Does the CC subscription model deliver on the promise ?

[Samoreen]

For me, the answer is clearly no.

The main reason is that the CC subscription was supposed to accelerate the pace of bug corrections. What I observe (in PS and LR) is that very old bugs lasting since years and that are extremely easy to fix are still there. Why ? Because bugs considered as minor are moved to the end of the todo list and will always have a lower priority level as newly discovered, more severe bugs. Conclusion : they will never be fixed.

These bugs might be minor but they are often extremely annoying (e.g. the infamous metadata status bug in LR lasting since version 1, the mouse cursor bug in the left pane in LR lasting since years,  the zxpsignxxxxxx temp files bug in PS, etc - the list is rather long). This has a significant impact on customer satisfaction. So someone should look at them.

I'm a former developer and project manager and I already suggested to apply a method that I always used in the past : the "todo" list should be worked on from both ends. The majority of available development/maintenance resources should be dedicated to the most urgent bugs but some developers should work on the low priority bugs which are most of the time very easy to fix. Or the maintenance developers should spend a part of their time looking at these low priority bugs what they obviously never do.

Anyway, what I describe here was already a problem before the CC subscription and absolutely nothing has changed about that since the CC subscription exists. The CC Desktop application was supposed to ease "real time" corrections. This is not the case.

Let's take an example : the zxpsignxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx temp files problem in PS is a beginner programming error that can be fixed in less than a few minutes, recompiling included (see here : Photoshop CC 2015.5 fills directory C:\Temp with "Userzxpsign*" folders instead of correct location ...  ). The problem is identified, the fix is super easy and the CC Desktop app could be used to replace the faulty program : CEPHtmlEngine.exe . No need to reinstall or replace the whole PS app. Just replace CEPHtmlEngine.exe and that's it. Quick, easy, problem fixed, users satisfied.

This raises questions. Why do Adobe don't care about these problems ? Why don't they use the CC Desktop app to handle such issues while this tool was obviously created for that ? For the moment, I see only one answer : because the subscription model makes them lazy about customer satisfaction and software quality.

[D Fosse]

Well, you answered your own question: subscription or not has nothing to do with it.

Yes, some annoying bugs have survived for a long time, I agree. I can add others to your list. But I never expected CC to change that, and that was not something I even considered when I first signed up.

The main driving force behind the switch is piracy. With the dramatically lower entrance threshold, the bottom fell out of the piracy market. Adobe's user base has exploded since introducing CC. Subscription has been a huge success, whether you personally like it or not.

[Samoreen]

Hi,

Well, you answered your own question: subscription or not has nothing to do with it.

I do not agree and you and Martin are off-topic. The CC Desktop application, which is tied to the CC subscription model, should provide for faster and easier distribution of bug fixes as explained above. I'm not discussing about piracy or about the financial benefits of the CC subscription. I'm saying that this model fails to make things better regarding maintenance although it could and should have do so.

You and Martin do not answer my questions about the way Adobe (don't) provide a satisfactory quality level for their software. That's what I want to discuss because, as a developer, I see that the quality assurance dpt. at Adobe is having a problem that should be handled. Well, I didn't expect ACPs to play the bad guys, though . Don't behave as watchdogs against the CC subscription bashing. My post is not against the subscription model itself, it's about what it fails to deliver.

and each time, there is a fix or a nice feature.

A new feature is good when it builds upon a stabilized and consolidated software. A fix is a good thing when it doesn't introduce new bugs. The past two years have clearly demonstrated that regression testing is something that Adobe have to work on.

[Martin_Bns]

Hello,

As D.Fosse said, the subscription method has nothing to do with it (lol, sorry for quoting you mate).

Subscription or not, it's a software related thing. What is true, by the way, that now you can update your software quite often and each time, there is a fix or a nice feature.

You can have Photoshop and Lightroom for something like 12 euros per month. It's really nothing, specially for who works with these softwares and makes a profit.

All my best mate,
Martin

[Terri Stevens]

As Dag said, the primary reason for the subscription model is to counter software piracy. I agree there are bugs in the software, but major bugs are rectified very quickly now. The bug you are concerned about with the temp folder looks a silly programming error, but I bet it's nowhere near as easy to fix as you pretend. Countless custom classes reference that folder and the omission of the backslash may have been done deliberately to counter a much more fundamental and difficult problem in one of those classes-a quick fix maybe but programmers do that kind of thing all the time.

[Samoreen]

Countless custom classes reference that folder and the omission of the backslash may have been done deliberately to counter a much more fundamental and difficult problem

If this is really how programmers at Adobe work, then the quality problem is more serious than I thought but no longer a surprise. Voluntarily creating a bug in order to fix another one is strange practice, to say the least. If this is necessary, this just demonstrates a big design mistake.

a quick fix maybe but programmers do that kind of thing all the time

Not in a professional world. Programmers working this way are just amateurs. Can't believe that...

