Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
In article <kp9utu$abm$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> | > No. There will not be a CS7.
> |
> | So rthere's just be a product which yuo can't really identify what it is.
> | Seems a little odd as OS's update Adobe won;lt renaem their product.
> | So I guess it'll work with any versions of the OS transparently.
>
> That's an interesting point. Given that the online aspect
> of cloud software is, to a great extent, just an illusion of
> marketing,


it is not an illusion of any kind.

> it's certainly possible that one could get a
> subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
> required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
> actual software will no doubt be installed locally.


that's no different than non-subscription software that drops support
for older systems. there's no point in maintaining compatibility with
systems very few people use.

resources are better spent moving forward and offering features the
majority of users will use.

> The
> situation could be much worse for Mac users, who have
> never known the convenience of an OS that's designed
> for backward compatibility.


as usual, wrong.

apple historically goes well out of their way to maintain backward
compatibility, anywhere from special case code for popular apps so they
continue to work to full fledged emulation for processor or operating
system transitions.

however, at some point, the number of people who run older software is
not worth the effort to keep supporting them. you have to cut the cord
and move forward.

it's more important to implement features that millions of users will
want, rather than maintain compatibility with 20 year old software so
that a handful of people will be happy and who probably won't be buying
anything new anyway (i.e., they're not even users anymore).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > Do you think that with a subscription you'll automatically get access to the
> > > lastest version of the software such as new camera raw or will you have to
> > > buy CS7, CS8 as increases over your original subscription.

> >
> > you always will have the latest version. that's the whole idea.

>
> I've got teh lastest version thanks trouble is it's won't work on my current
> mac mini or my G4 tower.
> So I'm wondering 5 years down the line whether they will be a OS or hardware
> that CS6 won't run on, will I need two or more subscriptions or will the
> current CS version in coming years run on my old hardware.


adobe has said they'll update cs6 for bug fixes, hardware
compatibility, etc.

however, at some point, it won't be worth it to support legacy
hardware. they are not going to port cs6 to arm chips, for instance.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Whisky-dave <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
> photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
> would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
> PC.
> I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not be
> resticted to a conputer that has internet access.


it doesn't require internet access to run.

it requires internet access about once a month to validate that you are
actually paying for it. other than that, no internet access is
required.

> if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way to
> go and be good for the consumer.


for many consumers it will be. for others it won't.

> I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
> Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest
> software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long
> as you subscribe.


mac os is not a subscription but it's $20 to upgrade to the latest
version.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013

| What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
| photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
PC.
| I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not
be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.

If it's a subscription there would have to be Internet
access. That's the whole idea. It's "cloud" software.

What I was noting is that the cloud idea is an idea to
make more money. In many cases cloud software is not
actually online at all, as is apparently the case with
Adobe's subscription. In other words, it makes no sense
to run such complex software anyplace but on your
computer. The subscription model, requiring an online
connection, is really just DRM. Adobe could, possibly, let
you use it from different computers, but it would still have
to be installed to each computer. If you installed to your
Mac today you could be forced to buy a new Mac in, say,
two years when Adobe drops support for your current Mac
OSX version. Since it's a constantly-updating subscription,
you won't have a choice to just "keep the old version".


| if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way
to go and be good for the consumer.
| I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
| Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest
software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long as
you subscribe.
|

It's unlikely that subscription will be better for most
people. If that were the case they wouldn't be doing it.
The whole point is to obsolete your car and sign you up to
a taxi service. If the taxi were not going to make more
money they wouldn't do it.

The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
software was getting cheaper and better. Ten years ago
most software was notably improved with each new version.
The same was true with PCs. For a long time now, both PCs
and software have reached a level of maturity where they're
good enough for most things. A PC bought in 2003 runs XP
and can run most software sold today. But a PC sold only 5
years earlier might be 300 MHz CPU, with a 2 GB HDD and
32 MB RAM, running Win98. Many people would have replaced
such a PC withing a year, because getting the 450 MHz CPU
made a *big* difference in performance.

In other words, both hardware and software companies are
frustrated that people no longer find value in constant updating.
Many Apple users are suckers for the newest product. And
Microsoft succeeds by getting a fee for every PC sold and by
regularly coming out with new versions of MS Office that business
people feel they have to buy. (Almost everything else MS does
loses money.) But in general, the market is just not growing.

