[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

[JimGoshorn]

We can be ever hopeful that Adobe comes up with a reasonable compromise and that it will come before July 31 which is the cutoff date for the discount for existing customers.

Jim

[Mike_Ornellas]

Many Adobe Employees will abandon ship and create a new start-up.  Watch my words.

[Biggles_Lamb]

Jim

Do not hold your breath waiting for Adobe to give something to the existing users that we actually want.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Greg Bohn wrote:

I guess I'm still confused as to how these don't contradict each other. I thought you were talking about a "compromise" where there would be an option to leave with a perpetual license after some period of time. But the article says no "perpetual licenses".

So, I guess you are saying that the form of perpetual license for this hypothetical "compromise" you are referring to is not the same as the "perpetual license" he was talking about  (Even though they are both a perpetual license).

My original comment that you quoted wasn't to do with perpetual licenses specifically - it was in reply to the fact Adobe hadn't responded properly yet. I don't know what they're going to do next any more than you do. They've said they're not going back to their old way of selling perpetual licenses, but there are plenty of compromises they could make - they could drop the price, they could do smaller bundles, they could do some kind of opt out that you could continue to use, or a variety of other suggestions that have been made here or elsewhere.  My point is simply that it'll take time for them to make any announcement.

[Brntoki]

"All your layers, your actions, work, art, all your files . . . are belong to us." - Adobe

[Brntoki]

Adobe Innovation! Proving that people really can hate a company more than Microsoft.

[bababongatwo]

LOL. Same with me. I was always in a good feeling with Adobe. But this changed from one day till the other. (Or even a few moments - I couldn´t believe as I heard, called the support here in Germany - They verivied that [the guy on the phone first didn´t believe that too : )... And from thereon.
MS was before the company at the end of my list - now they are 1 step higher.

And yes, you are totally right. It´s possible.

[Andy_Bay]

Microsoft is actually an interesting comparison, since they used to have a monopoly that was even worse than Adobe's.

They acted in an arrogant way towards their customers, they thought they are untouchables. But just look at them now with only 5% of mobile OS market share. One of the biggest reasons I chose Android was the history of Microsoft bullying their clients. I think the world is eager to see Microsoft become an unrelevant company in the future. That's why it's so hard to sell Windows Mobile, even though the hardware is pretty good (Nokia). People simply rejoice from seeing Microsoft shrink.

I predict Adobe will see a similar fate.

[Hatteras Photo]

Why have posts stopped showing up ?????

[Kwan Parker]

Victoria Bampton wrote;

     "My point is simply that it'll take time for them [Adobe] to make any announcement."

I believe it'll probably take up to a year before Adobe decides whether they got it wrong . . . going all in on their semi-cloud, 1950s, cash cow model.

Meanwhile, Adobe employees looking at layoffs might be looking to start their own offerings.

Maybe then, cost to customers across international borders might be justified by demanding real explanations of why doing business in countries other than the United States justifies the cost those Adobe customers complained about.

Bet non-USA customers would have understood--before the Cash Cow--which continues the disparity.  Or, am i wrong about that?  There is no disparity?

Enjoyed your posts . . . and your promise to forward user concerns to those who could forward them forward to other forwarding echelons.

We all know these decisions are made by Adobe officers far above your client level.  Unless, you're someone special?  Or, one of them?

Are you?

Do appreciate your posts, i do.

You are quite articulate.  While I'm just an old retired military guy who will have no impact, whatsoever.

Thanks.

[Ken G. Rice]

@Kwan Parker - remember the simple courtesy of being nice to other people in this forum. Do not attack Victoria because she has a different opinion than you.

[Kwan Parker]

Wow . . . what did i just post?

What did you read?  With what protective passion?

I'm an easy target.

Thanks, for confrimation.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Wikipedia tells me the definition of a shill is "a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing he has a close relationship with the person or organization."

So no. I've been completely open with you. You can see from my MVP badge that I have ties with Adobe. I've disclosed that I've been testing CC. And I made it quite clear I have contacts within Adobe that I'd pass information back to, which I have done.

