitable result of cloud computing. I fear it's simply not cost-effective to support multiple old program versions while adding new client-server (cloud) features.
What's also clear is that you as customer have to give up some control in the new shiny cloud world.
There are times you need to use it on the road, not connected to the internet. There are times when you won't need the software most of the month but still have to make the monthly payment.
Adobe has addressed both of these concerns. Please read up. Subscription only service is mostly about eliminating software piracy but in doing so they have also created various value added features for their core demographic. The fringe users are surely going to be disappointed with the changes. Oh well. They made their decision based on research and this is what they came up with. If you don't like it then you are not their target market.
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
Could you troll somewhere else. It was just tedious reading this.
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
With that logic they should charge $1000/mo. I can afford that too. But the issue is not cost, it's value.
Ill be buying some PS alternative. We'll see how much I can use it, and how soon I can get away from Adobe entirely. It's not easy: Adobe has a real stranglehold on us.
But this I know: whatever files I create in a non-Photoshop app I can still access even after I close my business. Adobe wants to control my personal archive of my own creative work--forever. UNACCEPTABLE.
Hyperbole. Your psd's and jpegs wont disappear when you uninstall photoshop CC. So you're just making up excuses to whine now.
But steve didn't like flash so Adobe is bad, I get it.
So, uh, in actually answering his question, what applications open PSD files?
Well it depends on what version of PSD we're talking about but in the unlikely event that you are fed up with Adobe inDesign and want to switch to Quark you can still import those psd files and also choose to hide or expose various layers. You could then export that file as a flattened PDF which could be rasterized but you would lose your layers.
You could then export that file as a flattened PDF which could be rasterized but you would lose your layers.
Should've been clearer. Open for the purpose of editing and doing the job you were originally doing.
Then no software that I know of. Like I said earlier: Adobe is the only game in town for graphics professionals. Take it or leave it. If you want to participate in the industry you need to embrace the CS standard or you will be forsaken to scrounge for work among the low life of Penny Saver advertisers.
You can go on ebay and buy a licensed Adobe CS, that is a few versions old for almost nothing. At the end of the day, you paid a few hundred bucks, you got all the software you need, it works, it's yours.
The new business model Adobe is proposing will make buying older versions of their software impossible, owning their software - impossible. After just a few years you'll end up paying thousands for something you don't own (and there is no alternative). And if I decide to do something else with my life and 3 months later decide to do some changes to my PSD, i have to pay for the full month to do that.
I know we also pay for cell, insurance, etc - but that's different. With insurance, cell and other bills - we can shop around for better deals. You can borrow your friend's car or phone to call or get somewhere. With Adobe - we can't.
- subscribe to everything It's $50/month, upgrades are included in the price. It used to cost about $2000 to buy the CS6 master collection, upgrades were extra. If you are a professional that needs it and can't get $50/month of value out of it, you're doing something wrong.
But I don't need EVERYTHING. How can I convince my boss to spend $50 a month for a bunch of apps when we only really use 4 of them? Why is it all or nothing? How hard is it to offer just the Design Standard apps for a lesser monthly fee?
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
This comment is quite arrogant and makes assumptions. What about people like myself who have a day job (print, design & prepress) and also have a couple of clients on the side, working from home? Kind of like a pro-hobbyist, just enough to bring in a little extra cash now and then but no regular work. It makes way more sense for me to spend $600 to upgrade every 2 years than to spend $1200 in those 2 years for the monthly fee. Not everyone is in the exact same situation as you!
Sure, you are stuck paying $50/month into perpetuity to use the 'camera' in your metaphor. But the part you leave out is that it is a Nikon D4x right now. And in a year it is the Nikon D5. Not to mention every lens Nikon makes is included in the deal. Oh, yeah, also every lens Nikon is going to make is included.
I mean, sure, I could find $25000 to buy a fully equipped SLR system, but I'd prefer to subscribe to the $50/month option than buy all that equipment that will become obsolete over time.
