[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

[Brntoki]

jbjones wrote:

However the fact that Adobe is a near monoply could change those rules slightly by the fact that their monoploy status compels people to adopt the new subscription service simply to continue to stay in business.

But this assumes that consumers are already aware of the problem of future file editability. Even if people are only "compelled" by the deceptive "cheap" monthly payment system, if they are not fully aware of their work becoming uneditable in the future, and they (would) then feel tied to Adobe even in the face of as good/better software at even better prices/more attractive licensing, then Adobe has in fact discouraged competition in an underhanded way.

What does it mean to be "free" to choose if you not only have to pay for the service/software you're moving to, but also for the service/software you're trying to move away from? There is no real freedom there.

[Guest]

In the US monopolies are quite legal until they start acting like a monopoly... in europe adobe have broken several laws... the creation of the cloud is exclusionary.. it prevents people in poor or remote areas from accessing new software. The price hike is certainly exclusionary and comes at a time for many who are still struggling in a bad economy ... owning or being able to still purchase CS6 doesnt negate the fact adobe is still a monopoly and is acting like one....

The cloud is not a new revolutionary product... it is a pseudo cloud that still requires users download the bulk of its software and install it locally... a perpetual licence could still be used with an option to use cloud services for a subscription.

very frustrating situation

[jbjones]

Chazinbermuda wrote:

In the US monopolies are quite legal until they start acting like a monopoly... in europe adobe have broken several laws... the creation of the cloud is exclusionary.. it prevents people in poor or remote areas from accessing new software. The price hike is certainly exclusionary and comes at a time for many who are still struggling in a bad economy ... owning or being able to still purchase CS6 doesnt negate the fact adobe is still a monopoly and is acting like one....

The cloud is not a new revolutionary product... it is a pseudo cloud that still requires users download the bulk of its software and install it locally... a perpetual licence could still be used with an option to use cloud services for a subscription.

very frustrating situation

That reminds me of a comment I sent to Adobe a while back about the cloud storage on the early Photoshop.com. I stated that this trend of having files spread out over a dozen servers was not the way to go. Everyone, especially the big names needed to allow us to use whatever cloud drive we wanted, i.e. Dropbox, Google Drive, Box.net, Skydrive, etc. For cloud computing to become a really viable platform we needed to be able to have all our files in a central location and potentially accessible by multiple web apps.

Adobe apparently went the oposite direction. Not only can we not plug the Dropbox backend into the Creative Cloud interface, but now Adobe's storage space comes with the apps. No option of saving money if you don't need their cloud features.

[Philip Byrne]

That CNET survey is fundamentaly flawed. It's based on the misconception that all CC apps will be updated frequently with new features:

"One part of the sales pitch is that Adobe will be able to update its software more frequently, shipping features when they're done rather than backing them up across many products until a new release of more than a dozen major programs is ready." (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-users-loathe-adobes-subscriptions...)

Indeed, Adobe has cultivated this misconception from the very start of their CC-only marketing campaign:

"the new [CC-only] applications and services provide a workflow where:

   •  You have access to the full set of Adobe’s creative tools, with frequent updates" (http://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html)

"In order to accelerate the rate at which we deliver new features and services, and to ensure that we do so with the highest level of quality, we are focusing all of our efforts on Creative Cloud." (http://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html)

However, Adobe VP Mala Sharma has let the cat out of the bag:

"Sharma says that there will be more emphasis on brand-new, razor-focused applications—such as the Edge line—rather than adding more and more functionality (and, some would say, bloat) to mature products." (http://www.macworld.com/article/2040845/adobe-vp-says-creative-cloud-is-a-big-bet-but-allows-for-bet...)

I wonder how many CNET survey participants would have responded differently if they had known that CS stalwarts such as Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign (I'm assuming these are some of the "mature products" Sharma refers to) will, in reality, see little or no new features.

[W_J_T]

^

Yes when you begin connecting the dots for this whole saga, the picture that is revealed is absurd smoke and mirrors behind the empty curtain at Adobe.

[Harm_Millaard]

Adobe, connect the dots please.

I wonder if they can do it.

