[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

[Biggles_Lamb]

As AE and Premiere replacements, Checkout HITFILM

[FrannieKN]

My computer is now showing signs of aging, and I'm putting together my wish list for my next system. I'll buy that computer when I have a weekend to get it set up.

On the Cloud subscription model, inevitably one day, that version of software will demand a more powerful system than what I'm working on. If subscription updates are automatic, I'm not understanding how it will be anything other than finding out overnight that I need a new system. So... then I can scramble out to the  store to buy what they have on their shelf instead of per specs on my wish list, and you know it won't be on sale that day! Installing software usually takes me a couple days 'til I can get back to client jobs. In my ideal world, clients don't make edits right up to deadline... but in my real world, they do. I'll lose at least one client if I even think about telling the newspaper that they'll have to wait a couple of days for me to get my new computer out of the box. In the Cloud, change will happen when it's convenient to Adobe, not per my schedule or budget.

I choose to own for other reasons too, but this point hasn't been brought up recently, so I'm reiterating it for newcomers to this thread who missed it.

I hope the Adobe board members and stockholders can understand how many of "me" there are out here with the same concerns. As someone mentioned recently, it's not the software that makes the design good, and while I'm no Monet, I'm secure enough with my talent to know that I can do an equally great job using some of the alternatives to Adobe.

[Adobe user since 1993]

[ValentinOcheda]

Just installed QuarkXpress 10.... don't need Indesign....!

I will keep CS6 running as long as possible....

[Biggles_Lamb]

Your logic may be sound for a new user.

For those of us who have used the software for many years & have already gone through the large expense of outright purchase, the cost of the updates every couple of years have been reasonable BUT the cost of the CC subscription over the same period is way more.

Ergo your logic is seriously flawed in respect of the many tens of thousands of existing CS users

Col

[bababongatwo]

That works (numbers) if you compare with MasterSuite (which was sold seldom, because there are not many users like you, which are professionals in Illustrating, photoshoping, video-editing, web-design, graphicdesign,...).

But even in case of MasterCollection: There will come the day, when CashCow licensing is more expensive than the good and fair CS licensing. May be it takes 4 years or longer.

But with the complete (CS-) Suite you are on the "save" side. You know, you can use the SW whenever and how long you want.

Most people have to compare the CashCow to one of the smaller Suites - and here it´s different: CashCow becomes more expensive after a few years.

Also: With CS you will never have to fear, that if you run out of money - you will lose access to your files.

[Jim_Simon]

Renting software isn´t compareable to renting a house.

Other than the size of the monthly payment, why not?  You get to use either only so long as that payment is made.

[Andy_Bay]

Other than the size of the monthly payment, why not?  You get to use either only so long as that payment is made.

It's comparable in one way: generally anyone who has the money to buy a house doesn't want to rent one.

Anyway, next week we will get some light on how all this is working for Adobe (when they release their Q3 results)...

[bababongatwo]

Andy Bay wrote:

Anyway, next week we will get some light on how all this is working for Adobe (when they release their Q3 results)...

I think, they will find overwhelming sugar pink glossy arguments for what they have reached.

What ever it will be.

[bababongatwo]

Leaving one house isn´t terminating my archive.

Not so many people have money enough to pay a complete house.

(I know: your answer is, that some people are not able to buy a CS Suite. But: As they have to use it as a business base, they have a problem than in any way.)
It´s the unserious half truth argumentaion of Adobe I cna´t hear any longer (lowering entrance borders bushwah)

[Jim_Simon]

I want to own!

I just want to get the job done so I can get paid.  CC7 allows me to do that with greater ease and efficiency than any previous version of PP, and that gap is only going to increase with time.

[bababongatwo]

And I know people who earn money (enormous amounts of money) with Versions that are 3 years and very much older.

It´s to simple to tell us: New versions are always more efficient.

(F.Ex.: Try to do the same work with Office 2003 and with Office 2010: We tried that with a few projects. The result: The work with MS Office 2003 is done in 70% of the time it takes with 2010. Not realy compareable to Adobe. But there are lots of overwhelming items in the new feature lists (like changed Color GUI) which take no effect in efficiency. Only a few of the features open new doors or will allow me to work a little bit faster. CC is a to big price for that)

[TheCoroner9]

Jim Simon wrote:

I want to own!

I just want to get the job done so I can get paid.  CC7 allows me to do that with greater ease and efficiency than any previous version of PP, and that gap is only going to increase with time.

I get the job done and get paid while still using non subscription software. Isn't it odd that competitor's software can also provide greater ease and efficiency while not having to pay a monthly fee.