You do have to keep paying $50/month to use this kit, but its a small price to pay if that is your business.
I don't understand why some people would be okay living in a world where they don't own anything they own.
I'm not interested in owning creative suite. I don't own it anyway, I own a license.
What I do own is the content I create with these tools, and that is where the value is for me. I create better content in less time using better tools. I've never been one to sit on old version of software due to frugality or being set in my ways. I embrace new tech & techniques as they become available.
This comment is quite arrogant and makes assumptions. What about people like myself who have a day job (print, design & prepress) and also have a couple of clients on the side, working from home? Kind of like a pro-hobbyist, just enough to bring in a little extra cash now and then but no regular work. It makes way more sense for me to spend $600 to upgrade every 2 years than to spend $1200 in those 2 years for the monthly fee. Not everyone is in the exact same situation as you!
You do realize you can start & stop your subscription, right? If you are going paying work infrequently enough to recoup you subscription you need to either A: raise you prices or B: manage the subscription &cancel it when it's unneeded.
Adobe doesn't care about Pro-hobbyists and I'm glad for it. I want to use a product by and for Pros.
First of all, kudos to Adobe for the astonishing level of upgrades they just announced. If only Apple was half as productive with their iApps. I went to their website and watched the videos showcasing the various applications and features and was just stunned. It was mostly over my head as I've only ever played with their flagship PS. Web creation to me means Squarespace.
Reading the FAQ, I think people might be jumping the gun with their vitriol. I upgraded Photoshop every other year or so at a cost nearing $200. Adobe has priced Photoshop CC at $20/month. That basically doubles what I've been spending from $200 every two years to $240 every year.
I'm just a hobbyist anymore but was willing to upgrade just for the cool new features. If I were pro or even just a weekend warrior earning money here and there, I don't think $20/month would stop me.
That said, I have been trying to move to Pixelmator for a while. I like buying apps from the App store and wish to get off the expensive upgrade train. I'll miss the refinement and familiarity.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the FAQ says the license if good for running the software on two computers concurrently. You can pay monthly. Upgrades are optional. You own your files and have ample time after ceasing membership to convert any work to other file formats.
I dunno...If I were a pro, this new paradigm seems pretty nifty. For the rest of us tinkerers, I think Pixelmator will be marketing to us aggressively very soon.
You do know that this really wont make a bit of difference to piracy? You just download the software packages from the cloud and it calls back every now and then to check that you are still valid to use. Hackers will just disable this feature like they already have with the software / net authorisation on the current version.
This move is about two things (IMHO)... a price increase for some users (depending on upgrade paths) & an acknowledgement that there isn't enough features being added to get the majority of users to upgrade every two years. Now they don't need to worry about this and get to keep the same venue stream as they have had in the past.
I have used the subscription service they offer and its good. I do however believe one should still be able to do boxed upgrades which don't require a subscription fee. I do think with this move they're increasingly going to be isolating there software to the professional market. This could be dangerous long term as I would venture many users where exposed to there software via old versions in labs etc... this will dry up in a lot of places. This produces a gap in the market which could lead a competitor to get a foot hold. Guess we will have to wait and see.
Comments
I guess some of you will disagree, but I welcome this change to some extend.
I have bought CS3 and CS 5.5 because I occasionally needed them for projects. Every time I had to pay the full price or comparable high upgrade fee which I had to calculate somehow into the project costs.
Looking at my cost calculation I don't see a disadvantage to "my old way" skipping one or two update cycles. If one or more employees need it for a project I add them. The only thing I have to put some additional effort in is to save / export the data additionally in a standard format for the case I want or have to skip the subscription, something I try in general in order to limit migration costs or having to keep outdated software just for opening some old stuff I rarely need.
I'm aware that e.g for old, complex data this can spell some trouble. I currently cover this occasionally by taking VM snapshots with old software configurations and blocked internet access.
It's clear that this additional afford has to be priced-in somehow and this will not be possible with the new versions. It's something that will have to be communicated or addressed.