[Biggles_Lamb]

Harm

You are being unkind 

My 6 year old Grand Daughter can do the puzzle.

You know very well that Adobe Senior management does not have the required level of management skills to solve such simple puzzles

Nice one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[urdaddi]

sharpo wrote:

That CNET survey is fundamentaly flawed. It's based on the misconception that all CC apps will be updated frequently with new features:

"One part of the sales pitch is that Adobe will be able to update its software more frequently, shipping features when they're done rather than backing them up across many products until a new release of more than a dozen major programs is ready." (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-use rs-loathe-adobes-subscription...)

Indeed, Adobe has cultivated this misconception from the very start of their CC-only marketing campaign:

"the new [CC-only] applications and services provide a workflow where:

   •  You have access to the full set of Adobe’s creative tools, with frequent updates" (http://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html)

"In order to accelerate the rate at which we deliver new features and services, and to ensure that we do so with the highest level of quality, we are focusing all of our efforts on Creative Cloud." (http://www.adobe.com/cc/letter.html)

However, Adobe VP Mala Sharma has let the cat out of the bag:

"Sharma says that there will be more emphasis on brand-new, razor-focused applications—such as the Edge line—rather than adding more and more functionality (and, some would say, bloat) to mature products." (http://www.macworld.com/article/2040845/adobe-vp-says-creative-cloud-i s-a-big-bet-but-allows-for-be...)

I wonder how many CNET survey participants would have responded differently if they had known that CS stalwarts such as Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign (I'm assuming these are some of the "mature products" Sharma refers to) will, in reality, see little or no new features.

The only misconception that I know for fact is that you are claiming something to be fact that you do not know. It may be your opinion that Adobe will not provide updates to the software. I understand that a lot of people are not happy with Adobe's decision to go Cloud only. But it really does not do anything for your presentation of FACTS to Adobe of why they should not leave the perpetual products when you print statements as being a FACT when in reality you cannot know.

[Philip Byrne]

urdaddi wrote:

The only misconception that I know for fact is that you are claiming something to be fact that you do not know. It may be your opinion that Adobe will not provide updates to the software.

Eh, hello! Unless the journalist who wrote the article that I referenced is lying through his teeth, it is a fact. (http://www.macworld.com/article/2040845/adobe-vp-says-creative-cloud-is-a-big-bet-but-allows-for-bet...)

Now, if you take the time to reread my post, you will also see that I stated clearly "(I'm assuming these are some of the "mature products" Sharma refers to)". I don't see how you can possibly view this as a statement of fact. Whether or not the "mature products" Adobe VP Mala Sharma referred to are indeed InDesign (1999), Illustrator (1987) and Photoshop (1990) is a matter of speculation but, since these three applications are indeed "mature products" I'd say it's a very good bet. (http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/timeline.pdf)

[Guest]

Another thing their sales people can't actually answer is how much CC (Cash Cow) will cost once they've herded you into their "Cattle Car."

One thing is certain...you're heading for the "slaughter house" if you jump onboard.

Brice, in sales, couldn't tell me whether it was going to be $19, $49, $59/month... once the first year was over. It's so completely up to Adobe. Once they have you locked into their system...THERE IS NO WAY OUT.

[FastFeet]

MikeChambers schrieb:

We have never said this model is for everyone, and understand that at the end of the day, some users won't go in this direction with us. We are working to address some of the concerns, but again, some users may decide that Creative Cloud is not the model for them. We understand that.

Ultimately, we have to provide clear value in what we are building, or we will fail. Providing that value is what we are focusing on.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

I asked you before and I do it again: Why do you so desparately work against your customer base. Why do you go for such a high risk and risk destroying a company if it is not necassary? Isn't that stupid?

I also want to ask you if you understand that a large customer base only see one clear value provided by Adobe: money

Aren't you afraid already that it is most likely that you will fail?

[MikeChambers]

Marcus Koch wrote:

Aren't you afraid already that it is most likely that you will fail?

I want to be clear that I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else that Creative Cloud is the best model for you. That is something you have to decide for yourself. I am trying to explain what we are doing and why.

