on landscape The online magazine for landscape photographers

Is Adobe Creative Cloud Bad For Photographers?

Looking for a silver lining..

Responses63
Skip to Comments
Paul Arthur

Paul Arthur

Paul is a commercial architectural photographer in Birmingham and sometimes dabbles in a little landscape photography when he is allowed out!



Well, yes. And no. As usual it depends on your perspective, what your current and future usage of Photoshop is likely to be, what other services you may need from Adobe and how you organise your photographic library.

Screen Shot 2013-06-06 at 14.29.39

 



This is a premium article and requires a paid subscription to access. Please take a look at the subscribe page for more information on prices.
  • johnbeardy

    Congratulations on a well-balanced article, Paul, a real challenge!

  • chrisschmidphoto

    Thanks for an informative article Paul. The subscription model has indeed its advantages. The next big step, even for a data-heavy app like Photoshop, will be the program and files in the cloud, turning our old-fashioned harddisks – and with them privacy concerns – obsolete.

    Resistence is futile…

  • Great article Paul! I hope Adobe will continue to develop Photoshop with new features for photographers. I would love some new adjustment layers, how about midtone contrast (a.k.a clarity)?

    • johnbeardy

      Magnus, I don’t have Photoshop CC yet, but I thought I saw that you can convert a layer (or group of layers) into a smart object, and then apply ACR as a filter.

      • Yeah, that is a good feature. In my opinion though, not as flexible as having a adjustment layer.

        • johnbeardy

          It’s flexible in different ways and does allow you to apply clarity

  • bluesplayer43

    Forgive me if I’m wrong but the current prices offered for ACC detailed above are promotional prices and are only valid for your first 12 months subscription. From what I’ve read and seen elsewhere I’m lead to believe these are around 50% of what Adobe intends to charge, so you may see prices doubling in 12 months’ time. This is not perhaps the bargain that you may assume it is.

    Whilst I can see the advantages of ACC model for photo professionals and those heavily involved with photography, for most hobbyists like myself I think this this would ultimately prove an expensive option.
    I find these days Lightroom caters for more than 95% of my needs and I only round-trip to PS for stitching, blending or some complex healing. Whilst I’d love to have the latest version of PS I do find the idea of renting software (or anything else for that matter) most unappealing to put it politely. I know full well that I didn’t use it for a couple of months I would begrudge paying the subscription, feeling I hadn’t got my money’s worth.

    The CC subscription model may sound good to some, but let’s not forget its principal reason for inception is to generate additional income for Adobe, so let’s not get carried away with the hype.

    I will watch with interest to see how this subscription model progresses (or not), but I for one think my Photoshop days are numbered.

    • Paul Arthur

      The upgrade prices (£9 per month for a single app if you have a CS licence) is half of the normal price for new customers (£18 per month for a single app). This lower price of £9 will almost certainly not apply after the first year’s subscription, but Adobe haven’t said anything about plans to increase the normal subscription price after that. I would be surprised if they would double, as that would clearly have a downward effect on subscriptions, and as the prices are clearly aimed to be about the same as the previous model assuming regular upgrades, it wouldn’t make much sense.

      As I pointed out in the article, Adobe are not and have never been all that concerned with customers who don’t upgrade very often (upgrade always got more expensive, the more out of date you were) and so their priority is to provide a better service for the customer who makes them the most profit (a sensible business practice). If you have Lightroom and an existing version of photoshop that can stitch and do the other adjustments you need to make, then you don’t need a more up to date version anyway, so you aren’t really effected by the changes.

      I think there is a storm in a teacup brewing amongst low end users that they are being priced out in favour of more profitable professionals. Of course Adobe are doing this to make more profit, but it’s not the cynical conspiracy that you might think, but more an opportunity to rationalise their client base in to one that is most likely to safeguard the future of the company.

  • johnbeardy

    You are right that it’s not unequivocally a good deal on pure financial terms. Newcomers do better in that they don’t face the initial outlay, but the 1 year introductory price is only a headline figure. Maybe Adobe would have saved themselves a lot of bad PR if they had made it revenue-neutral.