In my experience it's cheaper to plan your software / hardware update cycles than keeping the old stuff as long as possible and jumping through hoops in order to fulfill modern tasks with old stuff.
(enterprise customers still struggling with upgrading from XP and IE6 should know about the pain.)
If it turns out that I need those pro apps on a daily base I'll gladly pay for a yearly subscription because this means I'm sufficiently booked for this type of work. It's less then my monthly phone bill, the cost of my fibre internet line or the additional backup storage in a remote data center for disaster recovery.
This doesn't mean that I think the subscription model works in general. It's great for pro software you'd otherwise have to cover a comparable big calculation risk.
For e.g. Office apps I'm skeptic that I'll follow the subscription model simply because those aren't referenced to projects in my cost accounting, but are common tools included in the fixed costs.
Being forced to renew a subscription just for a letter or a presentation isn't something I feel comfortable with.
Where I also think that this model might not fit is for those who use the tools for secondary income and some SMBs.
For them it's pretty hard to forecast their income and they'd prefer to determine the right time to invest.
The question for them is whether they can replace some parts of the CS suites with other tools like the express line, Coda, Acorn, etc. and only subscribe e.g. for PS or DW for the things they need more functionality.
For freelancers the cloud sharing and backup options should be a win.
Finally some words from the dev point of view. Subscriptions are the inevitable result of cloud computing. I fear it's simply not cost-effective to support multiple old program versions while adding new client-server (cloud) features.
What's also clear is that you as customer have to give up some control in the new shiny cloud world.
That's the flip side of the cloud in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
There are times you need to use it on the road, not connected to the internet. There are times when you won't need the software most of the month but still have to make the monthly payment.
Adobe has addressed both of these concerns. Please read up. Subscription only service is mostly about eliminating software piracy but in doing so they have also created various value added features for their core demographic. The fringe users are surely going to be disappointed with the changes. Oh well. They made their decision based on research and this is what they came up with. If you don't like it then you are not their target market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
Could you troll somewhere else. It was just tedious reading this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
With that logic they should charge $1000/mo. I can afford that too. But the issue is not cost, it's value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Ill be buying some PS alternative. We'll see how much I can use it, and how soon I can get away from Adobe entirely. It's not easy: Adobe has a real stranglehold on us.
But this I know: whatever files I create in a non-Photoshop app I can still access even after I close my business. Adobe wants to control my personal archive of my own creative work--forever. UNACCEPTABLE.
Hyperbole. Your psd's and jpegs wont disappear when you uninstall photoshop CC. So you're just making up excuses to whine now.
But steve didn't like flash so Adobe is bad, I get it.
Originally Posted by garbage
Your psd's and jpegs wont disappear when you uninstall photoshop CC.
Phew! Good thing he said nothing of the sort!
So, uh, in actually answering his question, what applications open PSD files?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So, uh, in actually answering his question, what applications open PSD files?
Well it depends on what version of PSD we're talking about but in the unlikely event that you are fed up with Adobe inDesign and want to switch to Quark you can still import those psd files and also choose to hide or expose various layers. You could then export that file as a flattened PDF which could be rasterized but you would lose your layers.
Originally Posted by mstone
You could then export that file as a flattened PDF which could be rasterized but you would lose your layers.
Should've been clearer. Open for the purpose of editing and doing the job you were originally doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by mstone
You could then export that file as a flattened PDF which could be rasterized but you would lose your layers.
Should've been clearer. Open for the purpose of editing and doing the job you were originally doing.
Then no software that I know of. Like I said earlier: Adobe is the only game in town for graphics professionals. Take it or leave it. If you want to participate in the industry you need to embrace the CS standard or you will be forsaken to scrounge for work among the low life of Penny Saver advertisers.
The new business model Adobe is proposing will make buying older versions of their software impossible, owning their software - impossible. After just a few years you'll end up paying thousands for something you don't own (and there is no alternative). And if I decide to do something else with my life and 3 months later decide to do some changes to my PSD, i have to pay for the full month to do that.
