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.

[Trevor.Dennis]

Noel, nice pun LOL.   Well I was happy, and looking forward to signing up for the first year's CC subscription, but there has been so much activity.  I am now ever so lightly confused. Are the new CC apps available right now for instance?  I've seen references to the download manager being buggy.  Is that still the case?  How many of the regular forum posters are signing up?  ISTM that if you use more than one app, the CC is a good deal.  Not so much if you only use Photoshop, and doubly so if you don't use the Extended version. 

[Noel Carboni]

Hi Trevor, nice to see you.  And thanks. 

It's announced, but the software won't be available until June 17.

I've had a cloud subscription for some months now, but I'd say a lot of the others here seem to be against it.  It's not that surprising.

-Noel

[PhotoRoy1]

What makes me angry about this whole matter of dealing with Adobe is that one  is forced to give up their independence to a stupid corporation! It seems that  most do not Mind being dependent on and enslaved by them.

I do not want  to be dependent on anyone! Especially a corporation. If you call it anyone. To  me it is a lifeless governmental deity. If I want to live and work off the grid,  I do not want to be dependent on anyone or any corporation! I don't want to be  dependent on an Internet connection, especially in a state like West Virginia.  Most areas in this state do not even have the service. Nor cell phone service. I  know some who do not even have electricity.

I don't want them updating my  computer, or changing the software once I get use to it. My history with updates  is that they only cost time, for little benefit, and many times the updates do  not work into the system which I work.

I find myself going back to cs3 to  do most of my printing because it works better with the older Epson printers  which I am using. I would have not gotten cs4, nor cs5 if it wasn't necessary  only to get the RAW file converters for new cameras. It pains me to need to have  two PhotoShop programs on my computers, and need to switch back from one to  another just to do my work.

I had to buy a new/old stock of cs3 a couple  of years ago because I had a voltage surge, and it fried five hard drives. Adobe  would not allow me to reinstall the old program! If I could not un-install the  old copies, I would not be able to reinstall the program. Only adding more  misery to the hurt!

Maybe it is time for a world wide boycott of Adobe  products. This who idea of having a subscription, and an Internet connection is  beyond my way of wanting to live. Living in a world where greed is the driver.  Welcome to the world of Ayn Rand.

Ben

Sent from my iPad

[Crystal Visionary]

   Certainly there are people, and companies that will like Adobe's new marketing scheme.  How many of them there are, only Adobe really knows the real number.  It is also certainly true that it is in Adobe's interest that the world believe that number is very high, just as they want us to believe that with a steady, reliable income stream that does not require much innovation on their part to maintain since their users will effectively be hostages, that they will in fact put serious effort into innovation.

   Some people like to lease their cars and never buy one.  Some, like to rent the place they live in and never buy.  At least, as a rule, they have a choice.

[JJMack]

There is a big difference if  lease a car you can also buy the car and use it after the lease. Its not lease only.  You can also lease a car from an other vender and transport you assets with it .  Adobe rents you a tool and you use the tool to produce you products and in doing so your product is stored in a non standard file format.  You can not rent from and other vender and work on you assets.  And if you don't pay Adobe, Adobe tool will stop working preventing  you from using your own assets. I thought kidnapping was agents the law in the USofA. Time will tell there may be a need for the DOJ to take action.

[charles_badland]

Adobe rents you a tool and you use the tool to produce you products and in doing so your product is stored in a non standard file format.

John Nack, Principle Product Manager at Adobe, says PSD specs are free and available to other companies:

I should also note that the PSD format specification is freely downloadable from Adobe.com so that third parties can build their own readers/writers.

I was surprised to hear that.

[JJMack]

Yes and some non Adobe application even create PSD file. While the PSD file format is available and may not even change. What can be stored in them. Thing like layers also have options and additions made. So what is store in a PSD file may not be able to be used by application unless they are updated to support what's new.  For example CS5 can not process some layers stored in a PSD file by CS6.  CS5 can read the PSD file and even flatten it to produce good composite.  However it can not handle all the layers and preserve what there.  So like CS6 will have problems with PSD file created with Photoshop CC.  Other software developers will have the same problem with their sofware Adobe has. Unless Adobe updates old versions of the an Application the old application may not be able to process all the data in the PSD. 

