May 09, 2013

You should never lose access to your work, period.

A number of readers have raised a very valid concern about Creative Cloud subscriptions: How can you retain access to your intellectual property (the work you’ve made with the apps) if you end your subscription? For example, Paul Howson writes,

What makes “Creative Cloud only” an unacceptable option for me is becoming locked into a perpetual “Adobe tax”. If I stop paying the tax, I lose access to the work I have created using the Adobe tools (which is my “property”, not Adobe’s).

Your work is absolutely your property. Adobe fully agrees, and that’s why we’ve worked so hard over the years on things like the DNG standard (meant to ensure that your photos always stay readable), turning PDF into an ISO standard, etc.

There are solutions here, and we’ll work on sharing more details. In the meantime, your suggestions are most welcome. Reader Alan Ralph writes,

Adobe should change their software so that when it’s used outside of a subscription, it will only allow opening, printing and exporting to other formats. That would ensure that you could still access your documents and make use of them. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Would that address your concerns?

Posted by John Nack at 1:05 PM on May 09, 2013

Comments

  • Dani Staeger — 1:18 PM on May 09, 2013

    Not for me. As already mentioned I’m on my way out, only Photoshop will stay.
    And I will NEVER rent software!

    [Yes, you've made that point many times, on many threads. What I'm looking for here is constructive feedback about how to handle specific concerns. --J.]

    • Geoff Simmonds — 12:57 AM on May 10, 2013

      I’m a hugely opposed to the rental model, I’ll say that right off the bat. But Adobe could make one small tweak that would get me on board:

      Run creative cloud as is, $50 per month (or inexplicably quite a bit more if you’re in a different region from the US, but let’s put that little grievance aside for now). But if I’ve subscribed long enough to cover the notional cost of the software I’ve been leasing after 2,3 4 years or whatever, I should be able to opt out and own that software at the current version it’s at….Even if it means paying some extra severance fee or whatever.

      So where’s the incentive for Adobe? Well, once I’ve opted out, the clock resets and even if I opt back in again, I’d have to lease the software for another set amount of time to accrue sufficient payments to own it again.

      This way, both parties win. Until there’s some sort of mechanism for owning the software perpetually, I’m out.

      Apologies if I’m repeating what others have already said. Frankly, Adobe’s rep is in the gutter over this move and if you guys want to redeem yourselves with the artists you say you serve (as opposed to the shareholders) then you could listen to what we’re saying.

      One can only try.

      • Peter — 11:39 AM on May 10, 2013

        I signed up for Adobe Cloud, for a year, because I will want Photoshop CC. It cost $10 per month for the first year since I own CS6, but **I don’t know if I will want to continue the subscription once that increases to $20 per month.**

        So, yes … my concern is that I must be able to access my image files (for use with other software) even if I later cancel my subscription to Photoshop CC.

    • Oliver Rohkamm — 3:51 AM on May 11, 2013

      I am not against the cloud, BUT Adobe should offer both distribution models: renting or buying like before. Even if a CS7 offers less programs.

      It is not acceptable to force customers to the “adobe tax cloud”. If the cloud is really a new, innovative idea then there would be no problem at all to give customers a fair choice.

      But like this way, Adobe will lose customers. I will now stick to my CS6 MC for years and then check alternatives.
      Renting software is no fair alternative for me.
      Please bring us CS7 and i will pay for the upgrade.

      • Garland — 2:56 PM on May 11, 2013

        Renting software, I will not rent Adobe products. It’s like renting a paint brush from the art store. Does Adobe see the connection, artist types don’t like to be bound, I don’t rent airbrushes,water color paints, canvases. I will look for software that I can buy out right and use open source software. It’s been a good run Adobe good bye.

        • C M — 1:55 PM on July 16, 2013

          To all in the forum: The Adobe strategy is against freedom. In the contract they say they have the right to delete your material or investigate you for it.

          I´m a Vegas user (I think it’s the best software there is) but was thinking to move my projects to Premiere only because I need to colaborate with other editors (many of them are tired of Final Cut, the old 7 is good but very old, and X I don´t know but the say it sucks…) So the option was Premier Pro, until this CC business came out…

          So now, I’m staying in Vegas, anyway is the best and most versatile one, pure architecture, your material remains in the disc, the software is only an interfase, very pro but little known. It’s a shame there is no Vegas for mac.

      • Doug Walker, CPP, FP — 8:41 AM on May 24, 2013

        I agree with what Oliver Rohkamm pens above with the slight addendum. Oliver said: “Adobe should offer both distribution models: renting or buying like before.”

        I would add instead of insisting they ‘should’, I would very much like to see Adobe simply ‘find it’s way back to this offering’. Both can be online (sans boxed distribution) and would be simply more offerings. Let CC folks have extras like storage, giveaways, surprises, instant access, newsletters, video extras,etc…while those who just download and license only get software. Please consider this serving all customers an option.