I haven't suggested that you should love CC or that you should love the new plans. I've given my personal opinion when I was specifically asked for it, but I'm more interested in clearing up confusion where I can, and trying to see if there's a middle ground. If you knew me in "real life", you'd know I tend to end up being the neutral party friends and family runs to to tell 'their side of the story' so I guess I naturally fall into the same patterns online.

[Victoria Bampton LR Queen]

Was anything you wrote incorrect? Yes. The definition of a shill is someone who DOESN'T disclose involvement, whereas I've been completely open with you.

But this conversation isn't about me. It's about Adobe's changes. Is it a good deal? For some, yes, for others, no. For those for whom it's currently not a good deal, could there be a middle ground that's better? Personally, yes, I think so. WIll the middle ground satisfy everyone? Not a chance!

[MikeChambers]

Just a quick note, but attacking other users is against forum guidelines:

http://forums.adobe.com/docs/DOC-2326

and repeated abused will result in temporary (and eventually) permanent bans.

I will be removing the offending comments.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

[Terrachild]

Mike, this is a touchy area.  There is a fine line between debating points made by users and "attacking" them as you put it.

There should be free-flow of ideas on these forums or they are useless.

The only things that should be off-limits are ad hominem attacks.

Is calling someone who is partial to Adobe's new plan a 'shill' an ad hominem attack?

I don't think so.  It's a commonly used descriptive term.

Maybe a different term could be used for someone who is repeatedly trying to defend an indefensible policy.

And Victoria, you seem nice enough, but it does not say 'Staff' next to your name.  Lots of people have 'MVP' status, and that doesn't mean they have a relationship with Adobe.  You create training guides/books/etc. for Adobe so you have an economic stake in the outcome of this misguided move toward the CC.  People are going to view the things you say with suspicion as a result.  That's just reality.  Blame Adobe not us.  Millions of us are never going to trust Adobe again after this.  It would be nice to hear some negative things from you also.

To all staff, why would anyone take anything you say seriously given Adobe's behavior.  We all know that management will come down on you like a ton of bricks if you say anything against the CC.  Companies generally treat their customers better than their staff.  After all, staff is replaceable, customers, however, are the life's blood of any company.  Given how we are being treated, I can only imagine what is going on inside Adobe right now.  It might not be as overt as a memo to staff threatening them, but I guarantee there are chill-winds of fear blowing inside the corridors of Adobe.

[MikeChambers]

Terrachild wrote:

Mike, this is a touchy area.  There is a fine line between debating points made by users and "attacking" them as you put it.

There should be free-flow of ideas on these forums or they are useless.

Yes, that is why we give warning prior to taking any action.

Also agree about having a free flow of ideas, but there are appropriate ways to do that. For example, not attacking others, or disrupting attempts by others to have their questions answered.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

[Andy_Bay]

So what exactly in Kwan's post was so bad that you felt the need to ban him? Calling someone a shill for Adobe?

Does this mean that Adobe doesn't want to allow us to have any disqussions of the motives behind posts/posters anymore?

The motive for my posts is to attack Adobe because I hate it's new policy. I don't mind anyone pointing that out to me. Why is it so bad to point out the possible motives of posters?

[Ken G. Rice]

Somehow this is hard to understand.

Attack and criticize Adobe and it's decisions. That is fine.

Do not attack any people in this forum.

[bababongatwo]

OK. Blo.dy o.d mo..er Fu..i.g Adobe is OK for, you?

NOOOOOHOOOW Please don´t ban me...

BtW: I wonder why so many Anti-Cloudies spend their time here.
I think, if you invest that time to tell the truth everywhere else, it´s more efficient.

I don´t think, a potential user will ever read this thread to the end (or only for amusement).
He only needs the first twenty posts to know what cloud and dependency is.
So my suggest: There are sides in the web (not baning), who are much more important if you want to inform & take the influence you can - compared to a monopoly company.

