Photoshop CC - Rent to Own?

[Guest]

I have been following and commenting on the firestorm of protest about Adobe's switch to a Cloud only subscription.  Many angry users and they all want Adobe to reinstate the status quo.  In my opinion this is just not going to happen.  But like Obama says "never let a good crisis go to waste".  So let the users get behind a compromise that neither side will be happy with, but will work for both.

Besides price, the next biggest complaint is that if you stop your subscription you have nothing.  So my proposal of Rent to Own.  Here is one way to do it.

After 3 years of renting you are entitled to a download of the version of your products that was active 2 years prior.  This download would be a perpetual licence. 

Arguments for the above.

1.  Adobe is not going to give you the current version as is deceases incentive to continue subscription once you have a current version.  So don't beat a dead horse with this argument.   Two years back seems like a good compromise. 

2.  CS6 is also a perpetual licence, but will it work with the then current computers and OS in the future?  Evidence says not likely.  So a 2 year old product should still be OK.

3.  I chose 3 years of rental as that would be more than one would pay in rental to buy the product, if it was offered.  This may be a negotiable point with Adobe.  But if you rent for 10 years, and then retire as a professional photographer, or your interests shift, you need the programs so you can continue working with the images.

4.  The argument that there is no disk for versions, as it is all subscription, is hollow.  They have a product that you download to your computer.  All Adobe needs is a deactivation code so it does not ask for the monthly payment.  All Adobe would have to do is keep the version that was active on January 1 two years ago.

Let the users come up with a compromise, rather than digging in and saying no way, and getting nothing.

[JJMack]

I'm not trying to blame anything on anyone. I'm just reporting facts.  What I did and what I read.  When I research things because I don't read all the well I will do a lot of computer searches.  Yes this time I made a mistake and confined my searches to the Corel web site.  I did not want too may misleading hits.  I search on thing like: script, basic,  javscript, Perl, python and rexx.  I do not search on Mac or Applescript.  I got some hits on Basic and JavaScript for other Corel products but not Paintshop.  I do not feel I was trying to mislead or that I committed a crime posting what I read on the Corel web site.  You seem to think that a crime has been committed and I the guilty party. My stand is no crime was committed and there was no intention to mislead anyone.  The onlyone I fine "incredible" is you...

[conroy]

JJ, I've never said that you intended to mislead or misinform. I pointed out a mistake by you and the irony of you accusing Corel of misleading people. Clearly, you are oversensitive to criticism: your talk of crime and guilt seems rather melodramatic. Anyway, you eventually admit to your mistake, which can't have been easy for you. Well done!

[MW Design]

Noel,

It isn't a serious contender. That wasn't the point.

Just who does anyone here think is Adobe's primary customer for PS? Pros? Nah. Prosumers? Nah. Neither have been since the so-called DTP revolution in the early 1990s. Adobe's primary customer is the consumer. (Not just Adobe either.)

What they have done is to make the cost more palatable for the consumer, not you or me or the majority of the regular posters here.

Really, just how many here make a living from photography *and* the manipulation in LR and/or PS of those photographs? The vast majority that use PS can use something far less capable and extensible. That's reality and Adobe knows that. So how to capture those who don't upgrade often, who can and do switch to something else?  Simple. Kill off upgrades from more than one version back. Add a Cloud option in addition to perpetual licenses. Then kill perpetual license.

What I would like to see is the Cloud attrition rate versus retention. I am certain Adobe has those figures uppermost in mind.

[the_wine_snob]

Noel,

You are correct:

Changing pixel values (gasp!  destructive editing!) isn't strictly evil. 

However, where possible, I almost always go for non-destructive, but that is just me. Many others are happy to use "destructive" techniques, as they are usually easier to apply initially - so long as one does not have to re-edit some of those changes. It could also be due to one's clients? I have had many, who responded with "Yes, but can we do ____ ?"

I also believe that PSElements does have Layers, though perhaps not in all Color Modes, Bit-Depths. I believe that what it lacks are Adjustment Layer Masks, and Layer Set creation (necessary if one is creating DVD/BD Menus). Now, as I do not have any version of PSE, I cannot comment on whether those features might have been added with PSE 11. I asked on that forum, but never got a full answer.

For many users, it IS a viable option, but the lack of the above features would be non-starters for me, as I do so much DVD/BD Menu creation, and also use Adjustment Layer Masks almost daily. My only interaction with PSE has been when it has been used by others for work going to/from Premiere Elements.