[Samoreen]

I'm wondering why this thread has been moved to Photoshop General Discussion while I originally started it in Adobe Creative Cloud ?

[Katie Houghton]

I think the subscription model is to add features faster but with the faster turn time comes less beta testing. You are correct bugs to creep into updates with new features. That is why under Enterprise updates are controlled by IT. New feature comes out. Wait for the bug fixes. Lock the subscription down for awhile. You do not need every new feature update on the day it comes out.

If you are a single user then update when you are comfortable updating. Do not update in a middle of a project.

I do not know of any software company that is not susceptible to bugs creeping into the updates. It is part of the beast. Make good choices around it. In the old days we only upgraded on the .5 update and not the .0 update since the .5 update were bug fixes with a few features and the .0 had all the bells and whistles. I have had this problem since the beginning of time in software. Just make good processes. Companies can not see some of the bugs unless we find them in our unique ways of working with the product. Some bugs only show with a combination of third party software or with new operating systems. (That is what early adopters are for.)

Make smart updates and never auto update. (I do love my new features!)

[Samoreen]

I do not know of any software company that is not susceptible to bugs creeping into the updates. It is part of the beast.

Not necessarily. It depends on the development methodology that is used. I have been teaching for years methodologies allowing to dramatically limit regression problems. They give excellent results. However they are rarely used for one main reason : they are moving the costs from one dpt. to another. Using these methodologies makes the initial development longer (hence raise the initial development costs) but ensure a much better code quality and therefore, much less maintenance and customer support is needed (which dramatically reduce the costs on the long term). But well, you know, short term vision is now the rule.

But nowadays, software engineers no longer have the power : the sales dpt. decides when the software must be released, be it ready or not, even if this impacts the product quality. They want to sell the product first and fix the problems after the fact, when the users discover them. So the development must be done as quickly as possible. Quality and maintenance is something of less importance.

[Chuck Uebele]

I agree that there are a lot of bugs that need to be fixed. One of the Adobe engineers was explaining that some bugs can't be fixed because they're so rooted into the code of PS that it would be completely impractical for Adobe to fix them. Some of these are ones that seem simple. Each CC program is different in relation to that. As it appears that you know a lot about this stuff, it can be even more frustrating. The engineer gave a whole list of conditions for fixing bugs, including ones that they won't touch because it would actually require a major rewrite of the application's code. Another issue is that PS is old, there are modules of it that were written decades ago, and the person who wrote that code is no longer with Adobe. It can be a can of worms for someone new to try and understand the code and fix issues with it.

[Samoreen]

One of the Adobe engineers was explaining that some bugs can't be fixed because they're so rooted into the code of PS that it would be completely impractical for Adobe to fix them.

I have heard this so many times... This is just an evidence for bad design.

Another issue is that PS is old, there are modules of it that were written decades ago, and the person who wrote that code is no longer with Adobe. It can be a can of worms for someone new to try and understand the code and fix issues with it.

Generally, this is because the original coder didn't commented/documented his code correctly. Writing lines of code is just a small part of the job. Commenting and documenting the code ensures easier transmission to others and easier maintenance. The project manager should make sure that this is done correctly.

[Jeff Arola]

You can take a look at the original source code from photoshop version 1

Adobe Photoshop Source Code | Computer History Museum

[Samoreen]

The engineer gave a whole list of conditions for fixing bugs, including ones that they won't touch because it would actually require a major rewrite of the application's code.

Another sign that a product is reaching the end of its life cycle.

[Terri Stevens]

With a 30% increase in the subscriber base in 18 months-I wouldn't mind owning a product that near to the end of it's life cycle. The truth is if Adobe discontinued Photoshop tomorrow, design companies, television, advertising agencies, marketing companies and film studios would be queuing up prepared to pay Adobe for special editions for their exclusive use-rather like Microsoft with Windows XP. I use Photoshop for around 40 hours a week and regard the bug problems as insignificant, from the way you speak you would think it crashed every ten minutes and it just doesn't. 

[Samoreen]

from the way you speak you would think it crashed every ten minutes and it just doesn't.

Wrong conclusion .

First, my initial post was not specifically about about Photoshop but about Adobe software in general. That's why I posted to the Adobe Creative Cloud forum and wondered why the thread was moved to a Photoshop section.

Moreover I never said that PS or LR (which are applications that I'm using daily) are crashing all the time. Actually, I only had a few rare crashes with Lightroom and PS during the past years. But crashing is not the only way to annoy the user. I'm speaking about bugs that make my everyday life less easy than it should be. For example, when I regularly spend time in Lightroom fixing the side effects of the metadata status bug on my workflow - and this since version 1 - , I think that could use my time in a better way.

People who are happy with a software because none of its bugs affects the way they are using it tend to consider that other users necessarily have the same experience with that software. It seems to be your case. Congrats ! But you should not consider that users complaining about bugs and odd design issues necessarily do that because they like grumbling.