Adobes leader board will never been seen here. They are watching NASDAQ.
(... and wait for the moment, when they can sell their stock best.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/insider-trading/insider/narayen-shantanu/1224154/ )

Also it´s difficult to get seroious information here.

("No you don´t lose file access after discribtion" % [[...but you just can´t open that files because you have no software to do so, har  har]] and all that bushwah... "We are working on that..." "A few users are not ready for "cloud"...")

What would a company, which named that solution "cloud" tell you???

If you want Adobe to let you know, why they are now on Microsoft level: Don´t subscribe. Keep the people you know and can reach informed. Keep CS6 or before alive. Don´t spend your time here.
Same as ever in live: Only what hurts will make you move. (But, yes, also: only the evil will survive...).

#adobe2014

- - - - - -

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

[MikeChambers]

Feel free to discuss your thoughts around Adobe and Adobe policies. Do not attack individuals, or disrupt the ability for others to get their questions answered.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

[Greg_Bohn]

  It would seem to me that there are nicer ways of finding out if someone has a Fealty to or relationship with Adobe than just calling them a 'shill'. Perhaps even by just asking nicely in they have a financial interest .

  I think someone is more likely to convince others about their point of view if they don't let the passion of the moment get out of hand. Not that I haven't gotten a little 'passionate' myself...

[Brntoki]

Victoria Bampton wrote:

. . .

But this conversation isn't about me. It's about Adobe's changes. Is it a good deal? For some, yes, for others, no.

Hi Victoria,

I will venture a guess here, but for those of who think it is a "good deal" for them, they have NOT --- NO WAY --- seriously considered how they will lose REALISTIC access to their work in the future. I'm primarily a Photoshop user, who planned to use In Design, Illustrator, and perhaps Dreamweaver (no chance in hell now) --- but even for Photoshop, where it is arguably easier than other products to work around a future access problem, it is a huge problem from a practical perspective, not to mention the overall ethical perspective.

Again, Adobe says, "All your image are belong to us."

Pulled from another poster above:

The reason I went in on this was because I COMPLETELY MISSED  the point that my files are "gone" when I stop paying.

If I had thought of that first I would never ever entered this offer.

Of course not!

This is how I put it at the end of a previously linked article I wrote:

"I honestly don’t see how this model could survive an antitrust lawsuit. I really don’t. Adobe has locked out competition by making sure that even if a competitor creates better or similar software at even substantially lower prices, Adobe still gets paid [by virtue of the fact that a user, having moved on to potentially even better software, still has to stick with Adobe because they will lose their previous work if not]. They have locked people in, or, at best, tricked them into a parole officer program whereby they have to “get permission” for the low monthly cost of $xx.xx, to touch their previous work. This further creates an atmosphere where potential competitors would have little or no motivation to undertake developing in the same market ["People won't buy our product even if it is better because they cannot afford to leave Adobe"].

The only way out for Adobe is unrealistic. Burying the terms or warnings about not being able to access files with adjustment layers, or any other ways that non-Adobe applications cannot read, deep in some EULA will not be enough. It must be made up front and crystal clear if Adobe wishes to avoid being targeted in an antitrust suit. But if Adobe does that, who will submit to their terms?"

I really think people who think this is a "good deal" are either just not considering the full and far-reaching ramifications of Adobe's new model, or they have a clinically identifiable addiction to Adobe, a sickness that makes them think they must have it, or both.

To my previously linked post if anyone thinks they may be interested: http://agrievanceexpressed.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/is-adobes-creative-cloud-only-model-unethical-an...

[urdaddi]

I really think people who think this is a "good deal" are either just not considering the full and far-reaching ramifications of Adobe's new model, or they have a clinically identifiable addiction to Adobe, a sickness that makes them think they must have it, or both.

So tell me why is it that people who have a different opinion than you, for whatever their reasoning, have a sickness?

[pik80]

"I honestly don’t see how this model could survive an antitrust lawsuit. I really don’t."

Me either, what Adobe is doing is far worse then what Microsoft has done so it seems like it would be a very legimate case.