    • bluesplayer43

      I don’t think they would have done this if it was revenue neutral. I suspect the rising price of Adobe software may have brought about some decline from the amateur and hobbyist demographic. I suspect this is a marketing ploy designed to temp more back-in perhaps, but ultimnately it’s to increase Adobe’s revenue.

      • johnbeardy

        Sure, they want to increase profit, but what I meant by “revenue neutral” (I know I should have been clearer) was that they might have sweetened the pill if the upside for Adobe had been purely repeat business and certainty of upgrade. Instead they have also hidden a price hike in there.

    • Paul Arthur

      That introductory price is just that – a price to introduce the service, I haven’t found anywhere reliable that indicates that Adobe intend to increase the prices. Their terms and conditions say that they can increase the prices if they wish, and we’re used to other service providers increasing prices where necessary, but it does not mean that Adobe are going to double their pricing. It wouldn’t make sense for them to do so.

      Revenue neutral? For the customers whose regular spending that they can actually track, they actually make less money. See CNET’s article on the price differential: http://cnet.co/11UW031

      • johnbeardy

        Sure, they don’t say they intend to *increase* the price. But what they say – everywhere and very clearly – is that the *normal* price is £17.58 or whatever. The *introductory* price is £9.99. Maybe after a year they will extend the introductory rate, but that’s nothing more than wishful thinking. But if you can’t believe what’s written on the tin, what can you believe?

        Sorry, as someone who qualified as a chartered accountant and spent many years in industry, I am pretty confident with numbers and comparing project costs, and I actually modelled the relative cash spend. Admittedly my numbers are for the suite, but after about 18 months Adobe start making more per customer from every-version upgraders. New customers eventually start paying Adobe more after around 6 years.

        And I still said earlier that yours was a reasonably-balanced article!

        • Paul Arthur

          The £9.99 price is (as I have said from the start) a price for people who upgrade from previous versions of CS, and lasts for a year. After that, the price will revert to the “normal” price that everyone else has to pay (currently £17.58). Even ignoring the lower price for upgraders, it takes 38 months for the total spend to reach the level of the initial outlay under the previous model of £660, by which time you would have had to purchase further upgrades at additional cost (approx £300 every 18 months or so).

          The total cost of the new system probably won’t ever be more than the old one for regular updaters, but even if they was, it would be so far in the future that it’s barely worth worrying about considering the benefits added.

          As for the total cost of the full suite of software, the numbers (admittedly based on US pricing) are that Creative Cloud ($1800 over 3 years) costs less than CS6 Production Premium ($2,273 for original and an update) for more software and the online services, and much less than the Master Collection which is somewhere in the region of $2,700 for the original and an update. For regular updaters, it’s a complete no brainer. For less regular updaters, you can’t expect to be at the forefront of Adobe’s

          • johnbeardy

            You know, Paul, I am often accused of putting Adobe’s case or even of being in their pocket, but that’s some spin!

            One can make a case for the Adobe Cloud and criticize the silly anti-Adobe hype, but let’s not claim black is white.

            Noting the difference between normal and introductory pricing isn’t “all supposition based on and interpretation of terms and conditions written by lawyers”. It’s what it says on the tin.

            If you looked a little more carefully (eg £188 is a more accurate 18 month upgrade cost for PS), you would indeed find that in general new customers do reasonably well out of this move, while upgraders are paying quite a bit more after 2-3 years. Maybe they will gain benefits from the new features, but those benefits are unquantifiable and what is certain is that upgraders are paying more.

            And I did say I felt your article was balanced. I’m not so sure any longer – so much so I’m out of here.

      • bluesplayer43

        It stated it’s a Promotional Price. I think that’s a pretty clear indication that the price will increase.

        Adobe’s FAQ’s detail:

        When you purchase directly from Adobe, the cost of an annual membership will not go up during the first 12 months of your membership. It is possible that the cost of the month-to-month membership will increase, but if it does, you will be notified and given the opportunity to cancel.

        What they should perhaps have done, is to state exactly what discount youré getting for the first 12 months, which is what you’d expect on a ‘normal promotion’. Perhap’s that’s why there are some high figures being banded around.