Now a question : does being an Adobe ACP or MVP mean being an Adobe evangelist ?

[Terri Stevens]

<---- Now a question : does being an Adobe ACP or MVP mean being an Adobe evangelist ?-->

If only lol Adobe Evangelists get around $200,000 a year. ACP/MVPs get a few perks, for example we don't pay for the software and have free access to Lynda.com, but other than that we are just end users, like you, who are familiar with the software programs and enjoy answering questions.

Obviously we are mostly going to be pro-Adobe but we can criticise and be objective and won't be censured. It's a system that works quite well in my opinion and the OPs get their problems solved quite often in minutes something Adobe Technical support cannot hope to match with up to 9 million subscribers to deal with.

[D Fosse]

Samoreen  wrote

does being an Adobe ACP or MVP mean being an Adobe evangelist ?

No, just realists.

I don't disagree with you in principle. Yes, Photoshop is a very old codebase, with vast amounts of duct tape and velcro. I don't doubt for a second that it could and ideally should be rewritten from scratch, and that the result would be a much more streamlined and efficient application.

But, given the level of complexity we're dealing with here, how long do you think it would take before it reached the reliability and functionality it has now? And what would that massive development effort do to the current price? Your guess is as good as mine, on both counts.

There's "competition" - but not really. Most of them are web design apps and limited to that. They all have bugs, you can be sure of that.

[cyberwasp]

I agree. CC is the way to go and I'm a proud supporter, only an entire rewrite would help crush some of the bugs that persists over many iterations. As for piracy it is still going on and quite strong, in fact a black hat has created his own cloud and is supporting hacked version of the latest PS as we speak. Hopefully an acquaintance of mine who turned white hat is putting an end to it soon.

[Samoreen]

With a 30% increase in the subscriber base in 18 months-I wouldn't mind owning a product that near to the end of it's life cycle.

Beware ! You are advocating for the old licensing model . If a product is nearing the end of its life cycle, there's no justification for a subscription. Just pay once for the product in its current state and that's it. If old bugs can't be fixed and if new features are just marginal, why continue to pay (unless you are forced to do so) ?

[Martin_Bns]

Hello, being Acp's or Mvp's doesn't mean we are not objective.

First of all we are all professionals. Me my self I work with Photoshop 17+ years and as I said before, Photoshop is the standard in the industry. You can of course try other ways but you will be just out of the standard tools used in the industry.

There is a reason for this and if you compare what Photoshop used to cost in the past, well, you will see for your self, that now, with these low subscription plans, it's 100% convenient hands down.

Not defending Photoshop, even if i LOVE it, I'm just realistic about it's role in the industry.

All my best,
Martin

[Trevor.Dennis]

It's pretty pointless airing this on this forum as no one who can make any difference is going to see this thread.  You'd at least have Jeff Tranberry see it on the Feedback forum, but I doubt he'd bother to respond.  Chris Cox din't come right out and say it, but he made it clear in a thread here several years ago, that the Development Team don't get to chose what they work on.  Your best chance of getting a particular bug fixed — if it is doable and not the sort of deep rooted code that Chuck mentioned — is to start a thread on the Feedback forum, and then do the rounds of sites like this forum, Photoshop Gurus, and maybe Reddit, and work relentlessly to persuade as many people as possible to add their support to the Feedback thread.  Adobe actually take notice of that, and you can see the truth of that from some of Jeff Tranberry's comments.

On the whole, I am disappointed by the low number of new features, and poor response to bug fix requests we have with Creative Cloud.

The above marks the changes since CC was first introduced, and looks extensive at first glance, but if you look more closely at the level of really worthwhile new features, and compare to pre CC new releases, it falls kind of flat IMO.

This was what we got with CS6

CS5 and 5.1

CS4

There are so many game changing world class improvements in the releases prior to CC, but rather less since CC.  Yes, I am definitely a bit disappointed.   BTW  It is worth remembering that of the 15,000 people employed by Adobe only about 60 to 70 work in the Photoshop Development team.  In fact when I first read that number, Wikipedia had the total number of employees  closer to 19,000 if my memory is correct.

[Samoreen]

Your best chance of getting a particular bug fixed — if it is doable and not the sort of deep rooted code that Chuck mentioned — is to start a thread on the Feedback forum...

Done since a long time for all bugs that are bothering me since years. Requests supported by many people. Absolutely no effect. Problems still there.

By the way, as a developer, I don't know what a "deep rooted bug" is. If that means that nobody can access (possibly using a modern debugger) or understand the source code related to that bug, then it's a project management defect. This clearly means that the product is no longer under control and that nobody can anticipate side effects when modifying or adding features. Which is exactly what is happening with Photoshop and, surprisingly enough, with Lightroom.

Tracking down a bug is just a matter of expertise and time. If you want to fix it, you can. I observe that Adobe don't want to spend time fixing non critical bugs. It's their vision of customer service. Not mine.