As far as whether I am afraid that we will fail? of course I am! This is a huge shift for the company, and much of our customer base. However, I personally feel that if we didn't make this shift and we stayed on the old model, we would have increasingly become irrelevant, especially for the next generation of Creatives.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

[W_J_T]

MikeChambers wrote:

Mike when was this decision first made internally to switch from perpetual licenses and go solely with subscriptions? What was the timeline chronologically?

[Terrachild]

Mike said:

I want to be clear that I am not trying to convince you, or anyone else that Creative Cloud is the best model for you. That is something you have to decide for yourself. I am trying to explain what we are doing and why.

As far as whether I am afraid that we will fail? of course I am! This is a huge shift for the company, and much of our customer base. However, I personally feel that if we didn't make this shift and we stayed on the old model, we would have increasingly become irrelevant, especially for the next generation of Creatives.

Mike, I would like to thank you for having the guts to actually speak to us.  Adobe management clearly doesn't!

We know why Adobe is doing this, and it has nothing to do with the customer!

If the cloud was such a great idea, than you would sell it alongside perpetual licenses, and let the customers decide which is best for them.

Then, and only then, would you guys be motivated to improve the cloud and make it so good that people couldn't resist.

You would have to make it ultra-reliable, a good value for all the customers, and a product with innovative features like cloud-computing/render farm ability.

At this point it is just a marketing gimmick.  For it to be real, it would have to dramatically improve efficiency for users.  Not everyone would need that, those that did could pay extra for that feature.  I do 3-D work, and if I need extra horsepower I can send a render to a farm.  For that I pay extra.  When I don't need it, I render locally.

It's all about choice.

You've given us none.

And please stop telling us about how you are going to sell CS6 indefinitely.  Do you know what indefinitely means?

It means you could stop selling it tomorrow!

Please tell the Adobe marketers to get out a dictionary.

Also, you sold me CS6 before all this BS with the directive that I had to buy it if I wanted to upgrade to CS7.

You guys knew what you were doing, and you were lying to us.

Are you going to pay me now for this, or are you going to wait for the class-action lawsuit?

[TheCoroner9]

MikeChambers wrote:

As far as whether I am afraid that we will fail? of course I am! This is a huge shift for the company, and much of our customer base. However, I personally feel that if we didn't make this shift and we stayed on the old model, we would have increasingly become irrelevant, especially for the next generation of Creatives.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

What about the old model would make Adobe become irrelevant for the next generation of Creatives? It's bizarre as I feel CC is making Adobe irrelevant for the next generation who, like the current generation, don't want a subscription based software of any kind.

[W_J_T]

TheCoroner9 wrote:

What about the old model would make Adobe become irrelevant for the next generation of Creatives?

No doubt.

I would say that the countless creative professionals the world over who delivered award winning campaigns and solutions to clients over the last 25 years across print, broadcast, web, etc., that collectively also would out number the revenues Adobe made over the same time proves in itself that the new emphasis on services is perhaps misaligned as these services were not needed for the said accomplishments but instead just the software as desktop apps that Adobe is now working so hard to move away from. The fundamental desire to improve something is one thing, the need to change something is another. Adobe's customers themselves proved the value they could produce with the tools provided across the creative community, without need for integrated services that Adobe now wish to offer and feel are necessary and so important moving forward.

[Mike_Ornellas]

Their current model of business is failing because users are not forced to upgrade unless they want to, or need to.

The new mode of business is to give you no choice because they are failing as a company to collect profits based upon

stock expectations.

Adobe is not a commodity. It's an intellectual property, though they think they can sell it as such.

[MikeChambers]

W_J_T wrote:

No doubt.

I would say that the countless creative professionals the world over who delivered award winning campaigns and solutions to clients over the last 25 years across print, broadcast, web, etc., that collectively also would out number the revenues Adobe made over the same time proves in itself that the new emphasis on services is perhaps misaligned as these services were not needed for the said accomplishments but instead just the software as desktop apps that Adobe is now working so hard to move away from. The fundamental desire to improve something is one thing, the need to change something is another. Adobe's customers themselves proved the value they could produce with the tools provided across the creative community, without need for integrated services that Adobe now wish to offer and feel are necessary and so important moving forward.