        • Paul Arthur

          So it’s all supposition based on an interpretation of terms and conditions written by lawyers? It doesn’t sound like clear commercial intent to me.

          It’s clear that the price of £9.99 applies to upgrades and the £17.58 applies to non upgraders. Both of those prices are fixed for a year because of the contract, and Adobe are giving themselves scope to increase the month-by-month price if they feel the need. This pricing structure is identical to my mobile telephone, my gas, my electricity, my television, my broadband, my home and car insurance, and countless others. I don’t see that in adopting it, Adobe are trying to take advantage of me.

  • AlexeyD

    I doubt that this represents any value for money for a standalone photographer. It does for Adobe and for something like an agency where they can control their licensed copies in a more flexible way. From my prospective I don’t see any savings and in fact it will cost substantially more. Previously I paid for PS in full once and refreshed/updated my version every 2-3 years (upgrades were not costly at all under 200 pounds). I was also in control whether I want to upgrade or not – judging by the features added were enough to sway me to upgrade. I could stay with older version if the changes were minor and not worth for me to pay for the upgrade. Now there is no choice. If I am on subscription like future new customers I cannot stay with older version because there is none (CS6 at some point will be deprecated as well). And paying monthly I am providing Adobe with steady revenue whether the new versions they produce are worth it for me or not. I don’t see any benefit in it for standalone end user and all the benefits for Adobe. For example they will not have anymore incentive to put attractive and innovative new features in PS – why would they? The subscribers will pay for subscription anyway. And whilst we are on that matter – nothing substantial has changed in PS for years. True they added context aware things but on a grand scheme it is pretty much the same PS as it was in say CS2 (with variation on interface changes).

    Their cumulative price to upgrade forced me to reconsider my usage of PS and move to the alternative. To my surprise I found there are product that do many things photographer needs pretty much on par (if not better) than PS at a fraction of the cost. At this moment I have settled on Photoline (http://www.pl32.com/) which is surprisingly good considering it costs only a fraction pf PS. There are of course other choices.

    • I think I shall have to have a look at the alternatives – given a set of requirements. Any more suggestions?

      • johnbeardy

        The hard – near impossible? – part will be pulling together a single set of requirements.

      • AlexeyD

        There is a reason I mentioned Photoline. It comes with pretty good PS plugin support and if something does not work, the Photoline developers seem to be very responsive in fixing it up in intermediate releases. A very few others do this kind of support. I also find Photoline to be more of a photographer tool rather then generic image editing package.

        Amongst other alternatives:
        Corel PaintShop Pro http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4900067 (Windows only)
        Pixelimator http://www.pixelmator.com/ (Mac Only)
        GIMP – with GIMP I would ideally wait until 2.9 version with full support for any bit image editing (current ones have 8bit only).

        To some extent Photoshop Elements and Lightroom could also be considered alternatives but in a bit limited sense.

  • Doug Chinnery

    I understand the concerns being expressed. Leaving those aside for a moment, I think many of those complaining (not all, by any means, please don’t get me wrong) about the new model may well be part of the driving force behind Adobes decision to go down this route. Photoshop (and Lightroom) are massively pirated. As I give talks to camera clubs all over the country I have become aware that just about every club seems to have an individual who churns out pirated DVDs of PS and LR for club members for free or for a fee. It always staggers me that this theft is considered okay by people who would never go into a store and shoplift the same software from the shelf. It costs Adobe millions every year. The move to the Cloud, while it won’t eliminate piracy, will make it far harder and I suspect the thieves know this and realise they will finally have to pay. For them the price is much higher than they are used to.

    For those who don’t like the Cloud model, Lightroom is still available on perpetual licence for around £100 and Elements, which is perfectly adequate for most users (although it is only 8 bit and lacks curves etc) can be bought for £60. So there is an affordable option available.

