[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

[TheCoroner9]

Yellamokara wrote:

[Jongware] wrote:

Yellamokara wrote:

The subscription model is not mandatory. You can still buy the stand alone product, the only difference is that the stand alone products will no longer be updated.

The 'only difference'. So it's comply or be left behind.

But since the petition model suporters apparently don't update their software anyway, this should not be an issue to them. So what exactly is the problem?

I, and many like me, like our software updated. However, since the progress of "new useful features" has stalled -- posing "Dark UI" as a 'new feature', FCOL --, it's no longer economically justified to upgrade every ... single ... time. So I advised my boss to skip office-wide upgrades to CS5, and CS5.5, and CS6.

Now Adobe recognized this trend, they could have made upgrades more desirable -- i.e., by adding useful, requested new features. Not by removing useful functionality (Freehand import in Illustrator; SVG export in InDesign), breaking existing functionality (Word import in InDesign), or seemingly senseless changes (breaking up required resource files up into tens of hundreds itty bitty tiny files, clogging your HD and slowing down start-up time immensely). Also not by adding actually useful functions such as a custom setting for menu and dialog font sizes (popping up more and more in the Request lists).

Nossir, the trick to make any and all client not only update -- whether they want or not -- but also pay -- whether they want those upgrades or not -- is to make their software A Service. Give the employee that came up with the idea a big bonus. You got plenty fresh cash coming in.

But if you upgrade a perpetual license the cost increases as your original version gets older anyway, so the overall cost does not change significantly unless you go for very long periods without upgrading. If you are a professional using this software you are not going to wait that long between upgrades anyway in most cases. The main difference is that with a perpetual license you pay the cost up front while CC the cost is incurred over time. An advantage with CC is that if your circumstances change you can discontinue the subscription and save some of that overall cost.

If you are using the software to make a living and a few dollars a month averaged over many years is a make or break situation for your margins, you probably need to get into a different line of work.

I use the software for personal use. For me personally the subscription model makes it economically feasible - without CC the impact of making that big upfront payment of the perpetual license was a deal breaker.

I wouldn't have had a problem paying more for a perpetual license under the old model. But there is no way I'll ever pay for a subscription based Cloud service even if it's $1 a month. For all the $ Adobe is seeing with Cash Cow - they are going to lose a lot of customers $$$$$.

[Brntoki]

Yellamokara wrote:

The subscription model is not mandatory. You can still buy the stand alone product, the only difference is that the stand alone products will no longer be updated. But since the petition model suporters apparently don't update their software anyway, this should not be an issue to them. So what exactly is the problem?

The problem is that Adobe is doing something very unwise and underhanded; forcing its customers into a very bad position of vulnerability any which way they turn. If you don't understand, go back to page one of this thread and read.

Yellamokara wrote:

You can also switch to competitors products if you so choose.

If Adobe doesn't come up with a realistic and workable solution, we will. Actually, I and many others almost surely will even if Adobe does back away from the cliff. I just don't trust Adobe . . . at all.

Yellamokara wrote:

Nothing mandatory at all.

Well, this is a bit of equivocality. Of course no one is going to force anyone to subscribe (although some may be in a position that they are practically being so forced), but once subscribed, you are then forced into continuing. So, it's not true to say "nothing" is mandatory. With the new model, continuing is madatory, given the fact that no one is going to just abandon their hard work.

[Guest]

Many Problems

The cloud is not available in every country

In areas with bad internet the cloud makes adobe's software un accessible

In places where they are still suffering economically, purchasing software was the cheaper and better option

the disparity in pricing around the world demonstrates that Adobe will fix pricing when it knows it can

Adobe is a monopoly so changing products very hard... we dont corel an image we photoshop it..

The cloud aspects for many users are useless and some cannot even use it for legal reasons.

the are some reasons but there are Many Many reasons why we need to own again

[toxic_waltz]

You don't own intellectual property. You own the rights to use it. Please get that straight trough your head people.

[Guest]

Most people don’t speak legalese… they only understand own or rent

own the right to use in perpetuity

Rent the right for adobe to own you in perpetuity 🙂

[Greg_Bohn]

Diablo Venom wrote:

You don't own intellectual property. You own the rights to use it. Please get that straight trough your head people.

And I'm sure you know very well that for purposes of discussion here the difference is unimportant. Practically speaking, you either get to use the software 'forever' or only so long as you keep paying whether you truly "own it" or not (in either case).

[jbjones]

Greg Bohn wrote:

Diablo Venom wrote:

You don't own intellectual property. You own the rights to use it. Please get that straight trough your head people.

And I'm sure you know very well that for purposes of discussion here the difference is unimportant. Practically speaking, you either get to use the software 'forever' or only so long as you keep paying whether you truly "own it" or not (in either case).

Similar to buying music on a CD or MP3 (also considered intelectual property). You get to play it over and over, without having to pay a monthly fee to keep the disc working.

[toxic_waltz]

Adobe needs to start a subscription based service because they are running out of steam. The company needs to stay alive and feed all its monsters, including stock holders. It's a case of damn if you do and damn if you don't. The problem is that Adobe does not understand what a Cloud is for them vs. making money. Clearly, they ( Adobe ) does not understand its user market and what feeds its future.