Many of the people in this group talk about being satisfied
with their older version of CS or whatever. That's what Adobe
wants to stop. They want to set it up so that you're basically
buying periodically and they don't have to keep trying to cook
up new improvements that justify buying the latest, grossly
overpriced version of their product.

I've heard rumors that MS is thinking about an OS subscription
model. In many ways WinRT/Metro is already that. They've
arranged it so that the average person will buy a device with
Windows 8 or RT, then sign up for a Microsoft ID online, then
start paying for all sorts of trinket tile apps, essentially turning
Windows itself into an online service and shopping. The bad
news for MS is that no one is buying the Metro tile apps. But
that's where they believe the future lies -- not in selling software
but rather in using software to be a commerce middleman.
Apple is doing a similar thing with iPads and iPhones. Those are
not exactly computers, and not every app is subscription, but
basically it's a subscription services/shopping/entertainment
device. The fact that you don't officially rent iOS is just a
technicality. Apple gets a cut from most of what happens on
the device. The actual cost of the device and OS is fast
becoming their cost of doing business, rather than their product.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
| > it's certainly possible that one could get a
| > subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
| > required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
| > actual software will no doubt be installed locally.
|
| that's no different than non-subscription software that drops support
| for older systems.

Yes, that's true. Because it's basically the same thing,
as I was pointing out. You have a remarkable ability to
argue stridently with *anything*, even if you have to
agree in order to do so.

I'm just highlighting the point because when people
hear about cloud software they think of it running online,
through their browser. That's mostly a farce; cloud
marketing. But people don't understand that, so they're
not so likely to consider the fact that they might be
hooking themselves into a hardware upgrade track
along with the subscription, just as they wouldn't think
they might need a new TV to see the latest shows.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:42:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>| What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
>| photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
>would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
>PC.
>| I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not
>be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.
>
> If it's a subscription there would have to be Internet
>access. That's the whole idea. It's "cloud" software.


As I understand, it's software that is downloaded to your computer and
requires periodic checking in, using the Internet, with Adobe to be
validated as currently active. "Currently active" means "paid for".

That is not what I would call "cloud" software.

The only difference between the subscription based version and the
non-subscription based versions of Photoshop is that previously there
was one validation step on installation and now there are periodic
validation steps. In both cases, the software is on the user's
computers and the output of the software is (or can be) on the user's
computers.

After last week's camera club meeting, a group of us went out to
dinner the subscription program was discussed at length. The members
who are not currently users of Photoshop were quite excited about it.
It will allow them to try Photoshop at very minimal expense compared
to the old system. (Yes, Photoshop free trials for 30 days have been
available, but anyone who thinks they can really get into Photoshop in
30 days is delusional.)

Several of the members who have been long-time users and have already
paid the big bucks for the program and the upgrades were very
negative.

I'm neutral. I have CS6, and I really don't care what Adobe chooses
to do for future business. CS6 is all that I expect to need or want.

What really interests me about Adobe's very bold move is that it may
lead other software vendors to follow suit. There are programs out
there that have an initial cost that is too high for me to want to buy
without knowing that they would be truly useful to me.

30-day trials are not all that informative for a somewhat complex
program. I like to work at my own speed without a deadline because
these programs are not essential to my workflow.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
In article <kpa4jk$cuk$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> | What I would expect if I were to PAY for a subscription to say
> | photoshop would be that I can run it on any system they wrote it for and
> would not be charged two seperate supscriptions because I have a Mac and a
> PC.
> | I would expect to be able to run it anywhere within reason and that is not
> be resticted to a conputer that has internet access.
>
> If it's a subscription there would have to be Internet
> access. That's the whole idea. It's "cloud" software.


nope.

in adobe's case, there needs to be periodic internet access, about once
a month. the rest of the time no internet access is needed.

yearly customers can run it for about 3 months without any internet
access.

that's a long time to be off the grid.

> What I was noting is that the cloud idea is an idea to
> make more money.


surprising as it may seem, companies are in business to make money.

> In many cases cloud software is not
> actually online at all, as is apparently the case with
> Adobe's subscription. In other words, it makes no sense
> to run such complex software anyplace but on your
> computer. The subscription model, requiring an online
> connection, is really just DRM.


no, it's much more than that, and non-cloud software had copy
protection, which didn't affect honest people.