I cannot comment on PSP, as I have never used it either.

Hunt

[pf22]

PhotoRoy1 wrote:

I might be more inclined to use a more familiar environment, Photoshop Elements with integrated CS6-like capabilities:

<https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/04/02/elementsxxl-plug-in- promises-photoshop-features-w...

Now THAT is something worth keeping an eye on!

[Noel Carboni]

It's not strictly legal to reverse-engineer Adobe's internals to expose normally blocked functionality, though.

I don't see that as much above a cracked version of Photoshop, frankly.  I'd be surprised if Adobe doesn't nail him legally.

-Noel

[JJMack]

Noel Carboni wrote:

It's not strictly legal to reverse-engineer Adobe's internals to expose normally blocked functionality, though.

I don't see that as much above a cracked version of Photoshop, frankly.  I'd be surprised if Adobe doesn't nail him legally.

-Noel

Is what Adobe is doing now strictly legal I think we may see some court action here....

Do you think its illegal to write plug-ins I think not.  Is it illegal to write a plug-in for an application that provide a function that is provided as a feature in an other application?  Nowhere on the plug-in web site did I see any mention of unlocking Adobe locked code or that Adobe code was being used. I think Adobe would need to prove the their code was being used in an unauthorized way, or an Adobe patent or copyright was being violated.

[station_two]

JJMack wrote:

…Is what Adobe is doing now strictly legal I think we may see some court action here…

There were interesting discussions on this issue this past week among old pals in the attorney conference room of the federal courthouse here, and the consensus is that it probably is within the limits of legality, as much as it is distasteful.

It was universally agreed that what would be blatantly illegal would be for Adobe to pretend to unilaterally declare all existing, already granted perpetual licenses suddenly null and void.  This is obviously not the case.

We may indeed see some court filings on this anyway, especially by the type of habitual vexatious litigants who simply seek a quick out-of-court settlement by Adobe's lawyers for peanuts just to avoid having to litigate the issue in court. A sum in the mid-five-figure to low-six-figure range is conceivable.

[Noel Carboni]

It is my quick opinion that the "plug-in" hasn't directly provided the restored functionality, but has "hacked-in" to Photoshop Elements, which is a "modified" version of Photoshop code, to restore functionality that has been quietly maintained but whose user-interfaces have been removed.

I don't believe there are published SDK APIs for adding things to the menus in the ways that are shown.

The legality aspect comes in where the EULA expressly forbids reverse-engineering.

Example: 

4.4 No Reverse Engineering.  Except as otherwise expressly permitted in Section 16.1, Customer will not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise attempt to discvoer the source code of the Software.

Interestingly, there is some wording in section 16.1.3 that might make it possible for a customer in the EU to attempt to "decompile the software" in order to achieve interoperability with another software program.  Not being a legal eagle, I'm not sure trying to uncover latent functionality would apply, but perhaps that's how this guy gets away with it.

-Noel

[station_two]

Noel Carboni wrote:

…Not being a legal eagle…

My educated guess is that you'd make a good one, though. 

[Noel Carboni]

station_two wrote:

My educated guess is that you'd make a good one, though. 

Thanks...  I guess. 

-Noel

[JJMack]

What you believe may in fact be true.  Still Adobe would have to prove that in court.  Perhaps they will but I don't think that will happen.  If anything such a plug-in may help Photoshop Element sales. I don't think this plug-in will lose them customers that actually need Photoshop. If Adobe takes him to court and they win all that does is loose them the PSE windfall and stop him. They will not even recoup their legal expense from a single one man small operation like his.

Then like you I never went to law school or even spent much time in court.  From what I'm seen it is a stage for lawyers where they put on their show and get paid to their acting abilites.  Yes as you grow older your opinion of the legal system does grow at least mine hasn't. 

[Crystal Visionary]

JJMack wrote:

Noel Carboni wrote:

It's not strictly legal to reverse-engineer Adobe's internals to expose normally blocked functionality, though.

I don't see that as much above a cracked version of Photoshop, frankly.  I'd be surprised if Adobe doesn't nail him legally.

-Noel

Is what Adobe is doing now strictly legal I think we may see some court action here....

Do you think its illegal to write plug-ins I think not.  Is it illegal to write a plug-in for an application that provide a function that is provided as a feature in an other application?  Nowhere on the plug-in web site did I see any mention of unlocking Adobe locked code or that Adobe code was being used. I think Adobe would need to prove the their code was being used in an unauthorized way, or an Adobe patent or copyright was being violated.