To cut out all perpetual rights just eliminates opportunity to make more money and is clearly a ship of fools at this point in the companies history. Shame.

[JSCorbin]

Because I use two Adobe apps (Photoshop and Dreamweaver) that can now be upgraded only through a CC subscription, the ongoing cost would be 200% of my previous average upgrade cost, in perpetuity. As a retired person, amateur photographer, and hobbyist, I'll find alternatives.

A more honest marketing name would be Adobe CE (Creative Extortion).

[Andy_Bay]

You don't own intellectual property. You own the rights to use it. Please get that straight trough your head people.

For all the practical purposes, what's the difference really?

[SoilentGreen]

Andy Bay wrote:

You don't own intellectual property. You own the rights to use it. Please get that straight trough your head people.

For all the practical purposes, what's the difference really?

If you owned the IP,  you would have the right to make copies of say your Master Collection DVD's and sell them.   Since you don't own the IP,  you merely own a license to use it according to the EULA rules that you electronically signed when you installed the software.  Adobe (in this case) still owns the code on the disc,  you only own the medium it was delivered on,  the disc/box/instructions.

[Andy_Bay]

If you owned the IP,  you would have the right to make copies of say your Master Collection DVD's and sell them.   Since you don't own the IP,  you merely own a license to use it according to the EULA rules that you electronically signed when you installed the software.  Adobe (in this case) still owns the code on the disc,  you only own the medium it was delivered on,  the disc/box/instructions.

Sorry but for me that is just nitpicking.

Should I from now on tell people "I own a license to use Adobe Master Collection" (who talks like that anyway?) instead of just saying I own Adobe Master Collection? How many people do you think mistake my sentence to mean I own all the rights to copy and distribute Adobe products (making me a very wealthy man indeed)? I think no one. Thus it's nitpicking.

Language is about communication and there is absolutely no danger of misunderstanding something here.

[toxic_waltz]

Yes, language is about clearly communicating a complete thought. Without clarity, you can only assume. Many people assume they own software due to lack of understanding of property rights vs. usage rights actually is.

Instead of saying that you own something, you should state that you have the Master Collection, as an example. English is a powerful language if you know how to use it - just like Adobe software.

[toxic_waltz]

What the cloud does is cut out people that can't afford the applications as well as keep amatures out of the commercial sector. This is a welcomed blessing for those professionals who are sick and tired of processing turds from those who have not taken the time to learn the applications correctly. Long live the Cloud!

[Pauls Sloss]

Diablo Venom wrote:

What the cloud does is cut out people that can't afford the applications as well as keep amatures out of the commercial sector. This is a welcomed blessing for those professionals who are sick and tired of processing turds from those who have not taken the time to learn the applications correctly. Long live the Cloud!

I doubt the cloud will manage to achieve a better skilled user set, just by being a subscription service.

[Andy_Bay]

Many people assume they own software due to lack of understanding of property rights vs. usage rights actually is.

So you are basically saying many people think they have the legal right to "make copies of say your Master Collection DVD's and sell them".

Get real.

[TheCoroner9]

Diablo Venom wrote:

Yes, language is about clearly communicating a complete thought. Without clarity, you can only assume. Many people assume they own software due to lack of understanding of property rights vs. usage rights actually is.

Instead of saying that you own something, you should state that you have the Master Collection, as an example. English is a powerful language if you know how to use it - just like Adobe software.

http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/transfer-product-license.html

2nd sentence under License Transfer Policy ” “Transferring the license allows the new OWNER to register the software in their name”

According to Adobe there is a OWNER.

[toxic_waltz]

Owner of the right to use. Not the right to own. English is tricky if you are not a master of it.

All that adobe is doing is creating richer jack spades that will sell the keys to the castle. This is the dumbest decision I have ever seen adobe has ever made.  Again, great idea, bad implantation.

Notice the lower case in adobe as they plan a future contraction.

[Terrachild]

People, Diablo is obviously only here to annoy.

Please ignore him.

[toxic_waltz]

yes, please ignore the person behind the curtain and listen to the durtchild. Anything that comes from the ground has to grow future seeds of success.

Cloud, yes. CEO, gone.

[Jeff A Wright]

Diabolo please be respectful of other community members when participating in discussions in the Adobe forums.

[bababongatwo]

Jeff A Wright schrieb:

Diabolo please be respectful of other community members when participating in discussions in the Adobe forums.

Huh????
What did he say???? Didn´t harm anybody????

Or does Adobe want critical voices to wear a muzzle here?

Why don´t all these half-truth and ignoring reality comments have to be red-flaged?

[Jeff A Wright]

Bababongatwo I was referring to message #912 from Diabolo Venom within this discussion thread.

[toxic_waltz]

By calling people out removes protectionism for those who don't really need it. They can come and speak for themselves if they dare to. Sad thing is, most just don't care when you are at that removed level of control in life. Human nature is in general selfish, childish and simply shameful.

Let's cut another leg off and see if you can walk. The decision to go solely subscription is a practice in survival.

[Biggles_Lamb]

No matter what colour the sky is on their planet, no matter that they can count their IQ on the fingers of one hand, no matter how idiotic and simplistic they may be, no matter how they fail to understand simple mathematics; they are in fact interlectually challenged and as such they really should be receiving councilling

However we may think the above about an individual but we must not say that their name is xxxxxxxxxx