It's not the tools, it's the artist. That is why DaVinci/Hitchcock/Mozart are still considered among the greats.

[jbjones]

TheCoroner9 wrote:

Jim Simon wrote:

I want to own!

I just want to get the job done so I can get paid.  CC7 allows me to do that with greater ease and efficiency than any previous version of PP, and that gap is only going to increase with time.

I get the job done and get paid while still using non subscription software.

And to Jim Simon, the whole point of the matter is that even if CC7 is more efficient, it doesn't justify removing the option for a perpetual license. Adobe was simply trying to get into a better position to strong arm the customer if ever needed. What if CC8 or CC9 add no efficiency or somehow make it worse?

Adobe is wanting to charge for stand-alone software, but as a service. Or alternatively, they are forcing the consumer to buy their cloud features in order to get the stand-alone software. I'm fine if they want to bundle those for a reduced rate, but they should offer separate packages as well. Those packages should be:

1. a perpetual license every 18 months for the latest application revisions, and
2. a cheaper monthly fee for just their cloud services. Prices comparable to Dropbox, Google Drive, or Sky Drive.

[Monte_Allums]

I currently have CS6 Design Premium.  So now Adobe wants me to rent my apps?  Hum, I stopped leasing years ago.  It's a failed business paradigm.  And I know there are those here that would vehemently disagree.  I am also a small business owner.  I WILL NOT be renting Adobe products for my home business.  At my day job I will be forced to the cloud.  Just read today that a company that owns over 300 seats of CS5 and CS6 had decided to NOT go to CC. 

I have to believe that this is a decision being echoed throughtout the industry.  Hasn't Adobe learned anything from Microsoft?  This is a huge mistake for Adobe IMO.  I know they think they are too big to fail but it also seems they have not learned the lessons from this type of cutomer hostage taking.  Good luck Adobe, you're going to need it.  The best way for us to speak is with our wallets and I have spoken with mine.  No renting of software for me personally.

[Jim_Simon]

It is safe to say that you don't understand the concept of bloat, Jim.

It's not at all safe to say that.  It's just a ridiculous notion to suggest that the licensing model has any direct effect on it.

[Brntoki]

Jim Simon wrote:

It is safe to say that you don't understand the concept of bloat, Jim.

It's not at all safe to say that.  It's just a ridiculous notion to suggest that the licensing model has any direct effect on it.

It isn't only safe, it's just a bare fact. When you say @1400:

Jim Simon wrote:

[Bloat is] based on the spurious notion that a piece of software has a hard limit on how much code it can contain . . .

You've obviously not understood bloat at all. If your definition is what bloat is, then how is it that we ever have a discussion of bloat at all? Theoretically then, given your idea of bloat, nothing is ever really bloated. And yet, we speak of bloated software and OSs and whatnot.

The idea of bloat includes the notion of features (even good and potentially useful features) that are not essential to the main task of the software overall, and which make that main overall task less functional, either by slowing down the processing or workflow, or conflicting with those main, essential features somehow. That may happen by distracting the user, or actually slowing down the ability of the raw processing power of the computer to finish the essential tasks.

I've never thought of bloat to be tied to some limit, theoretical or actual, of code a piece of sotware has.

[Pauls Sloss]

RobertoBlake wrote:

I will focus first on backwards comptability:

Adobe Illustrator has always had the ability to export legacy EPS formats,

Adobe InDesign has the ability to export into the IDML format

Photoshop has never really had an issue with opening PSD file from later versions with the layers entact.

Adobe Flash has always allowed you to save backwards compatible versions since at least CS3 if I'm not mistaken.

This is not backwards compatibility, it's a downsave. A dowsave removes content or flattens content from a native document where a feature used doesn't exist in the earlier version of the software.

The whole point of a native file, is to create a saved state of all the dynamic/non-destructive editing features of that particular software that you created the document with.

eg: A Perspective grid object in Illustrator CS6 would not be editable using the perspective tool in CS4 because it doesn't exist. So downsaving that illustration to CS4 would expand the object to basic vector shapes.

IDML with Indesign is a hit and miss affair, and doesn't always open the document as it was created. Often I had black borders on my all my text and graphic objects when an IDML document was opened in an older version of Indesign. If I used a feature such as GREP styles in my template, they would be gone for someone using CS4.

3D objects in the current version of Photoshop would not be compatible with CS3. I'm not even sure how they would be converted. Smart objects would be rasterised if you opened a "backwards compatible" file in CS or earlier.

There are a whole raft of features which are not backwards compatible in Flash, including your Lingo scripts. Dowsaved files would need to have their scripts rewritten in many cases.