    I think the Cloud model is one, like it or loath it, we are going to have to get used to. Software manufacturers like it for many reasons (many financial) and they will move us to it, either gradually as Microsoft are doing with Office, or in one hit as Adobe are doing. We will be able to carry on with our current versions for a couple of years or so but in time either new features or the fact that our older versions are no longer supported by vendors or operating systems/hardware will mean we will have to comply and sign up – or drop out of using Adobe products and go to other companies products which I am sure we will see being promoted following Adobes move to the Cloud.

    • AlexeyD

      I find logic like this always ironic being a software developer myself. Pirated copy of PS does not equate lost sale. For years Adobe spent way too much development time on their invasive activation system rather than actually enhancing Photoshop. But the CC is actually not about this – like all software tools it will soon enough be broken by hackers (so there CC is little to do with war against pirates). From my prospective it is about one thing and one thing alone – providing Adobe with steady revenue without having to invest a lot in each new version of PS to attract those existing owners enough to upgrade.

  • Jon Butler

    It works for me, I’m just into my second year of single App CC. Always upto date and zero hassle, I love it.
    J.

  • Paul Arthur

    It’s important to remember on cost comparisons to compare like with like. The £200 or less upgrades were I think for Photoshop and not Photoshop extended. Photoshop CC is really the same software as CS6 Extended, so the upgrade price should be somewhere closer to £300 if I remember correctly.

    This of course means that Adobe have made an error not making a less capable version available, and this is where the complaints about the price differential are correct. As I point out in the article however, Adobe themselves know this and have committed to looking at the problem.

    • johnbeardy

      Hard to resist inviting you to compare like with like too….

      “it takes 38 months for the total spend to reach the level of the initial outlay under the previous model of £660, by which time you would have had to purchase further upgrades at additional cost (approx £300 every 18 months or so)”

      Extra features are completely unquantifiable – some will benefit, or gain no value from them – but the costs are there in writing.

      • Paul Arthur

        Sorry John, you are right, I have made an error there. The initial cost of the Extended version is £200 more, so actually it would take even longer for you make up your initial investment using the subscription method.

        I agree that you can’t put value in individual features if you don’t use them, and as always you are entitled to vote with your feet.

        • johnbeardy

          “actually it would take even longer for you make up your initial investment using the subscription method.”

          That’s of course another way of saying that the CC deal is reasonable for new customers, but not so favourable to those who always upgrade. We’re in danger of chasing our tails here ;)

          I find it rather banal though to say people can vote with their feet. Even if I share Doug’s assessment of our fate, the fact that we can indeed hold onto our cash is not a reason for failing to question where the terms of the deal are not so rosy!

  • ian.scholey

    The internet and direct route to market has offered Adobe far more than it has taken away (i.e. Hackers and pirated software). I tend to view the CC model as a solution to try and protect revenue stream for a mature product that isnt likely to offer ground braking new features that compel users to upgrade.

    If you view s/w, like other assets, that needs maintanence then the subscription model is appropriate and some times mandated. i.e. businesses wont use any s/w that isnt maintained.

    Adobe knows that 90% of the private users of Photoshop run hacked versions so are unlikely to care mush about the impact on them. The pro’s can write of costs against tax so it doesnt hurt then as much.

  • Paul Arthur

    As others have pointed out, there are non Adobe alternatives out there if you really can’t stand the new model, and these themselves are what will protect the rest of us from any risk of Adobe not continuing to innovate. In fact, this might drive innovation across the board which would be good for all of us.

    • Doug Chinnery

      For those of us who are business users, which is what this model is primarily designed for, the fixed monthly fee has the advantage of levelling out our expenditure and making businessl planning easier. No peaks and troughs in expenditure.

      I do think Adobe would do well to provide an enthusiasts subscription model providing Lightroom and Basic PS for a very reasonable monthly fee. It would please us all and encourage loyalty and do their image the world of good as well as generating additional revenue. They could take a leaf out of Googles book with the Nik suite etc.

      • Paul Arthur

        Here here. I would welcome an even cheaper options with just the features photographers need, and it seems that Adobe are at least looking at the issue.

