Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Büge]

http://www.iclarified.com/29809/adobe-discontinues-standalone-applications-moves-to-subscription-only-model

[Mongrel]

Ahahahahahahahahaha. Good luck with that, Adobe.

[Thad]

I think it's actually going to be a pretty attractive idea to a lot of people.  Look at it this way: would you rather spend $1200 up front, or $50 a month?  (And even if the answer is "$1200 upfront", which are you more likely to be actually CAPABLE of paying?)

I think this is a hell of a lot more manageable for individuals and small businesses.  The ones who are going to be burned are the corporations buying up bulk licenses -- and even then I'm sure there'll be a discount for them that comes out to being pretty comparable to what they're already paying anyway, except with access to the current version of the software instead of being perpetually two versions behind.

Now, given the thread we're discussing this in, yes, it WOULD be tremendously stupid for Adobe to think a subscription-based model is going to prevent the proliferation of cracked versions of the software.

But if you just take it as read that Photoshop is going to continue to be the world's most pirated piece of software no matter what Adobe does, then this starts to make more sense.

There may be a psychological barrier to the idea of renting software instead of buying it -- but I doubt it.  That's pretty much what everybody's doing all the time anyway.  Though I suppose this may be the first time it's put in such stark, plain terms that most people can understand it implicitly instead of just clicking "I accept" without actually understanding what they're agreeing to.  I mean, don't get me wrong, *I* think being able to own software is pretty damn important, and *I* sure as hell don't intend to pay for any kind of software-by-subscription nonsense, but it's not like I ever bought a box copy of Creative Suite either.  I am pretty fucking far outside the market for this product.  And maybe the people who ARE in the market will balk at this -- but I wouldn't bet on it.

The bigger problem for Adobe, I think, is that their online installation software is legitimately fucking terrible and I get the impression they're about to find out that people are a lot less likely to put up with that shit when they just spent $50 on a download than when they just spent $1200 on a box they've already opened.

[Royal☭]

There are a few problems, though. I already own Photoshop and Lightroom, the programs I need. I got them for way below $1200, and way below $600 because of student discounts. Upgrading them isn't necessary at this time since they do what I need, and dropping a few hundred just for some new bells and whistles doesn't make sense. But, now, if I want to upgrade, I'm dropping $360 (student discount) for the first year, then $600 a year for the rest of my life.

And make no mistake, it's $600 a year, not $50 a month. Adobe makes you sign up for a one year contract, so you're dropping $600 that's spread out. And if I ever decide to stop paying that $600 a year? I have nothing If I've been using Photoshop for say, 3 years, then things turn south and I have to give up the subscription to help ends meet, I have nothing. For freelancers, that means your business dropping out over night.

There's been a ton of backlash at this, and I can rightly see why. If you're graduating from college and plan on being a graphic designer or photographer, that could mean $12,000-$18,000 to Adobe over the course of your career. That's like buying the full Creative Suite every two years. Which, considering I know people using Photoshop from 4 or 5 years ago or longer, doesn't really happen.

To say I'm wary of the new Adobe service is a bit of an understatement.

[Mothra]

Lordy, $600 a year is insane.

[Brentai]

Yeah, they're not fighting pirates with this, they're fighting legitimate customers, specifically legitimate customers who have the gall not to upgrade immediately whenever they shove out a new version number and add nothing that the user wants.

Also, Adobe should fucking pray that this doesn't stop unlicensed single users.

[Rico]

Also, Adobe should fucking pray that this doesn't stop unlicensed single users.

This is a really good point. When your entire business model is based on corporate sales, you'd better be damn sure you're still the default program.

I was surprised to read that there's a mandatory year-minimum. I can't be the only one who has a copy of Photoshop who leaves it alone 10 months out of the year and then has two months where I have to use it for mock-ups or bids or whatever. Probably not talking about a huge volume of lost sales, but I'm betting they'd sure rather get the $100 than the $0.

[Brentai]

I was surprised to read that there's a mandatory year-minimum.

My very first thought was actually "I'll bet they do something ridiculous like an annual model."

[Büge]

This is a rather succinct summary of the situation:

With the Cloud approach, if you stop paying, your files become inert bits. Because the software will not even run. (Don’t get me started on “compatible” software that can open these files with dismal results in general). This is why a buy-out option which effectively offers the conventional installed-software-works-forever approach is the only fair thing (and yes, this could be an extra charge to do so in line with past pricing and with due credit for past Adobe Cloud rental history).

But far worse (and presumably rare), Adobe reserves the right to blacklist you, and refuse you service entirely. In other words, Adobe reserves the right to effectively deny you access not just to Adobe software, but the very right to your own work, your own data (because you can’t use the software at all). This is a viciously unfair change from the conventional model; in that model you could at least buy (license) the boxed software anywhere and install it. Whether Adobe would do this is irrelevant, the point is that the license agreement allows it. Because every card in the Adobe Cloud licensing deck is stacked for Adobe and against customers. There should be a guarantee that while Cloud services could be denied (due to abuse, and not arbitrary), there can be no denial of the right to pay for and use the software itself, as this is a local operation on one’s own computer.

Overseas, this problem is worse than here in the USA: what about various governments asking Adobe to shut off users, perhaps because they don’t like the images being posted? This is not far-fetched, it is a reality in some countries that tightly control online activity. What would Adobe do?

EDIT: The guy who wrote that also has a decent rundown on the TOS for the new system. It's quite draconian. I'd say that Adobe's setting themselves up to take a huge hit from some enterprising competitor. Nobody wants this Ma Bell crap.

Hmm, do you think this topic deserves a split? I have a feeling this is one of those things that's going to be cause for discussion going forward.

[Mongrel]

It's actually staggering to me that no serious competitor has emerged to PS in the past decade. GIMP was and is, well, gimpy. But that's at least open-source so I can't blame them.

The key here is that any competitor looking to be the low-budget version of PS wouldn't even have to match Adobe feature-for-feature. A package that offered the solid core of most of what's in the CS2 - now nearly eight years old - for something like $50 would go a long, long, long way to denting Adobe's dominance.

Hell, you could even forget the whole CS series and go back even farther; even something like PS6 or PS7 has a more-then-sufficient suite of image-editing tools for 95% of all users.

[Thad]

There's been a ton of backlash at this, and I can rightly see why.

We'll see.  I think corporate users have enough clout to make Adobe backpedal a bit, but I'm a big enough cynic at this point that I don't expect the people complaining on the Internet to be representative of any kind of general malaise that will make a difference in Adobe's bottom line.

I've spent the past decade mostly being consistently wrong about how much bullshit end users are willing to put up with from software vendors.  This time I'm betting on "They'll bend over, pay their $600 a year, and smile," because when I predict that not happening I'm almost always wrong.