[Locked] No perpetual licenses are you serious?

[Mattrman]

I just head that Adobe was planning to abandon its perpetual license in favor of an on line only rental program. At first I thought that this must be a joke. I have been using adobe products for 18 years. Primarily Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign. I am currently an owner of CS 6 Master collection and obviously do upgrade my products and have consistently done so over the years. I am not connected to the internet full time and in fact my work computer is never directly connected to the internet. So how does this work? Is adobe now forcing me to connect to the internet - it seems that this is the case.

In regards to upgrade cycles, I dont want to rent my software and be tied to a rental agreement. I want to upgrade when I choose, not rent my software like some kind of loaner program!

I want to purchase the software then not worry about it. For instance when I travel, I dont want to be bogged down with downloads and upgrades chewing up my bandwidth. I have traveled to many places where internet access is very limited. Downloading from a wireless card in China is painful, I dont want to be bogged down with no software or large megabyte downloads costing me a fortune on the other side of the planet.

Adobe I know that I am just one person and you will probably not listen to me but did someone ask? No one asked me about this. How simple could this be - I want to buy the software then use it when I want where I want, is this too much to ask?

Please let me continue to use this software in the way that I have used it for so long. If others wish to have the creative cloud then great! More power to them, don't alienate your other users. Please provide both alternatives.

Best regards - Matt

[LouNettel]

I couldn't agree more. This is the most aggravating, irritating and downright unfair approach to selling usage of software for the small businesses and individuals. There is no question that I'm looking for alternate software.

I think folks should begin sharing those alternatives for all of us leaving Adobe in the dust!!

Lou Nettelhorst

http://www.LouNettelhorst.com

http://www.facebook.com/LouNettelhorst

Sent from my U.S. Cellular® Android-powered phone

[Guest]

There are a number of alternatives out there -- many more than people realize.  For example, it used to be that for print publications, something like PageMaker or (later on) InDesign was absolutely needed for professional printing results.  Microsoft Publisher or Corel?  No way.  You would be laughed at if you suggested Publisher could be used for professional printing of a publication.  Fast forward a number of years -- now times have changed.  On the creative end both Corel and yes even Publisher have far more professional features than ever before.  On the printing end -- some printers need only a good PDF to turn out a quality brochure or poster -- they don't need what they used to need for full-color printing. Digital printing has revolutionized the industry.  In terms of video, Avid is very awesome and is the industry standard.  In terms of Photoshop -- there are some very good alternatives out there, ones that will get better and better as Adobe products disappear into their enslaving Cloud.  And how many people have complained that Adobe products have become so huge, cumbersome, and confusing that some drastic changes are needed to clean up the interface of most of their apps?  We live in a world where extremely impressive media can be created with very little -- as long as you have the right creative person using the application.  The sad but very dramatic truth is that Adobe is no longer needed to create professional media content.

[Biggles Lamb]

Jonesey

In post 850 you said about Adobe firing half its programmers........................that is not going to happen

Well not at least for a couple of years.

They need to have the programmers to work on the bloatware.............you know, all the software that in the last couple of years have been changed or added, all that software that you just cannot do without

I think that they are getting to the end of development potential with the mature software that they have produced over the years and have to (a) lock in as much subscribers as they can (b) develop other software to diversify

So your subscription will be used to finance software for another company to use whilst you get very minor upgrades to the creative software that you primarily use

[bababongatwo]

So you can also give your money t o a company beside Adobe.

Strength to competitors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------

CC = Cash Cow = Terminating the word "Archive" in digital future = Lifelong dependency = NoGo = Never

[bababongatwo]

Mostly true. And I hope, in 3 years (KeeP your CS6 alive as long as you can, if you think you still need it) the cards may have changed completely. PLEASE all the competitors of Adobe TAKE YOUR CHANCE!

----------

CC = Cash Cow = Terminating the word "Archive" in digital future = Lifelong dependency = NoGo = Never

[vincent solomito]

Daryl,

I support you attitude completely.

Adobe is in business to make money, not friends.

They produce a product which I do not expect them to give to me.

All the insults to you are silly.

vince

[rosequill]

If you want to stay in business you better damn well not screw the consumer you're selling to, and Adobe is doing exactly that. Accepting this kind of maneuver from any business is setting you up for a very long hard road in the next couple decades.

[W_J_T]

vinsolo wrote:

- Adobe is in business to make money, not friends.

