Adobe customers' opinions split as company shifts to subscription platform

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 89


    deleted 

  • Reply 82 of 89

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NoodlesNoodlemann View Post


    Is there a low cost alternative to Illustrator? I am on the periphery of the graphics field and use it. Would love to know if there is a good vector alternative. 



     


     


    Not sure about low cost, but I used to use Xara for vectors before they were bought by Corel years back. It was a very capable vector tool. 


     


    No idea what its like now, but Xara seems to exist as a brand again.  


     


    http://www.xara.com/us/company/


     


    My problem in switching would simply be that most people use Illustrator, so theres a natural advantage in working in the same tool/file formats etc. 


     


    I've toyed with the open source Inkscape, but found it very lacking compared to Illustrator I have a collaborator who uses it and I find its a pain that we can't exchange .ai files. Moreover once you've got your 1,000 hours in Illustrator... what an effort it would be to swap. 

  • Reply 83 of 89
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member

    This makes no sense whatsoever.  You damn well will know if it's a good time to stop the sub - and the answer is that, unless you're retiring, is it's NEVER a good time to stop your sub, because as soon as you do, you loose all access to everything - the applications and open/edit/update ability for everything you've ever created with those applications.

    Correction: it's never a good time to cancel if you plan on editing your files using Adobe's tools. Opening and or updating the files, if they don't use proprietary filters or formats will naturally be possible with some other program.
    Second question: why should we all wait for those advances until someone is ready to "upgrade"? The tech industry is moving at a 6-month (3-month really) speed these days. I and many of my clients need these tools actually yesterday, and I need them to also evolve at about that pace.**** Adobe has determined that this is also the best way to do that, rather than wait for mega-suite versions. I don't have a crystal ball to know whether it will work or not, but it certainly seems worth trying.


    Why should we all wait for someone else to be ready to upgrade?  You shouldn't.  But the opposite is also equally valid - why should someone who doesn't need every buggy new feature the second it hits a beta state be forced to pay for it?  The answer is the same - they shouldn't.  And that precisely highlights the absurdity of the one-size-fits-all licensing scheme. 
    And I can't help but notice the irony and tone of this line of reasoning - "why should we (meaning you) have to wait until I'm ready to upgrade", as if I'm somehow imposing on you.  For the past year, we've both enjoyed the benefits of the licensing scheme that suits us best.  No one has been pressuring Adobe to stop the subscription model, and I've repeatedly acknowledged it's benefits under the right circumstances.  But it's you who is imposing on me - by so endorsing this new one-size-fits-all model.  You suggest you are being imposed on when you're not being imposed on at all, at the very same time you endorse the imposition of all of us.  I just love the hypocrisy. 

    *Blush* Gotta give you this one... you're right that I shouldn't be imposing on your wishes. But I'm not the one responsible here, Adobe is. Once again, In the link I gave above an Adobe executive has stated that "the plan is to drop perpetual licenses in the future, but it's not definite" (sic)
    Second, as for your comments about the industry moving at a 6 month (3-month really) speed... what does that even mean??!?!?!? 

    You haven't noticed? People need tools for HTML5, for apps, for e-books and mags. Also, in some wild and futuristic corners of the net, people can edit their photos and videos online easier and more efficient than with Adobe software. They can also create entire websites and apps using webtools almost exclusively. They need to concentrate, focus, and pick up the ball with their software tools.... or they're relegated to the Bush League, CC or not, anyway.

     
    And again this entire problem goes away with the retention of usage rights after a subscription ends with a few simple conditions being met.  No separate code bases - you're left with the state the program(s) were in at the time of termination.  You're stopping your subscription?  Oh, you've been a loyal customer for all these years?  Here's links to the latest packaged installers, we're sorry to see you go and hope we can win you back in the future. 

    Not offering this can only be seen as being carefully and precisely crafted to compel people to never stop their subscription, and that's because under this model, Adobe knows it'll cost more people considerably more than it'll save the few who'll actually save.

    OK. I'm going to concede this argument to you, and say that I also support your desire and the eventual reinstating of perpetual licensing in some form or other.