  • Simon Miles

    One thing this has prompted me to look at is archiving and, in particular, setting up a long-term archive of flattened TIFF files (alongside my usual working practice of keeping layered PSD files). Initially, my thinking was to protect myself in the event that I decide to move away from Photoshop and/or Lightroom. Upon further reflection, I realise I’ve been complacent about the longevity of PSD files. They might seem like a safe long-term bet now, but who knows? Even Adobe won’t be around forever.

    On a positive note, I’ve been thinking for a while now how good Lightroom 4 is as an all-in photo management and editing solution. Not sure what Lightroom 5 will bring to the table, but I can see myself working quite happily within its capabilities. The only question mark here is whether Adobe will move Lightroom over to the subscription model down the line.

    Finally, all this might spur the competition to offer new and improved products, whilst also encouraging photographers to look beyond Adobe. In the long run, this has to be a good thing, as Adobe’s semi-monopoly of imaging editing is arguably not in the interests of consumers and photographers. Yes, this will challenge some of us, but it might also open up new opportunities.

  • petebryan

    As one of the hobbyist user fraternity, I’ve often thought that Adobe’s pricing and product design policy has been hugely focused on business and therefore away from hobbyist photographers, so this move doesn’t surprise at all. As somebody who admittedly doesn’t have the time to invest in digging through the depths of PS to get the best out of it, I’ve often thought that the software was bloated and over-specified, and lacked usability / accessibility for photographers with limited time and generic photo editing requirements. On top of that, they asked business prices, made it stop working on new cameras (as ACR stopped being updated) and private users pirated it because it felt like they were being robbed.

    What I want is – and suspect a good proportion of other hobbyist photographers want – is a package designed for us: it might be based on Lightroom plus the key photo editing features from PS all bundled into one package, and all for £100 per year, including updates of ACR as we go. That way most people will actually pay for it rather than pirating it because it gets to the point when the structure feels reasonable. I’d even be happy to pay on a monthly subscription model if it ticked all those boxes.

  • Richard Earney

    I have the current incarnation of the cloud Ceative Suite, and it works for me as I use PS, LR, Illustrator, inDesign and Premiere. But I would still be a lot happier if the thing did work as a suite and the apps behaved like they were close relatives instead of distant cousins!

  • John Dunne

    An interesting article Paul and probably the least inflammatory I have seen about the subject.

    While I am not overly opposed to the subscription approach there are certain factors I struggle with. Not least of which is the pricing differential across countries. I am used to being stiffed here in Ireland in general on pricing but while a PS subscription in the US costs $19.99 the exact same will cost about $35 when converted from the €24.99 price advertised in their .ie site. $20 a month is a no brainier for me, however $35 is not.

    Lloyd chambers has some very interesting articles about this on his site that while to some extent are flame bait they do bring into question some of Adobe less advertised activities including some concerning T&C’s around their built in cloud service.

    http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130509_3-AdobeCloud-summary.html

  • siark

    I wonder why Adobe terms it ‘cloud’? afaik, upon paying the subscription, the software is downloaded to ones own computer. Cloud based software runs on a server managed by the company providing the software. So if Photoshop were a true cloud offering, a user would likely upload their image to a server managed by Adobe running Photoshop and edit whilst connected to that server. So it seems that what has changed is the way a user has to purchase Photoshop et al rather than the way the software is used? It seems that using the cloud moniker is almost an excuse for changing the purchase model.

    I also wonder how frequent updates will occur? It would seem there is less incentive for Adobe to update their software in the subscription model than there would be if trying to sell an upgrade in a box. Perhaps this is also a motivation for the change in the way Adobes products are sold? How many more features can Adobe put in to it’s products that will persuade people to upgrade? It must get increasingly more difficult.

    Having said this, Adobe has been providing ACR updates for free… they could have (and maybe should have) charged for them! So, incidentally, the subscription model is a way of charging for something everyone has taken for granted (as far as products using ACR are concerned) for so long.

    Mark.

  • Mark
    While it is a bit confusing, the cloud aspect refers to the file sharing that will be part of the package when they release it. The software is stored in the cloud (or as you and I know it) on a server.
    There will probably be other cloud features at a future date.

    The release cycle is accelerated so I think they will keep adding features.