- They produce a product which I do not expect them to give to me.

Everyone understands Adobe is in business to make money, that is not in question or debate, but rather their choices or rather "the lack there of" towards the paying consumers. Also no one is asking Adobe to "give" them anything besides fair choice and proper consideration.

Still waiting for a response in your own thread.

[Greg_Bohn]

> Adobe is in business to make money, not friends.

  Those don't need to be different things. There can be a Win-Win situation.

   If a company makes decent money providing a good product, and customers buy that product freely because they find it useful for a reasonable price, then everyone is happy.

   If the company decides to unilaterally change the status-quo to take advantage of some of their customers (say leveraging their market leading position to force people into a more locked-in stance), then I think they probably deserve their ire.

   I would argue that if your attitude changes from "How can we best attract, satisfy, and retain customers (of their own free will)" to "Screw the customers, I'm only here to make as much money as possible", then this will probably be bad for your company in the long run. Provided your customers have a choice...

  Starting with at least last years push of "You can only upgrade from one version back", I think Adobe has started down that path.

[Greg_Bohn]

> i believe, anybody who eventuallly subscribes

You'd probably have a better chance of "Winning friends and influencing people" if you would be more civil...

[jbjones]

@ Daryl Barnes

I think you haven't been keeping accurate track of the complaints.. The majority of users are complaining about the subscription model and lack of access to the software IF you have a reduced budget one year; not the incorrect idea of needing an always on internet. (although there does seem to be quite a few of those for some reason).

As far as I can tell the majority are complaining because they are afraid of the fact that budgets, especially personal, are unpredictable. You never know whether 4 years from now, if you'll have the $600 to spend on software. Those, mostly hobbiests and prosumers, don't want to loose the option of opening and editing their older work.

Other users are afraid that Adobe might jack up the price in a few years and they will have no exit strategy.  Keep paying the higher price or completely loose access to the software.

This move by Adobe is a little bit like music subscriptions where you can only listen to songs as long as you pay monthly. You get access to a huge library for a low monthly price, but none of what you are buying ever accrus in value. If you get layed off next year and have to cut unnecessary expenses, now you have no music at all to listen to.

Imagine if the tablet app stores were subscription only. $20 a month gets you any app you wanted, but if you stop paying monthly you loose access to all the apps. It increased the cost of having a usable tablet tremendously. For the most people they would only be justified as work devices, never just for play.

Adobe needs a buy-out plan where after 2-3 years on subscription you can exit to a standalone installable copy using whatever the current versions happens to be.

[_scott_]

jbjones wrote:

Adobe needs a buy-out plan where after 2-3 years on subscription you can exit to a standalone installable copy using whatever the current versions happens to be.

This would be a VERY acceptable solution in my view. Combined with the revision today regarding "older builds will be made available to subscribers", it would alleviate many of the current concerns as I see them.

For me, it's not abotu pricign at all, it's about losing functionality or Adobe asking me to "trust us" when it comes to future usability.

[rainschub]

Me too.

Price is not the reason.

I want a guaranty, that I can use and change my files from the point I decide to quit my subscription.

May be this Adobe Company will think about the needs of its customers ...

By the way - my trust in Adobe is lower than ever.

A company, which makes that radical changes will also do other things!

I also don´t like the Style of the Marketing Blabla on the Website.

Anouncing everything - but now way to find what you want.

[Califdan]

OK, so can someone give me the URL to download Photoshop CS6 Standalone,

perpetual, non Cloud version?

[rainschub]

Don´t know, if this works (what a pumped up website - full of CC anouncements):
https://www.adobe.com/de/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativ...

But here you can start buying process...

[Mattrman]

https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/cs6._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_creativesu...

[skydiver119]

One thing, this is already decided.

The big wigs sat down around a table and had the accountants run the numbers. They probably took the number of CC subs and how much money they got from that. Then looked at folks running cs3, 5 or 6, figured in which ones will be rendered obsolete by various operating system upgrades and would have to upgrade. Ran those numbers, projected out how many would subscribe to CC, what their montly fee would be and compared a projected millions per month to the projected random purchases of full versions - for pros, usually on the fiscal year and their eyes bulged out at all those zeros.

A 'guaranteed' monthly income vs what people may/may not buy? Of course they love it.