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding here... but what I don't agree with is some kind of colluded, multi-tier, monster table of licenses and ticked feature lists. Not only do I personally hate them as a user... I despise creating them for clients as well(!)

    KISS means you get what you pay for after X amount of time. Done.

    Single programs 24-months ($240.00) or 36 months for the Suite ($1800.00). This would also put the onus on Adobe to keep people interested in a monthly CC sub, and get the other people that have left back onto it sooner.

    I can see the individual Product Managers cringing at that simplicity... and even some users... but it is simple. Nothing worse than a carrier tarif structure or going back to a Microsoft Windows approach. Apple does KISS rather well, why shouldn't someone else give it a shot? The whole Design, Web, Standard, Master Suite... plus individual programs.... plus standard or extended.... as a structure was just plain stupid and unnecessarily complex... IMHO.

    Not too far off-topic, but it appears that the entire world is skeptical of everything these days to do with business, government, whatever.. and I might add for good reason. However, the internet has given the Perpetual Skeptics a far larger voice than they deserve IMHO.... and it's far "stickier" than in the past... or even iOS for that matter.

    No matter the thorough reaming and mistakes I have made in my past based on "Naive Rose-Colored Trust", I still try to remain positive and non-judgmental. That is until I learn a new variant of the theme. Maybe that's why I've also learned to listen to other's reasoning and be able to change my stance or opinion in short time to avoid said reaming :)

    Regardless: Pirates are not good and they should definitely stay off of my lawn, outa my puddles, and not even attempt to show me their treasures...or else! :err:

    Edited: ... unless the pirate happens to be Penelope Cruz... Ahooooy....!
  • Reply 84 of 89


    Thanks, but it looks like that's a PC program and I work on Macs. But thanks for the reply. 

  • Reply 85 of 89

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post



    Maybe I'm misunderstanding here... but what I don't agree with is some kind of colluded, multi-tier, monster table of licenses and ticked feature lists. Not only do I personally hate them as a user... I despise creating them for clients as well(!)




    I totally agree on overly complex feature in/exclusions.  For years, I struggled with the various CS sub-suites, always finding each one omitted 1 or 2 applications that I preferred to have.  I finally broke down and bought the Master Collection last year and was, and remain, absolutely satisfied.  The features are great, and the applications pretty rock solid reliable, so I'm not an Adobe hater here.



    On the other hand, this move does make me rather suspicious considering it's come after Adobe has thoroughly consolidated their grip on the industries their many tools serve.  A lot of people have been saying "just find and use alternatives" when the cold, hard truth is that in most cases, serious alternatives really just don't exist.  Adobe IS the standard, and credit to them for achieving that.  But that being the case, when work is, to a large extent, locked within certain file formats, it's a decidedly punitive, if not outright abusive, step to tie access to one's own files (in those formats) to a perpetual monthly fee. 



    Returning to the KISS argument, I'll agree that things shouldn't be overly or unnecessarily complex.  But it's absolutely the case that the needs of Adobe's customers are probably among the widest ranging as any customer base can be.  In my case, I don't do web design, audio or page layout work for hire, but I do need to maintain my own web site and occasionally need to handle small layout or audio tasks.  I can justify the up-front costs of purchasing those applications as part of the overall collection because as they stand right now, they'll more than serve my needs for the foreseeable future.  But I simply can't justify their cost if it's monthly and perpetual. 



    I do think the solution of granting perpetual license rights after a sufficient time on subscription would be the best of both worlds - it neither takes away the attraction of immediate access to the latest tools, nor penalizes those who simply don't need every bleeding edge feature, and it leaves Adobe with a continual incentive to deliver on the promise of faster/quicker/better updates.  Not to come across as a skeptic (which I'm really not), but no argument can legitimately be made that Adobe has a greater incentive to deliver value once their income is essentially guaranteed simply by granting access to their products as they currently exist on their customer's hard drives today.