    Some of the alternatives are pretty good, but they are not Photoshop which means all the extra features and muscle memory are gone, but in small, fast packages.

    Richard

    • Mark Gould

      I realise there is file sharing aspect to Adobes offering, but it’s still not what I would call cloud computing. The cynic in me wonders if the confusion is not in part intentional.

      But don’t get me wrong, I think Adobe have done the right thing. As I said, they have been giving away (camera) upgrades to ACR for years. Even if you havent bought every PS upgrade, you have benfitted from this. It must get harder to generate revenue from a product as mature as PS (Lightroom was a smart revene generating move from Adobe, essentially extending the life of their photo software). Adobe has to continue to generate revenue from is products and this is likely the only way. What’s the alternative? Cease development of a mature product and look to focus development on a less mature product? I don’t think any PS user would want that.

      From my point of view I use PS and InDesign and CC might persuade me to switch from FCP to Premier and as a bonus, After Effects… Oh and LR of course ;-)

      • To say Adobe have been giving away ACR for years simply is not true as you need to have the latest PS to run the latest version of ACR ! the two have always been linked. Try running the latest ACR with CS2 for instance.

        • Mark Gould

          Peter, I didn’t say Adobe had been giving away ACR, I said they had been giving away updates to ACR (and in my second comment I made it clear I was referring to the camera updates).

          • Yes that’s true but my point was that unless you kept pace with the upgrades to Photoshop itself then those updates to ACR simply wont work for you. If you were someone running say CS or CS2 and brought a new camera now, the ACR update for your new camera would not work with your older version of PS, therefore you would have to upgrade PS, so its not really giving anything for free as to keep using those free updates you have to keep paying for the upgrades to PS as and when they come out.
            Yes I know you can go the slightly clumsy route of DNG conversion but that wasn’t what you were referring to.

            • siark

              Ok, I take your point. I should have been more specific.

              Generally though what I was trying to point out was that updates to ACR to support new cameras are not bug fixes and Adobe *could* have charged for those updates but they don’t.

              I was trying to stick up for Adobe as I don’t necessarily think what they’re doing is wrong but perhaps an evolution to survive and they’ve taken quite a bit of stick over it. I wouldn’t want Adobe to stop developing PS because it was no longer profitable for them to sell in a box. Those ‘free’ ACR updates would probably stop too (why continue with them if you’re not developing a product line? Ok, I’m ignoring Lightroom for the sake of simplicity).

              Your comment about the DNG converter raises another interesting point. The DNG converter is free and as you say, it is a way to use new cameras with older versions of PS (and Adobes recommended way of using older versions of ACR for newer cameras). In fact if the camera companies had adopted DNG it would have made life easier (and perhaps more productive) for the photographic software companies which would probably in turn benefit the photographer (I used to be against DNG feeling that it took control away from the camera manufacturers, but on balance I’m now for it). But that’s another story.

              Maybe I’m completely wrong though (and I doubt I am completely right) and Adobe are just a money grabbing bunch of meanies…

              • Well I don’t think we could go as far as saying Adobe are money grabbing meanies, but there are in it for the money and the profit, so if they feel this is the best way to make the most profit then that’s what they will go for. They would obviously wrap that up in with marketing speak but ultimately that’s the bottom line.

  • Jon Lewis

    Hi All

    Why are we changed more than our American cousins ?

    Jon

    • Paul Arthur

      That’s a different matter altogether. American prices don’t include sales tax as it is different depending on the state in which you live. Also, there are fluctuations in exchange rate, costs of doing business and the inevitable amount of charging what they think they can get away with.

      Unfortunately we suffer this price discrepancy in virtually everything we buy, and Adobe are not in any way unique in this. I agree though – it’s a swizz.

      • Jon Lewis

        Thanks for the reply paul I noticed in your article that the VAT amount was 23% ????

        (second imade down top right)

        • Paul Arthur

          If you are in Europe, you are buying from Adobe Ireland, and so you pay VAT in Ireland, not in your own country. The VAT rate in Ireland is 23% at the moment.

  • Jon Butler

    Today I downloaded the new update now called PS CC, looks good to me.
    J.