Sure. We might be completely wrong. I completely get that. Personally, I think this is the correct direction, but if it isn't, it wouldnt be the first time I (or Adobe) was wrong.

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

[W_J_T]

MikeChambers wrote:

I would not assume that we have not done this, both before, during and after we made the announcements on May 6th.

But given the response since, one could assume the data analysis was perhaps not properly forecasted in regards to reaction and the sample pool was not quite so accurate.

MikeChambers wrote:

Sure. We might be completely wrong. I completely get that. Personally, I think this is the correct direction, but if it isn't, it wouldnt be the first time I (or Adobe) was wrong.

It's certainly a huge gamble for Adobe's future to go all in with this idea, I think ultimately it is irresponsible to it's customer base and Adobe's well being as a whole. In doing so, I just don't think the added value of these perceived services really constitutes the direction and vision being projected. And given the general issues that appear daily on the forum for subscribers that they continue and newly have, I think more and more users will come to the realization that this could very well be the case for them as well. There may be upside but the margin for error and failure due to reliance on these services seem astronomical and unforeseen heading forward. I just cant imagine a proper customer survey would have given Adobe the confidence to go all in like this.

[Ken G. Rice]

No individual or company can predict the future. Adobe believes in the decision it has made with the Creative Cloud. As Mike has already pointed out we could be wrong. It is easy to list the pros and cons over and over. We still cannnot predict what will happen.

As to problems and issues raised in this forum and elsewhere, we work with the customers to resolve them.

[ThomasBB]

Ken G. Rice wrote:

No individual or company can predict the future. Adobe believes in the decision it has made with the Creative Cloud. As Mike has already pointed out we could be wrong. It is easy to list the pros and cons over and over. We still cannnot predict what will happen.

As to problems and issues raised in this forum and elsewhere, we work with the customers to resolve them.

Hi Ken,

Is there any news on differentiated pricing, like you did with the different versions of Creative Suite?

[Andy_Bay]

It is an insane risk indeed. Why a company with a monopoly position and a (growing) 4 billion revenue stream would like to put it all on the table is beyond my comprehension.

Shantanu Narayen should have been fired already since the whole Flash-fiasco. Adobe literally had it all when they bough Macromedia and Flash and they lost it in just a few years.

So first he completely lost the huge advantage Adobe had for owning the dominant web-video technology and now he is gambling with the whole company, chasing some future vision others (the actual designers) have a very hard time seeing.

[Mike_Ornellas]

>It is an insane risk indeed. Why a company with a monopoly position and a (growing) 4 billion revenue stream would like to put it all on the table is beyond my comprehension.<

Apparently you are not reading my posts.

[W_J_T]

Ken G. Rice wrote:

No individual or company can predict the future. Adobe believes in the decision it has made with the Creative Cloud. As Mike has already pointed out we could be wrong. It is easy to list the pros and cons over and over. We still cannnot predict what will happen.

Of course. But as far as predicting, I would have thought that if Adobe was choosing to wager it's entire future of the company they should have solid analysis to back up such a decision, given the wide spread customer community outcry I am not sure that analysis was correctly evaluated. I know Adobe believes in it's decision and direction but the basis for the decision just does not compute logically regardless of how it is manifested or described. I think the abruptness of this upon people and the ideal for customers to follow or be left behind was the critical flaw in all this. It is just very disappointing how Adobe handled the entire manner towards it's installed base when it choose to so abruptly move in a immeasurable direction.

Ken G. Rice wrote:

As to problems and issues raised in this forum and elsewhere, we work with the customers to resolve them.

I know everyone is trying and I applaud you all for your efforts. But when the same issues keep reoccurring, new issues appear or forbid a unforeseen catastrophic error or malfunction of the system occurs then this ideal and vision could blow up in Adobe's face in a mere instance. I just think some of the issues people are facing daily at this point should not even be in play and should have been worked out already. It seems in many ways to have been a rushed decision, release and transition (as mentioned above regarding the abruptness). I trust things will continue to improve and stabilize further as things progress. But again that can not be predicted either, which again begs the question why did Adobe choose to gamble so big.

[Andy_Bay]

Why do you think that? I wasn't disagreeing with you.