    Considering the reaction in the comments section of virtually every article I've read has been overwhelmingly negative, I'm hopeful Adobe seriously considers a middle-road solution.  I do love their tools, and derive a considerable percent of my income from them, so again, I'm simply not an Adobe hater.  I just think this move is a little overreaching and might begin to touch on an abuse of the position they hold. 

  • Reply 86 of 89
    "Guaranteed updates"? There are several major bugs in Photoshop CS6 that Adobe known about for at least a year (even since beta). And as usual with Adobe, the fixes will only come when you purchase the next major release (despite it being subscription or not), which, in turn and deliberately, will introduce new major bugs.

    Adobe should be sued for this. And for being a monopoly, too.
  • Reply 87 of 89
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Thanks, but it looks like that's a PC program and I work on Macs. But thanks for the reply. 

    Who...? What? Penelope Cruz? I believe she's multi-platform , multi-talented... along with being multi-lingual :)
  • Reply 88 of 89
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member

    I totally agree on overly complex feature in/exclusions.  For years, I struggled with the various CS sub-suites, always finding each one omitted 1 or 2 applications that I preferred to have.  I finally broke down and bought the Master Collection last year and was, and remain, absolutely satisfied.  The features are great, and the applications pretty rock solid reliable, so I'm not an Adobe hater here.


    On the other hand, this move does make me rather suspicious considering it's come after Adobe has thoroughly consolidated their grip on the industries their many tools serve.  A lot of people have been saying "just find and use alternatives" when the cold, hard truth is that in most cases, serious alternatives really just don't exist.  Adobe IS the standard, and credit to them for achieving that.  But that being the case, when work is, to a large extent, locked within certain file formats, it's a decidedly punitive, if not outright abusive, step to tie access to one's own files (in those formats) to a perpetual monthly fee. 


    Returning to the KISS argument, I'll agree that things shouldn't be overly or unnecessarily complex.  But it's absolutely the case that the needs of Adobe's customers are probably among the widest ranging as any customer base can be.  In my case, I don't do web design, audio or page layout work for hire, but I do need to maintain my own web site and occasionally need to handle small layout or audio tasks.  I can justify the up-front costs of purchasing those applications as part of the overall collection because as they stand right now, they'll more than serve my needs for the foreseeable future.  But I simply can't justify their cost if it's monthly and perpetual. 


    I do think the solution of granting perpetual license rights after a sufficient time on subscription would be the best of both worlds - it neither takes away the attraction of immediate access to the latest tools, nor penalizes those who simply don't need every bleeding edge feature, and it leaves Adobe with a continual incentive to deliver on the promise of faster/quicker/better updates.  Not to come across as a skeptic (which I'm really not), but no argument can legitimately be made that Adobe has a greater incentive to deliver value once their income is essentially guaranteed simply by granting access to their products as they currently exist on their customer's hard drives today.


    Considering the reaction in the comments section of virtually every article I've read has been overwhelmingly negative, I'm hopeful Adobe seriously considers a middle-road solution.  I do love their tools, and derive a considerable percent of my income from them, so again, I'm simply not an Adobe hater.  I just think this move is a little overreaching and might begin to touch on an abuse of the position they hold. 

    Very nice post!

    I'm actually pretty torn between the whole ordeal to tell ya the truth. For me... and about 10 other people I've counted on assorted forums... the sub looks very attractive if Adobe keeps to their word. What it comes down to and where I also have to be somewhat skeptical, is Adobe's past of not fixing bugs at all or very late before bringing new versions out. Also, the transparency of what they truly are planning here.

    In my "wishful thinking", I would love it if the individual programs would be stripped of their overlapping functions, making them lean, mean and efficient... and because you have ALL of the programs, those would function perfectly for the task at hand. For example: I see no good reason going forward why video editing should be in Photoshop if you have access to Premier. Or.... if Illustrator was discontinued in favor of a cross-program vector widget/plugin* for Photoshop, InDesign, Muse... or even for Flash/PhoneGap. What about the sad addition of Paragraph and Character Style Pallettes to Photoshop? You can debate whether they should be in an image-editor at all... but the biggest problem is that you would "expect" that the would function the same as in inDesign and Illustrator. The don't... and they are a HOG with many styles on say a web site mock-up.