> Adobe could, possibly, let
> you use it from different computers, but it would still have
> to be installed to each computer.


so what?

obviously software has to be installed for it to be used.

> If you installed to your
> Mac today you could be forced to buy a new Mac in, say,
> two years when Adobe drops support for your current Mac
> OSX version. Since it's a constantly-updating subscription,
> you won't have a choice to just "keep the old version".


nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

if at some point in the future adobe drops support for an old and
outdated mac (or pc), you just don't upgrade to the latest version
they're offering. no big deal.

> | if everything is done corectly and fairly a subscription might be the way
> to go and be good for the consumer.
> | I'm suprised Apple or MS haven't done this with OSs.
> | Just pay a subscription of say $10 a month and you always get the lastest
> software your hardware can handle on any machine in your home for as long as
> you subscribe.
> |
>
> It's unlikely that subscription will be better for most
> people. If that were the case they wouldn't be doing it.


wrong. it's very likely that it will be much better for many people.

it won't be better for everyone, but that's just reality.

in order to move forward, some people are left behind.

> The whole point is to obsolete your car and sign you up to
> a taxi service. If the taxi were not going to make more
> money they wouldn't do it.


no, that's not the point at all.

the point is to offer features more rapidly than before.

previously, new features could only be offered on a release cycle,
which was typically 18-24 months. now, they can offer new features
whenever they're ready. that's much *better* for users. why wait when
it's ready now?

> The whole idea of cloud/subscription developed because
> software was getting cheaper and better. Ten years ago
> most software was notably improved with each new version.
> The same was true with PCs. For a long time now, both PCs
> and software have reached a level of maturity where they're
> good enough for most things. A PC bought in 2003 runs XP
> and can run most software sold today.


nope. quite a bit of software now requires win7 or later (or maybe
vista), including the latest versions of photoshop and lightroom.

companies have been dropping support for xp for quite some time.

> But a PC sold only 5
> years earlier might be 300 MHz CPU, with a 2 GB HDD and
> 32 MB RAM, running Win98. Many people would have replaced
> such a PC withing a year, because getting the 450 MHz CPU
> made a *big* difference in performance.


and?

people replace hardware when a newer model can do something their
current model cannot.

> In other words, both hardware and software companies are
> frustrated that people no longer find value in constant updating.
> Many Apple users are suckers for the newest product.


more apple bashing.

> And
> Microsoft succeeds by getting a fee for every PC sold and by
> regularly coming out with new versions of MS Office that business
> people feel they have to buy. (Almost everything else MS does
> loses money.) But in general, the market is just not growing.


the pc market is not growing.

however, the mobile market is growing like crazy. that's the future,
whether you want to believe it or not.

> Many of the people in this group talk about being satisfied
> with their older version of CS or whatever.


that's because it was overkill to begin with.

> That's what Adobe
> wants to stop.


why? adobe had a sale.

what adobe wants to stop is piracy, and to offer features not possible
with a non-subscription model and in a more timely manner.

> They want to set it up so that you're basically
> buying periodically and they don't have to keep trying to cook
> up new improvements that justify buying the latest, grossly
> overpriced version of their product.


people were already buying periodically.

what they want to do is concentrate on cloud based software rather than
support *both* cloud and non-cloud.

> I've heard rumors that MS is thinking about an OS subscription
> model. In many ways WinRT/Metro is already that. They've
> arranged it so that the average person will buy a device with
> Windows 8 or RT, then sign up for a Microsoft ID online, then
> start paying for all sorts of trinket tile apps, essentially turning
> Windows itself into an online service and shopping.


wrong. you have this ridiculous idea that tablet apps are trinkets and
that anything mobile is solely for shopping.

that is so out of touch with reality.

mobile is the future.

> The bad
> news for MS is that no one is buying the Metro tile apps. But
> that's where they believe the future lies -- not in selling software
> but rather in using software to be a commerce middleman.


the future is mobile and microsoft knows it, and it has nothing to do
with being a middleman.

how well they manage the transition remains to be seen.

apple and google have the mobile market now, with windows phone gaining
a little bit. microsoft could be a viable 3rd place player, however.
that's quite the change from the 90s, something a lot of people can't
accept.

> Apple is doing a similar thing with iPads and iPhones. Those are
> not exactly computers,


ipads and iphones are *exactly* computers.

in fact, they are more capable than the computers on people's desks
10-15 years ago, with faster processors, more memory and storage and
higher resolution displays and *significantly* more capable apps.