Even when an application can handle the data it may depend on what is currently installed on the machine.  For example Fonts if not available a substitute may be offered or you may be able to convert text layers to a raster layer to preserve the look.

[Crystal Visionary]

@JJMack,  Just so we are clear, I agree with what you say.  With the lease illustration, I was saying that people who have the ability to buy a car or home, but rent or lease instead are doing it by choice, whereas, users of Adobe software are not given a choice as to whether to rent or buy the software.  Renting is the only option offered by Adobe.  I think in time there will be viable alternatives from other venders, if there aren't already.  When that happens a lot of currnet Adobe users may make the migration.

[JJMack]

Nevada Shooter wrote:

I think in time there will be viable alternatives from other venders, if there aren't already.  When that happens a lot of currnet Adobe users may make the migration.

IMO currently there are no viable alternatives.  If there were I do not think Adobe would now be forcing their cloud on to their customer install base.  Adobe Photoshop has a great number of users. Photoshop market is huge and its not a new market.  Photoshop is 20 years old.   Why are there no viable alternatives.  Adobe purchased some software companies most likely holds a lot of patens related to digital image processing. To compete with Adobe you will need deep pockets have a vast pool of well trained designers, programmers, a good development process and a pair of brass ones.

[Crystal Visionary]

JJMack wrote:

Nevada Shooter wrote:

I think in time there will be viable alternatives from other venders, if there aren't already.  When that happens a lot of currnet Adobe users may make the migration.

IMO currently there are no viable alternatives.  If there were I do not think Adobe would now be forcing their cloud on to their customer install base.  Adobe Photoshop has a great number of users. Photoshop market is huge and its not a new market.  Photoshop is 20 years old.   Why are there no viable alternatives.  Adobe purchased some software companies most likely holds a lot of patens related to digital image processing. To compete with Adobe you will need deep pockets have a vast pool of well trained designers, programmers, a good development process and a pair of brass ones.

Can you say Google.  I don't think they would have bought Nik if they did not plan to be a serious player.  I would not count out Corell either.

[*Photonic]

JJMack wrote:

Nevada Shooter wrote:

I think in time there will be viable alternatives from other venders, if there aren't already.  When that happens a lot of currnet Adobe users may make the migration.

IMO currently there are no viable alternatives.  If there were I do not think Adobe would now be forcing their cloud on to their customer install base.  Adobe Photoshop has a great number of users. Photoshop market is huge and its not a new market.  Photoshop is 20 years old.   Why are there no viable alternatives.  Adobe purchased some software companies most likely holds a lot of patens related to digital image processing. To compete with Adobe you will need deep pockets have a vast pool of well trained designers, programmers, a good development process and a pair of brass ones.

True, but maybe not to the extent you may think. The software industry is not static -- ever-moving forward w. new technology and ways of doing things better and simpler (except for the Windows and Mac OS's)

Look at Pixelmator today and the innovation of Nik (Google) and On-One Software. Adobe's 5-20 year old patents are beginning to look a little rusty as compared to emerging technologies. One purpose of the CC model is partly to compensate for Adobe's shift of priorities from innovation to higher corporate profits for its share holders.

Yes, Adobe is one of the giants now, but so were the dinosaurs once. Adobe is still smart and innovative, but probably taking a "let's wait and see what happens" with CC. They are exercising their options as afforded to them by their market dominance, and even while waiting they will be earning tons of $$$ from customers willing to try CC.

[Noel Carboni]

Trouble is, it would take a shoestring operation years - maybe decades - to build a true replacement for what Photoshop is today.  Even a well-funded software organization with 100 people would probably never be able to catch up with Adobe.

And who's going to dump tens of millions of dollars into trying to catch up with what's already being delivered today (not to mention what they'll have to compete with by release time)?  It ain't the dot-com boom any more.

Sure, there are a few existing programs out there that seem to represent a start in the right direction...  Paintshop Pro, Gimp...  But even starting with them - and don't kid yourself, that approach would have its own problems - it would take a kings ransom and significant time to develop and deliver a true Photoshop replacement.  If those things could reasonably eat Adobe's lunch, don't you think they would have done so by now?

And here I'm only talking about Photoshop.  Don't forget all the products - and there are a lot of them - in the entire Creative Suite.

No, Adobe has gotten where it is by a concentrated effort by a LOT of very talented people for a long time.  It's not a matter of someone else just "stepping up" and creating a competing product, no more than someone could just step up and replace Windows.