    Modules* would fix that, well at least the differences between the palettes and functions in each program. Because you do have to ask: why are we even using an image editor to mock up a website that later needs to be properly coded? And speaking of web design: how telling is it that there are already a number of website online apps that do HTML5/CSS3/JQuery coding and layout... 1000x better than Dreamweaver.. or even the new Edge tools? I don't think Adobe is oblivious that fact either, and they, or at least the engineers, know they are losing the game slowly but surely.

    * I've asked many times on the Adobe forums if anyone knows what happened to the idea, at about the time plug-ins for PS came into existence... what happened to the other big idea of "modular feature sets".. basically Adobe designed plugins that would work with all of their main/base software programs. Thereby truly extending them rather than slapping a new binary on the market like with PS and PS Extended. The modular approach was always a fascinating idea to me. For example, I don't consider Illustrator complete and/or even workable without the add-ons/plugins from Astute Graphics, which truly extend "stock" Illustrator. Naturally we all know how popular PS plugins are... but even for InDesign there are quite a few nice ones.

    The overlap and attended bloat, including cramming too many things into each program to satisfy sub-sets of users over the years, and then after the fact fixing (or not!) the bugs... is what's making most people skeptical in the first place. If Adobe came out and said this was for a complete re-imagining of the tools we use... and yes... you will want ALL of them, not just PS... then I could see more people thinking $50.00 to be a good deal... maybe!... and probably later.

    Naturally at the same time, continuing to offer CS6. ... but wait... that's exactly what they are doing, isn't it? You can use CS6 until the end of time with a perpetual license.

    Could it be that many of those programs in CS6 will not even be around in 2-3 or 5 years? Fireworks is already EOL... and I think Dreamweaver is next in favor of the new Edge tools. What else could be EOLed and/or replaced with a "module" similar to Mini Bridge?
  • Reply 89 of 89
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,787moderator
    In my "wishful thinking", I would love it if the individual programs would be stripped of their overlapping functions, making them lean, mean and efficient... and because you have ALL of the programs, those would function perfectly for the task at hand. For example: I see no good reason going forward why video editing should be in Photoshop if you have access to Premier. Or.... if Illustrator was discontinued in favor of a cross-program vector widget/plugin* for Photoshop, InDesign, Muse... or even for Flash/PhoneGap. What about the sad addition of Paragraph and Character Style Pallettes to Photoshop? You can debate whether they should be in an image-editor at all... but the biggest problem is that you would "expect" that the would function the same as in inDesign and Illustrator. The don't... and they are a HOG with many styles on say a web site mock-up.

    Modules* would fix that, well at least the differences between the palettes and functions in each program.

    One problem using plugins is when it comes to save formats. Every file format would have to be updated to support every plugin they make so that the data can be saved with the project. I would like the apps to be streamlined too though rather than bloated with cross-functionality.

    I don't like there being a lot of apps either. One option might be to have umbrella apps e.g

    Adobe Cinema, Adobe Design, Adobe Web, Adobe Photo

    When you open the Cinema app, when you hit file > new, you'd have the option to create an NLE tab, an Effects tab, or an audio tab.
    Opening the Design app, you can make a layout tab or a vector tab.
    Opening the Web app, you can do any of the HTML 5, Flash, code editing etc.
    In Photo, you'd have Lightroom and Photoshop tabs.

    This merges common programs together and apps in each umbrella share a memory allocation. This way if you make a title sequence in an Effects tab and put it into the NLE, there's no intermediates. When you update the effect, just flip over to the NLE tab and it will render the parts required. If you have a vector design to go into a magazine, you can link it in the layout in the next tab without having a copy/paste between.

    If they needed a specialized function like an image cropping tool, that can be a tab (program) by itself and those special programs can be shared between umbrella apps so a crop tool could be used for cropping video as well as stills.

    The umbrella project files can be bundles of projects that all get saved together but there can be options to save separately or at least some version control.
Sign In or Register to comment.