I know we also pay for cell, insurance, etc - but that's different. With insurance, cell and other bills - we can shop around for better deals. You can borrow your friend's car or phone to call or get somewhere. With Adobe - we can't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
- subscribe to everything It's $50/month, upgrades are included in the price. It used to cost about $2000 to buy the CS6 master collection, upgrades were extra. If you are a professional that needs it and can't get $50/month of value out of it, you're doing something wrong.
But I don't need EVERYTHING. How can I convince my boss to spend $50 a month for a bunch of apps when we only really use 4 of them? Why is it all or nothing? How hard is it to offer just the Design Standard apps for a lesser monthly fee?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
This comment is quite arrogant and makes assumptions. What about people like myself who have a day job (print, design & prepress) and also have a couple of clients on the side, working from home? Kind of like a pro-hobbyist, just enough to bring in a little extra cash now and then but no regular work. It makes way more sense for me to spend $600 to upgrade every 2 years than to spend $1200 in those 2 years for the monthly fee. Not everyone is in the exact same situation as you!
I mean, sure, I could find $25000 to buy a fully equipped SLR system, but I'd prefer to subscribe to the $50/month option than buy all that equipment that will become obsolete over time.
You do have to keep paying $50/month to use this kit, but its a small price to pay if that is your business.
I'm not interested in owning creative suite. I don't own it anyway, I own a license.
What I do own is the content I create with these tools, and that is where the value is for me. I create better content in less time using better tools. I've never been one to sit on old version of software due to frugality or being set in my ways. I embrace new tech & techniques as they become available.
It's all about the deliverable for me.
You do realize you can start & stop your subscription, right? If you are going paying work infrequently enough to recoup you subscription you need to either A: raise you prices or B: manage the subscription &cancel it when it's unneeded.
Adobe doesn't care about Pro-hobbyists and I'm glad for it. I want to use a product by and for Pros.
Come on Apple buy them out.
First of all, kudos to Adobe for the astonishing level of upgrades they just announced. If only Apple was half as productive with their iApps. I went to their website and watched the videos showcasing the various applications and features and was just stunned. It was mostly over my head as I've only ever played with their flagship PS. Web creation to me means Squarespace.
Reading the FAQ, I think people might be jumping the gun with their vitriol. I upgraded Photoshop every other year or so at a cost nearing $200. Adobe has priced Photoshop CC at $20/month. That basically doubles what I've been spending from $200 every two years to $240 every year.
I'm just a hobbyist anymore but was willing to upgrade just for the cool new features. If I were pro or even just a weekend warrior earning money here and there, I don't think $20/month would stop me.
That said, I have been trying to move to Pixelmator for a while. I like buying apps from the App store and wish to get off the expensive upgrade train. I'll miss the refinement and familiarity.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the FAQ says the license if good for running the software on two computers concurrently. You can pay monthly. Upgrades are optional. You own your files and have ample time after ceasing membership to convert any work to other file formats.
I dunno...If I were a pro, this new paradigm seems pretty nifty. For the rest of us tinkerers, I think Pixelmator will be marketing to us aggressively very soon.
You do know that this really wont make a bit of difference to piracy? You just download the software packages from the cloud and it calls back every now and then to check that you are still valid to use. Hackers will just disable this feature like they already have with the software / net authorisation on the current version.
This move is about two things (IMHO)... a price increase for some users (depending on upgrade paths) & an acknowledgement that there isn't enough features being added to get the majority of users to upgrade every two years. Now they don't need to worry about this and get to keep the same venue stream as they have had in the past.
I have used the subscription service they offer and its good. I do however believe one should still be able to do boxed upgrades which don't require a subscription fee. I do think with this move they're increasingly going to be isolating there software to the professional market. This could be dangerous long term as I would venture many users where exposed to there software via old versions in labs etc... this will dry up in a lot of places. This produces a gap in the market which could lead a competitor to get a foot hold. Guess we will have to wait and see.