You could say a flat pdf or a jpeg is a backwards compatible file by expanding your argument, but they wouldn't be very useful as a template, or if you wanted to make a major change to the document.

The downsaving features in Adobe's applications have their uses, but they do not constitute backwards compatible files.

[bababongatwo]

Today I had a very exciting telephone talk with a new client:

We didn´t know us before, and it was his first call for an order.
One of his very first question was: Do you are still on CS6 or "in the cloud"?
I sayed what I think about this "cloud" BS and was a little bit in fear, what comes up next, but to my astonishment it was: "That´s good. Elsewise we wouldn´t work together with your company!"

I swear it´s true.
Just very exciting. They are only working together with companies who are on the same trip.

And he also explained, that in his network it was decided not to jump on this "cloud".

They stay on CS 6 and are looking for Alternatives. As they most need print-design, they had a look to QuarkXPress and some other Vector-Apps.

Only a little sign for all here, that there are many outside who don´t like the Adobe way of No Choice.
Maybe this happens once again in future. Would be lucky if.

[lasvideo]

Ha ha. I had the same expereince. I have the opportunity to do a lot to telecommunicate work from my edit bay in a different state then the client is based. Part of the requirement is that all work is done on CS6. I was VERY pleased to hear this.

[fivebythree]

Thank you Chris, I wholeheartedly agree.

I hate that I was only able to appreciate one or two software from the previous pay grades. A lump sum is a hard buy for freelancers. $50 per month is right on, and can be written off come tax time.

I was hesitant when CC was first introduced, but the addition and integration of storage and a pro Behance account sweeten the deal. All perfect for where I am professionally today.

[Andy_Bay]

So, new versions are out, what do you guys think? Was Adobe working hard innovating?

The CEO said that this is their biggest upgrade since CS6. Well, I'm looking at the new features of After Effects and there is nothing to write home about. I'm curious if you After Effects CC users feel like you got an adequate upgrade?

[dsfsdsdfsdffdsf]

Andy Bay wrote:

So, new versions are out, what do you guys think? Was Adobe working hard innovating?

The CEO said that this is their biggest upgrade since CS6. Well, I'm looking at the new features of After Effects and there is nothing to write home about. I'm curious if you After Effects CC users feel like you got an adequate upgrade?

No complaints from me. The AE release mainly seems to be about beefing up Premiere/AE integration and some fine tuning around the edges. It's just updating now, so I'll post back more once I take it for a run. Interesting the AE team are going down the user friendly path, as opposed to gunning after the Nuke end of the market. I just hope they don't go too far down the Motion path!

Given this is the fourth dot point update in 12 months (5th from the busy Premiere team) I feel I'm getting my monies worth. I'm not even getting close to maxing out the feature set in AE these days - haven't even tinkered with the C4D integration and barely scraped the barrel with the 3D camera tracking. I'm more excited about the Premiere and Muse 2014 update myself. You frustrated by the lack of anything in particular in AE, Andy?

[Andy_Bay]

You frustrated by the lack of anything in particular in AE, Andy?

Indeed! Still no timeline-folders (really Adobe?), no physics, no real 3D support (means modeling straight inside AE) and preview rendering still pretty much sucks, to name a few things.

[eschelar]

fivebythree wrote:

Thank you Chris, I wholeheartedly agree.

I hate that I was only able to appreciate one or two software from the previous pay grades. A lump sum is a hard buy for freelancers. $50 per month is right on, and can be written off come tax time.

I was hesitant when CC was first introduced, but the addition and integration of storage and a pro Behance account sweeten the deal. All perfect for where I am professionally today.

lol. I like that. $50/month can be written off at tax time. Perfect for a business user. Not so perfect for a non-business user or anyone who counts time in sections larger than a fiscal year. You see $50/month. I see $3600 for the next 6 years. Compare that to $1125 for the next 6 years at every other year upgrade with $375 for Production Premium Suite. It's cool if you can write that off. But name one single expense that you have coming up over the next 5 years or so that you would be happy with if the cost tripled and the value stayed *exactly the same*.

yeah, that's not making much sense.

The really annoying thing is that there's just no good alternative to this pricing. Now that CS6 is getting long of tooth, it's getting harder and harder every day to resist making the move to Pirate Bay. I made a huge personal effort to save up so I could *avoid* this for my personal copy. Now that Adobe's slapping us Suite users in the face, I feel like I should have just saved my money, used pirated software and bought myself some more glass.

Eventually, they might try to make a serious effort to curb piracy, but since piracy is the main reason that they have such a dominant market position, it's pretty unlikely that will happen any time soon.