-Noel

[Jeff Schewe]

Noel Carboni wrote:

Sure, there are a few existing programs out there that seem to represent a start in the right direction...  Paintshop Pro, Gimp...  But even starting with them - and don't kid yourself, that approach would have its own problems - it would take a kings ransom and significant time to develop and deliver a true Photoshop replacement.  If those things could reasonably eat Adobe's lunch, don't you think they would have done so by now?

Going back a few years...there was a time that Photoshop (in the v3, v4 time frame) had competition...there was Live Picture (which was pretty cool) and Xres, Paintshop Pro, Painter, Corel's offering...but Photoshop simply out developed the competition to the point that any real competitor fell to the side.

There were a couple of really big companies that sniffed around the edges…Quark at one point was gonna do a Photoshop-Killer. But it died before being released. MSFT, that had Digital Image Suite, toyed with doing a head to head Photoshop competitor, but MSFT knew that developing a cross platform Photoshop-Killer would be very, very expensive and unlikely to be "better" than Photoshop.

Photoshop's only real competitor now is previous versions of itself. Adobe tried to address that with the 3 version back upgrade policy which was changed to the 1 version back and now the subscription only upgrade.

I don't have a magic ball handy, but I suspect Photoshop CC will be pretty successful and f Adobe comes through with the promise of new features on a continual basis, likely to get over the hump and attract former users that thought they would never subscribe…I also think the sales of Photoshop CS6 is gnu spike high because it'll be the last perpetual version.

So, that's the choice, go to a considerably less robust app, stick with CS6 till it gets mold and dies or go subscription. A lot of my fiends have taken up Adobe on the $9.99/month upgrade for the next year to test out the waters of the subscription model (could most have already upgraded to CS6 as a fall back in case they drop the subscription next your :~)

[JJMack]

$10 a month would be a good price for a single application. However  Adobe pricing a single at $20 is pure and simply robbery and I question the legality of Adobe licence agreement. A simple look shows how unfairly Adobe is treating their personal user and small busness groups customers.

The Big guys pricing $50 a month: Just taking the top applications into consideration they weight in at $7 a month additionally Adobe through in  ten or more minor add-ons and applications. So Photoshop cost the big guys $7 a month other user groups must 3 times that.  $10 a month is 40% higher where $20 a month is  285% higher.

Photoshop® CC Image editing and compositing.

Illustrator® CC Vector graphics and illustration.

InDesign® CC Page design, layout, and publishing.

Dreamweaver® CC Websites, app design, and coding.

After Effects® CC Cinematic visual effects and motion graphics.

Adobe® Premiere® Pro CC Video production and editing.

Adobe Muse™ CC Website design without coding.

    Also included:

Acrobat® XI Pro

Adobe Audition® CC

Bridge CC

Encore®

Fireworks®

Flash® Builder® Premium

Flash Professional CC

InCopy® CC

Lightroom®

Media Encoder CC

Prelude® CC

SpeedGrade® CC

[charles_badland]

Yes. Adobe would catch much less heat if they they offered a mid-tier CC pack and/or less expensive individual apps.

[PhotoRoy1]

Are there alternatives to Photoshop? Of course, there are. Here are two of them:

Paintshop Pro X5 Ultimate for $49 full price for current Adobe users, no strings attached:

<http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4900069&cid=catalog20038&segid=8100008>

You can get it for the upgrade price. Enter your Adobe information in the right-hand column and Corel will email you a discount code: <http://mc.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=register>

Details here:

<http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014>

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-wi...

[JJMack]

Many will find these all lack key features that they use in Photoshop all the time.  While Paintshop Pro Ultimate list scripting as one of its features their idea of scripting is more like Photoshop Action feature.  Scripting is programming and can use logic.   So its even hard to evaluate other Image Processing applications for they will use feature name to mislead you make you think their Products  has the same features found in Photoshop. 

Many Photographer type users will be well server with Lightroom for RAW conversion and image development in 16 bit Color mode  and then be able to make the modifications they want in 8bit color mode with PSE at a reasonable cost.   However the advanced Photoshop user will not be satisfied with PSE. They have a lot invested in Photoshop. Learning, developing tools and workflow's for it. The also have assets tied in to Photoshop. Photoshop is the standard that image processing application are compared to.  Adobe want to leverage this take advantage of make the Photoshop user provide the bulk of Adobe profits and give larger customers a great deal so Adobe can grow that market make more money  with a lower profit margin.