  • Jon Tainton

    Can you comment on your experience with the new feature ‘Image Size Preserve details’ which is claimed to produce excellent enlargements with minimal loss of detail. This photographer seems convinced

    http://soundimageplus.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/did-adobe-just-kill-magapixel-race.html

  • Jon Butler

    Jon,
    I’ve only had for day so had little experience of the new features. I have had a quick play at up sampling and it does compare very favourably to Perfect Resize 7.5, formerly Genuine Fractals, it seems very good so far.
    J.

  • Carlo Didier

    Although the subscription model may be interesting for a number of customers (especially new ones and professionals), it isn’t for many hobbyists and logtime existing cutomers who have long ago paid the initial price. For me, the subscription amounts to doubling the annual costs with no additional profits for me and, as others stated already, if I’d stop paying after several years, I’d be left with nothing for my money. Back to CS6. And note that my calculation is based on the fact that I did every upgrade since CS2. And don’t tell me I get Photoshop extended for the higher price. Had I had a neew for it, I’d have gotten it long ago. But I neither need nor want those additional functionalities, so Adobe basically forces me to pay for something I don’t want.

  • I feel that ultimately this is the way software may well be heading and I don’t know if that is good or bad really.

    One thing that has not been mentioned (I don’t think) and is important for many is the hardware upgrade issue. By that I mean if your the sort of photographer that wants to buy CS today (or rent it as the new scheme does) and you dont really want to upgrade it because it still does all you want of it. Then under the new scheme it seems like you have to take the upgrades and also from time to time will also need to upgrade your hardware and/or Operating System just to accommodate the new version of CS (that you didn’t really want anyway.
    At present you can still happily be using say CS(1) with XP on an oldish PC that still does everything perfectly well and you can choose if you want to go through the whole software/hardware upgrade procedure or not.

    Now it seems that won’t be a choice anymore – if you want to carry on using CS that is.

    • RVB

      The cloud may not be a success for adobe,they are losing a lot of customers to capture one pro and DXO and other people are sticking with CS6 rather than sign up to the cloud..

  • Perhaps readers could post other non-Adobe options that they have had experience with and how good or bad that experience has been. After all Adobe is not the only option. (or am I opening a can of worms that would be better not having its lid removed? :) )

  • bluesplayer43

    If there’s one thing for certain, judging from all the comment above and similar to be found on many other online forums, it’s that the ACC subscription-only model is a highly contentious issue. I’ve already expressed my opinion here.

    If you find you’re vehemently opposed to the mandatory subscription-only model you may wish to add your name to this online petition.

    Lastly, if you just want a good laugh, and are not offended by bad language then this may make you chuckle!

  • tiekie

    Interesting thread , just thought i would throw a grenade in the mix , take a look at this , looks like the hackers have got it sussed in seconds . http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/06/20/hackers-make-short-work-of-photoshop-cc-get-your-pirate-copy-now/

    • I think that probably wont surprise anyone really. I guess the advantage Adobe might have with the cloud model is they can perhaps more readily change things to overcome hacked versions as the software needs to ‘check-in’ each month. Unless of course that’s been overridden which the above report does not make clear.

  • Seamuscamp

    I think it safe to say that Adobe see some financial advantage in changing its purchase model. I suspect the key is monthly revalidation. In a few years time even CS6 and its ACR will be significantly out of date; and “churn” will mean that a high proportion of the clientele will be relatively new. So there would be no up-to-date software on most computers; and a relatively small proportion of users would have the option of “old” software. Adobe then would have total control of their income stream – they could increase the subscription or slow the development depending on their perception of greater benefit. Being perceived as the best has advantages.

  • Paul Radford

    Can anyone comment on what happens when you lose your Internet connection? If PS CC relies on the ‘cloud’ i.e. interweb, then if this disappears for some reason, are you unable to use Photoshop until your connection is restored?

    • It only has to call home once every 30 days. The web is never down that long!

On Landscape is part of Landscape Media Limited , a company registered in England and Wales . Registered Number: 07120795. Registered Office: 1, Clarke Hall Farm, Aberford Road, WF1 4AL