> and not every app is subscription,


*none* of the apps are subscription. zero. nada. zilch.

some of the apps may offer subscription services, such as the new york
times, but that's not really any different than paying for web access
to the new york times on a desktop or laptop computer. it can be used
without a subscription but with less capability.

> but
> basically it's a subscription services/shopping/entertainment
> device.


absolutely wrong.

> The fact that you don't officially rent iOS is just a
> technicality.


wrong. it's a real computer with a real os with real and very capable
apps.

> Apple gets a cut from most of what happens on
> the device.


so what? adobe gets a cut when you buy adobe software. best buy gets a
cut when you buy something there. the grocery store gets a cut when you
buy food.

why are you so against a company making money for a product or service
offered?

> The actual cost of the device and OS is fast
> becoming their cost of doing business, rather than their product.


wrong yet again. if that were true, they'd be giving them out for next
to nothing, and they are not.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
In article <kpa5ul$l9n$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> | > it's certainly possible that one could get a
> | > subscription and then find later that Windows 9, say, is
> | > required to keep using the subscription, since most of the
> | > actual software will no doubt be installed locally.
> |
> | that's no different than non-subscription software that drops support
> | for older systems.
>
> Yes, that's true. Because it's basically the same thing,
> as I was pointing out. You have a remarkable ability to
> argue stridently with *anything*, even if you have to
> agree in order to do so.


i'm not arguing at all. you're focusing your complaints on cloud
software when it applies to *any* software.

i'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

> I'm just highlighting the point because when people
> hear about cloud software they think of it running online,
> through their browser.


some do, some don't. not everyone understands technology.

> That's mostly a farce; cloud
> marketing. But people don't understand that, so they're
> not so likely to consider the fact that they might be
> hooking themselves into a hardware upgrade track
> along with the subscription, just as they wouldn't think
> they might need a new TV to see the latest shows.


they're not hooking themselves into anything. if they don't want to
upgrade hardware, they don't have to.

you can't see past your hatred for progress to realize what's actually
going on.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Tony Cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 30-day trials are not all that informative for a somewhat complex
> program. I like to work at my own speed without a deadline because
> these programs are not essential to my workflow.


true, and because of that, some apps have a limited number of launches
instead.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mayayana
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-12-2013
| As I understand, it's software that is downloaded to your computer and
| requires periodic checking in, using the Internet, with Adobe to be
| validated as currently active. "Currently active" means "paid for".
|
| That is not what I would call "cloud" software.
|

No. I see what you mean. And if one only has
to connect periodically then it's clearly not running
online. But I think there's a conflation in the marketing.
Microsoft's new XBox takes a similar approach. One
doesn't have to stay online, but one has to connect
periodically. And one's games/settings are stored online
so that one can use "one's own" games from anywhere.
The whole approach blurs the line. Some software, like
gmail, is mostly or entirely online. Other software, like
PS, is not. But people are being trained to think of it
as an online service, just as people have been trained
to think of youtube videos as a broadcast, so that
Google can control views and put ads in each viewing,
despite the fact that the video is actually downloaded
as an FLV file and played locally... and that there's really
no reason for people to need to go online for a second
viewing.

Likewise with PS/CS, there's online storage and the
whole thing will probably default to constant online
connection. If people don't think of it that way then
they're faced with buying a copy of CS with spyware
and DRM added, paying for it via perpetual installment
plan. The critical point is that Adobe is forcing people
to subscribe to updates precisely because most people
don't actually need them. (I saw one analysis that
seemed to make sense, explaining that many people
now skip at least one version of popular software
between updates, whereas almost everyone used to
buy each version, whether it's Windows, CS, MS Office,
or whatever. Subscription model allows Adobe to basically
prevent people from skipping updates. I wonder, though,
if they might also be thinking about future competition.
If I need to buy new software I'm likely to look around
to see which I think is the best deal. But if I have a
subscription then the effort and upset of switching brands
would require big motivation.)




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" nospam Digital Photography 1 07-03-2013 06:03 AM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" nospam Digital Photography 10 06-07-2013 12:45 PM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" philo  Digital Photography 10 06-05-2013 09:24 PM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" PeterN Digital Photography 0 06-04-2013 11:56 PM
Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions" nospam Digital Photography 0 06-04-2013 12:07 AM



Advertisments