I hope the small time Photoshop users don't cave in and bear the cost for the big guys.

[conroy]

JJMack wrote:

Many will find these all lack key features that they use in Photoshop all the time.  While Paintshop Pro Ultimate list scripting as one of its features their idea of scripting is more like Photoshop Action feature.  Scripting is programming and can use logic.   So its even hard to evaluate other Image Processing applications for they will use feature name to mislead you make you think their Products  has the same features found in Photoshop. 

Incredible! Misleading, you say! It's your description of PSP scripting that's extremely misleading. Yes, you can record a script like recording a Ps Action but that's far from being the limit of PSP scripting. PSP scripting employs the Python language and an API is provided, making it similar to Ps scripting with JavaScript.

[MW Design]

...PSP scripting employs the Python language and an API is provided, making it similar to Ps scripting with JavaScript.

Yes, similar in all respects (and in some ways greator than) scripting in AI or ID. And like scripts for AI and ID, there are a lot of free and commercial scripts available (at least for CD...I don't particularly like PSP).

Mike

[Noel Carboni]

Maybe JJ missed some specific details about scripting in PaintShop Pro, but how serious can PaintShop Pro be as a competitor? 

As of right now they don't offer a 64 bit version for PC, or any version at all for Mac, so what does that say re: using it for serious work? 

Bzzzzzt, it's a non-starter.

-Noel

P.S., JJ, you can do editing in Photoshop Elements in 16 bits/channel mode.  You just can't do it with layers.  People don't strictly need layers to do good photo editing.  Changing pixel values (gasp!  destructive editing!) isn't strictly evil. 

[conroy]

It may be a non-starter for numerous reasons for many people but not for the reason that was wrongly claimed by JJ. All I was saying was that PSP provides Python scripting and not just macro recording.

[JJMack]

Conroy I did not want to miss lead anyone was just trying to show it is hard to evaluate what is what and a main point in my append was even similar application like PSE will not be satisfactory. 

"the advanced Photoshop user will not be satisfied with PSE. They have a lot invested in Photoshop. Learning, developing tools and workflow's for it. They also have assets tied in to Photoshop."

Yes you can add shells, Perl, Python and other to many thing and need to learn them and maintain them. And some users plates are full...

[conroy]

JJMack wrote:

Conroy I did not want to miss lead anyone was just trying to show it is hard to evaluate what is what and a main point in my append was even similar application like PSE will not be satisfactory. 

"the advanced Photoshop user will not be satisfied with PSE. They have a lot invested in Photoshop. Learning, developing tools and workflow's for it. They also have assets tied in to Photoshop."

Yes you can add shells, Perl, Python and other to many thing and need to learn them and maintain them. And some users plates are full...

JJ, fer cryin' out loud, here we go again! You made a mistake about PSP's scripting. I set the record straight so readers wouldn't be misinformed. Please don't add further misinformation. Give it a break, man!

[JJMack]

No here YOU go again.  Go to Corel web site a do a search on  Python and report back how many hits you get and how well the language is supported.  I will stick by its not easy to evaluate products. Well let me add a me in there.  It not easy for me to evaluate products for I don't read well and if computer search return nothing I may miss features and if a search on the Corel site returns that Paintshop Pro Script are quite like Photoshop Actions I'm likely to fall for that misleading information.

There is a lot of bad and misleading information on the web.  I do not believe Corel meant to mislead me Perhaps they should consult with you before they post information about their product.  If you think my repeating what I read on the Corel site is my mistake ........................................

[conroy]

JJ, don't try your changing-the-subject tactic. I wrote nothing about quality of support from Corel. I explicitly and clearly stated what was wrong with your post about PSP scripting.

In response to you wrongly claiming that PSP claimed to provide scripting but only provided the equivalent of Photoshop Actions, I wrote:

"Incredible! Misleading, you say! It's your description of PSP scripting that's extremely misleading. Yes, you can record a script like recording a Ps Action but that's far from being the limit of PSP scripting. PSP scripting employs the Python language and an API is provided, making it similar to Ps scripting with JavaScript."

And now you are trying to blame Corel for your posting misinformation in this forum. How come Corel didn't mislead me into thinking that their product is less capable than it is?