Adobe Cloud Cuckoo!!!

[Kinz]

Corel PaintShop Pro does 80% of stuff that Photoshop does. If you need some other piece that PaintShop doesn't do, I'm sure there is software for 100's less that will do it. Adobe/Photoshop think they're more badass then they are. After they lose a few thousand customers, they'll figure it out.

[zemlin]

Originally Posted by Kinz

Corel PaintShop Pro does 80% of stuff that Photoshop does. If you need some other piece that PaintShop doesn't do, I'm sure there is software for 100's less that will do it. Adobe/Photoshop think they're more badass then they are. After they lose a few thousand customers, they'll figure it out.

As a long-time PSP user, I fully agree that it's a viable alternative. I dumped PSP for Photoshop when I started charging for my work because PS is FAR faster, FAR more reliable, and FAR more flexible. If speed, reliability, and flexibility are important to you, consider your downgrade carefully. At this point the Adobe CC subscription costs me less than one billable hour per month. Would downgrading to Corel PSP cost me more than that in time? I'm pretty sure it would.

[Kinz]

I actually have been using PSP for years, and recently got Photoshop because I figured I should, or at least see what all the hooplah was about. And I agree it does a great job, and I'm sure as I use it and figure stuff out, I'll find it does an even greater job. Maybe it's because I'm used to PSP, I still use it more. Although I actually use a few different ones (including Photoshop) to do different things - sometimes with the same photo, each doing what the other can't. I don't have real time constraints, since I use my photos for sale at shows, so if it takes a while to get it right, no problem. If I can sell 20 of the photo instead of 5, I'll take time to get it right, even if I have to use 3 programs. But back to the original post, I still think Adobe is not doing right for the customer! They're just in it for the money - NOT the customer (even though they say they are). Of course there aren't many companies like that any more. Sad.

[zemlin]

Originally Posted by Kinz

They're just in it for the money - NOT the customer (even though they say they are). Of course there aren't many companies like that any more. Sad.

Of course they are in it for the money. The reason for a company like Adobe to exist is to fatten the wallets of its stockholders. The stockholders expect a good return on their investment or they will take their money elsewhere. Revenue is king these days and if they lose a few customers but are still able to increase revenues, that's a win.

That's just the reality of business these days.

[mistermonday]

Originally Posted by zemlin

Of course they are in it for the money. The reason for a company like Adobe to exist is to fatten the wallets of its stockholders. The stockholders expect a good return on their investment or they will take their money elsewhere. Revenue is king these days and if they lose a few customers but are still able to increase revenues, that's a win.

That's just the reality of business these days.

True. However, many stockholder, direct or through mutual funds, are also Adobe customers and while stockholders like dividends and profit, they also need to believe that there is sound basis behind their investments. Since the May 6 CC announcement, Adobe's stock has dropped from just over $47 to just over $42 translating to a loss of market cap of $2.5 Billion. The "all subscription" strategy is risky as Adobe will now need to sign up approx 10 - 20 times the current number of subscribers in order to generate the $3 Billion in digital media sales it had in the last fiscal year. It's a really big gamble. And while a very significant number of customers just don't have a choice but to sign up, many if not most will not feel comfortable being held hostage to an agreement that has no reasonable disengagement option.
History has demonstrated people will eventually find a way to restore their freedom of choice.
Cheers, Murray

[ritewinger]

Everyone is correct in many ways, but it comes down to the CC mostly being good for a professional, and not so good for enthusiasts, which WAY out number the pros. I don't think Adobe will stay the course with this decision, we have to hope they don't wait too long to see the error of their ways....

[shutterbuglori]

I am not sure what I am going to do, computer crashed lost Photoshop. Wondering if anything is similar to Photoshop?

[rad2689]

Well I know what I am going to do. I will use my current version of Photoshop for as long as it lasts and in the mean time will analyze the different other software options available to me and eventually switch unless Adobe changes its policy which I don't think will happen. There is no way I will rent my software from Adobe.

[ritewinger]

Originally Posted by shutterbuglori

I am not sure what I am going to do, computer crashed lost Photoshop. Wondering if anything is similar to Photoshop?

If you had a legal version, just download again, you should have a license.....

[kevinconnery]

Originally Posted by rvipinkumar

And here is Scott Kelby advocating for Adobe CC: My Adobe Creative Cloud Quick Q&A | Scott Kelby's Photoshop Insider

Sigh...

Interestingly enough, IF what he said were true, this wouldn't be a problem for many people. Given that two of the key claims he made are flat-out incorrect, however, it falls apart.

Q. Do I have to sign-up for a Creative Cloud membership or can I just upgrade like always?
A. Nope—you can just upgrade like always.

Q. What if it’s not for me?
A. That’s totally cool. You can pretend the Creative Cloud doesn’t exist, and just pay up front for upgrades and full versions of the software like you used to.

NOTE: the above claims are NOT correct according to Adobe.

As noted by others, this requires anyone who needs access to files created with the software to maintain a subscription. That includes any file created for which competitive products can't open--probably those using newer or more advanced features. Or never use any advanced feature which uses 'new' code in the saved file. (And assumes you buy/steal/already have a full copy of the latest non-subscription version anyhow to get back to the 'pre-advanced' features.)

For example, if you open a raw file, stack a couple of smart layers and do a bit of retouching, you'll have a usable file only so long as you keep your subscription current--or keep a flattened safety copy of everything you might want to revisit without starting from scratch, though that loses the benefits of a minimally destructive workflow.

For artists/illustrators who only deal with ephemera, this isn't a huge deal; for others, it's a deal-breaker. And, of course, as Kelby himself admits, he has a vested interest.

As a guy that makes his living training on Adobe products, I obviously want as many people as possible to be using Adobe products

Still, a week later, he corrected some of his statements, but it's telling that he joked about a key element, ignoring the significance of the issue. (But he only deals with 'new' stuff; he's entirely ephemera-based, which is unlike many photographers, and almost all hobbyists.)

Q. So what happens if I can’t pay my subscription one month?
A. The same thing that happens if you can’t make your car payment. Two big burly guys come to your house in the middle of the night and take back your copy of Photoshop.

They won't come take it away; you simply won't be able to use it, even to open work you created in the past.