Yes, Adobe would have to prove their code or process was being used.  They cannot patent of copyright an idea.  For instance they cannot patent the idea of using layors, only their way of implementing layors.

[Mike_Ornellas]

Smells like time shares to me and we all know how popular time shares are as well as a waste of money with clear loss in mind.

[Crystal Visionary]

Here is some food for thought.  I recently read an article about Clayton Christensen a Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School and author of the book The Innovator's Dilemma.  He is considered one of the top business thinkers in the world, and is an expert on why big successful businesses fail.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

"Why is success so hard to sustain, even by the best of the best?

...His [Christensen's] specific focus was the disk-drive industry, but examples of the phenomenon popped up everywhere he turned—from retail giants like Sears to mainframe-computer companies to the auto industry to steel mills.

In each case, the managers of these companies at their apex followed the best practices they’d learned in business school—catering to their most loyal customers with products that yielded the highest returns. But inevitably, an inferior new product—usually lower tech, more cheaply made, and less profitable—would rise from the bottom of the market and give the industry a good shake, leaving the incumbents in disarray.

... He realized these companies were failing because of best practices. As these companies grew in size and their products became increasingly sophisticated, they lost both the appetite for and the nimbleness to respond to up-and-coming innovations at the bottom of the market. They became vulnerable to what Christensen coined as disruptive innovation."

Do any of you see how this might apply to Adobe.  Some folks have discounted some of the small players in today's market, however, in the long term, one of them might overtake Adobe.  Such things have happened before.  Word displaced WordPerfect, Internet Explorer wiped out Netscape, it in turn is now losing ground to Firefox and Chrome.  Adobe's patents and much of their technology is old and has already been superseded by newer ways of doing things.  There are probably many algorithms floating around universities that can do what Adobe does and better.  What is lacking is development and  marketing capital.  If enough people refuse to sign up for Adobe's Cloud subscription, that capital may come.

[the_wine_snob]

Similar happend in the US wine industry. UC-Davis became the go-to university for wine making. Their graduates did get a lot of information, but all of it was not correct - just was a "best practice" example. As the graduates hit the market, things began to decline. Wine making was then done "by the numbers," without regard for the product. That "product" was not what real wine drinkers wanted, and there were many other problems too (too esoteric to go into here). Many wineries suffered, and some disappeared completely. It was not that those graduates wished it to happen, but happen it did.

In the 80's, the 90's and into the 2000's, we saw many, previously great economic concepts go by the wayside. At a point, the "bean counters" fell out of favor. An MBA, with no real-world experience, was about as worthwhile, as a BA in "Ancient Societies." However, at a point, that changed, and the MBA's rose back to the top, deciding the fate of corporations, based 100% on cash-flow concepts. That might be where we are today?

We will see how things shake out.

Adobe, and the entire software market, is not alone. In healthcare, my wife must balance her CFO's (at many levels), with patient satisfaction and also outcomes for medical treatment. Throw in the US Gov, and she has a real balancing act to deal with. Different businesses, but with the same paradigms.

Good luck to us all,

Hunt

[Noel Carboni]

I'm not arguing with the concept of your note, regarding how management of big companies can falter, but there's another factor working in Adobe's favor here...

Thing is, an application the size of Photoshop cannot be just "written from the ground up" in months, or possibly even in a few years - even if you just wanted to make it a Photoshop workalike.  I have some personal experience with this (I'm a career software engineer and having recently developed some of my own graphics products from the ground up with HIGHLY talented people).

Some of the examples you cited (such as WordPerfect) are all tiny little insignificant projects by comparison.  Internet Explorer is no doubt complex, but then Microsoft is EXTREMELY well-funded, and with thousands of engineers on tap.

Photoshop may be nearly unassailable because of its sheer complexity.  If you don't see that it's possible you haven't yet grasped the scope and breadth of the product.  Rest assured Adobe knows this, however.

I don't really see the possibility of a competitor emerging any time soon.

-Noel

[*Photonic]

Noel Carboni wrote:

...Photoshop may be nearly unassailable because of its sheer complexity.  If you don't see that it's possible you haven't yet grasped the scope and breadth of the product.  Rest assured Adobe knows this, however.

I don't really see the possibility of a competitor emerging any time soon.

-Noel

You have sold most of us on that reality, Noel. A possible solution must come from Adobe, at least for now.

It would be relatively easy for them to put together a better solution than CC for amateur to semi-pro photographers as is being discussed over at the "Creating something better than Photoshop CC" thread. They could secure this market segment once again relative to other companies jumping in at sometime in the future.