The ONLY way they'll change their minds will be in a year, 18 months or so, when reality sets in and if those projected numbers dont' deliver and the CEO has to sit down in front of the share holders and explain to them how come their dividends won't be what they were promised.

THen, and only then, will they consider that maybe their 'massive new and stable revenue stream' isn't all it was promised. And then they might revisit the issue and make changes.

If you, the random 'you' don't want CC to be the new future...don't buy into it.

This is similar to..I was around when local lawmakers were debating texting and driving and whether or not it should be illegal. Common sense says yes, that you cant' do both. Anecdotes say yes, you can't do both. But they refused to do anything until they had numbers and studies to prove to them that, yeah, you can't text and drive.

The bigwigs will be the same way. DOesn't matter how we complain, it'll be dismissed and ignored. Teh only thing that'll really resonate with them is numbers.

I can't sell this up the chain of command. I can't tell my boss that we need almost 10,000 dollars a year to keep access to our files. I say that and his immediate response will be 'so, what else is there?' Let's say we have a 50K budget for software and supplies...under this scheme we'd lose almost 20% of that just to access and work with files. We cant' use our cap expenditure budget on monthly subs, this would come out of our day to day expenses budget.

There is no way I can look at the numbers and advocate a scheme that only benefits the company selling it. We can't commit to a yearly expenditure that may grow by leaps and bounds (while our budget goes the other way) and put ourselves in the position to have past work held hostage to continuing to pay a sub.

[jbjones]

I'm thinking someone at Adobe read "The Pumpkin Plan" and decided that they only wanted regular upgraders as customers. This is their way of cutting out the casual upgraders.

I'm not sure the plan really makes sense with the extreemely low cost of software duplication. Seems better to make an extra $50k (or whatever) every 5 years than to eliminate those customers altogether. Surely they don't think they'll convince low spenders (aka, version skippers) to suddenly increase their income and start spending more just for Adobe's latest and greatest.

Maybe on the customer support side they are getting lots of silly calls asking how to do a fix a photo or something.

[Shawn4G]

My thoughts exactly! I HATE the idea of renting software. The problem isn't the monthly fee, that's fine with me.  It's that once you stop paying you can no longer use the software. I think we would be less upset if it were more like a rent to own type situation.  Lets ets say if the value to buy the software is $2,400 dollars then if you continue your subscription for at least 4 years at $600 a year then you've payed $2,400 so then if you decide to cancel your subscription the software is yours and will continue to work indefinitely, you just won't get any new updates. If Adobe doesn't address this.. I'll be looking somewhere else for software. In fact, I already am.

[PmPhotographic]

I think you have summed up the situation very nicely.    I would like to add a bit from a non USA view.  I use Production Premium CS 5.5.  I started with 4 and upgraded a couple of times, so am not anti spending.  However, my upgrade costs around £

350 every 18 months.  With the new rental system, based at £

48 (yes pounds, not dollars) a month after taxes, that 18 month cycle becomes £

850, or a price hike of 240%, which I could be locked into until the day I drop dead.    I am trying to find out what the compatibility would be between CS5.5 and the new CC versions in case I wanted to cancel a subscription and go back to CS5.5, but have had limited information so far

[gepkes]

There will be major compatibility issues between CS5.5 and CC. You will need to subscribe in order to open those files and resave to an interchange format. Think of it as "Pay Per View TV".

This vacuum Adobe is creating will open up a new opportunity for other companies to take advantage of "once again".

[rosequill]

I don't understand why people think there will be compatibility issues of any kind. Can you confirm this with cited factual information?

[rainschub]

there will be incompatibility when CC moves forward. Then you can´t open files with CS6.

You can´t already open AE and PP Files at the moment this way. Have a look at product specifications.

When you quit subscription you are left alone. And without the use of all your files/work!!!!

You can re-activate cloud (and pay for that) for every single file you open a month.

Great plan Adobe!

[gepkes]

Odd question. There's ALWAYS a backwards compatabilty problem... How on earth do you think an old application is going to open a file with newer effects in it? No confirmation needed. All your CC files would have to be exported to a CS6 or an open flattened format like PDF or MP4 or what ever or an unreliable interchange format.

[Califdan]

I'm not sure where you got the idea that there's always backward

compatibility? There is only backward compatibility if the developers

designed it into the product and maintain it. I have many situations where

some SW I own can't handle a file someone sends me from a newer version of

the same product. I suspect Adobe will not be all that eager to maintain

this capability beyond of year or so.