[Crystal Visionary]

If Noel is right that there can never be any real competition, then Adobe will keep there subscription service as is and tell you to take it or leave it.  There would be no incentive to do otherwise because they would know that it time all the Photoshop users will have to cave in.  They will be prepared to wait you out, or just plan on a newer generation, who never knew when things where different, to replace you.

[station_two]

Amusing post in the ACR forum about some hackers possibly using amazon.com to mock Adobe's subscription model:

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1216949?tstart=0

[Samoreen]

Noel,

Noel Carboni wrote:

Thing is, an application the size of Photoshop cannot be just "written from the ground up" in months, or possibly even in a few years - even if you just wanted to make it a Photoshop workalike.

Globally correct statement. But if you look at the product from a photographer's point of view, things are very different. As explained by Nevada Shooter, innovation is here and new ways of doing things are appearing. Look at this thread.

This (wrong) move by Adobe just made clear to many photographers that they might no longer need PS within a few years. Almost every brick necessary for building a new and comprehensive approach of photo editing is already available and the missing modules could be made available very quickly.

You are right that nobody is able to produce a PS clone. But do we need this? Would it be a good thing? That's the problem with products that have no competitors. We are convinced that we couldn't do without them... until we realize that there are other (possibly better) ways of doing things.

Also, they should have considered much earlier re-writing the product using more modern development technology. The product's architecture is old and obviously, they are unable to switch to something more flexible that could support more effective development methods. As an example, it is obvious for any developer that regression testing in PS and LR is not done or is done the wrong way. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to live with these years lasting bugs that will never be fixed. There are development methods (TDD for example) allowing to strongly limit regression. But this implies using an adapted software design and modern development tools.

Adobe's decision forced many of us to re-consider what we have regarded for years as "the holy truth" about PS. Their mistake. Now people are aware that the "truth might be elsewhere". So their decision is not only a wrong decision about their pricing and licensing policy. It's also a bad estimation of what their product actually was and now is and of what a good part of their customers needs.

[station_two]

Excellent post, Samoreen! 

[Noel Carboni]

You're to be commended on your critical thinking, Samoreen.  Bravo.

I don't accept some of your premises, but that's okay; there's room for all opinions.

One specific issue I have with your thinking is that an entirely new product could be constructed from "existing bricks" and be viable in short order.  Software is not like legos.  You can only go so far trying to glue together pieces not originally crafted to fit.  My feeling is that those "bricks" are more like a small pile of "stones" of all different shapes, sizes, and colors, and while you can certainly envision creating a stone wall, without mixing up a BUNCH of mortar the pile of stones begins to lose its integrity.  And while some great stone architecture exists, it usually took a LOT of craftsmen a LONG time to build, and nobody really builds skyscrapers out of stones.

Not just technical, but legal and business issues come into play.  Are you envisioning some ultra-rich entrepreneur buying up all the stones?  Certainly the stone developers all have their own plans now.  They're not in lock step.

And I remind you that Photoshop itself is created from a number of packages that were purchased and integrated, which led to the situation we're in now where not everything works quite consistently.

I don't want to come off sounding like I'm arguing against progress.  But what I AM doing is trying to bring a bit of realism into the argument that something can replace Photoshop in short order.

Let's not forget that Adobe isn't going to just stop development.  In fact, in their current position, they're able to fund even more development resources (whether they will do so we will see).  They might even get in a mood where they buy more stones.

TDD...  LOL.  Sorry, call me old school, but just because undisciplined, haphazard development has an acronym and a Wikipedia page doesn't make it good.  I'm not against good testing, and I certainly believe developers should have a say in what gets developed, but there is no substitute for good top-down design.

-Noel

[station_two]

Noel Carboni wrote:

…Software is not like legos…

Hope you can enlighten Gates, Ballmer and all those other folks in Redmond. 

[Noel Carboni]

Bill Gates is a Great Man, who unfortunately is no longer leading software development.

Steve Ballmer is a marketeer who somehow rose to power and is destroying Microsoft, presumably in pursuit of profiting on Wall Street.

Microsoft doesn't have any of my money for Windows 8, which is in NO WAY improved over its predecessor.  They have a 3 month free trial version of Windows 8 Enterprise that I use for product testing.  My main workstation is still running my perpetually licensed Windows 7.

Adobe is different in that, while they may be more aggressive about separating you from your money, they are actually improving their products as well.

-Noel