        • Egal — 4:50 AM on June 18, 2013

          A new – pay or die – business model instead of real innovation that makes people buy updates – only a matter of time this will backfire.

  • Andrew Rodney — 1:21 PM on May 09, 2013

    The issue as I read it (and there have been hundreds of posts on Luminous Landscape) is people want to get on the CC train, process images using the new functionality, then if they decide to get off the CC train, and be able to use legacy versions of Photoshop on those documents. Well that’s easy but not necessarily a good workflow: Save a flattened TIFF. I suspect that TIFF could be opened in Photoshop 2.5!

    I see their frustration but I don’t understand how you can move forward a version and use new functionality and if you so desire, move back to an older version WHILE still having access to editing new functionality. Just isn’t going to happen.

    That said many of the NEW features can be made to work in older versions within reason. I can apply Shake Reduction to a good old Normal PS layer, save that and open it in CS6. The data on the layer is no different in that version since after application of new technology, pixels are on a layer both CC and CS6 ‘understand.’

    Now add a Shake Reduction Smart Object, no way you can go back a version and edit that SO and folks that think they can and should are just misunderstanding how software has been developed since day 1.0.7.

    I don’t know if there is an answer John. If you get on the new CC train, you need to stick with it or, if you jump off, prep your files for that backwards move.

    I also LOVE the comments from folks who ask about this issue, then say they are going to move to another product to edit their images. As if all those proprietary Photoshop layers are going to be recognized outside an Adobe app. Jumping OFF the CC train is even more a problem if you decide to jump to another image editor.

    Bottom line is this: Adobe processing is by and large proprietary and once you start using it, not easy to move away. This has been true since Photoshop 1 (or any other software product). But IF you plan ahead, you can move to another solution but you’ll lose a ton of flexibility that are by their very nature, proprietary to the product(s) you select.

    • Peter — 11:51 AM on May 10, 2013

      Ok, I think I get it. If I use CC for a year and then stop subscribing, I should be able to work on the files I created with CC, using CS6.

      Unless a PSD file includes a layer created with a Photoshop CC feature that does not exist in CS6. (That would not be an issue with files that are not in layers; i.e. flattened TIF as you said.)

      • publisher — 3:44 AM on May 30, 2013

        >>If I use CC for a year and then stop subscribing, I should be able to work on the files I created with CC, using CS6.

        Is it right? After upgrade to CC, and then stop subscribing, can I use perpetual CS6 license again? I fear Adobe make it illegal. Please let me know ‘perpetual license to CC upgrade contract’.

        • RHernandez — 9:08 AM on May 30, 2013

          If you have used any CC specific “features” or file format without saving it “down”, you stand the chance of not being able to open and use your file(s) with CS6.

          Until they fix the rent-until-you-die scam, I mean scheme, I won’t even try the CC apps. Not because they aren’t tempting with some of the new features, it’s because I oppose the rental scam, I mean scheme.

    • Peter — 11:56 AM on May 10, 2013

      How could anyone be using Photoshop CC now? (Unless they are part of the beta test team). If I understand correctly, it won’t be available till mid June.

      I assume we can then download CC, assuming we have subscribed .. and begin using it at that time.

  • James Sinks — 1:34 PM on May 09, 2013

    No, it would not. The ONLY way a subscription is acceptable is if at the end of the subscription period I own my software and can do whatever I want with it…AND I can reinstall my featurelocked software if I need to.

    Read-only PSDs are unacceptable. What if I want to toggle off that black and white adjustment layer? What if I want to turn on a type layer that I know is hidden? What if I want to change “Happy First Anniversary” to “Happy Tenth Anniversary”? What if I want to adjust a tone curve so the shadows will print better? Why should I have to pay $30 to activate Photoshop for that?

    Paying for the privilege of using my files–not reading or converting, but USING–is unacceptable. Especially given that I already paid for the privilege of creating them.

    I want to edit my old files. I want to create new files. I want to be able to use the software that I have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for whenever and however I want, without having to pay Adobe perpetually.

    I want my software.

    There’s your solution.

    • Andrew Rodney — 1:42 PM on May 09, 2013

      >>The ONLY way a subscription is acceptable is if at the end of the subscription period I own my software and can do whatever I want with it…

      Then it wouldn’t be a subscription

      >>Read-only PSDs are unacceptable.

      What would make them read only? Let’s say you do have CS6. All the layers you outlined above would be accessible in both CS6 and CC. Now if you build a layer in CC that uses technology not in CS6, you simply can’t edit that data in CS6. Any more than Photoshop 2 can open or deal with layers built in Photoshop 3. BEFORE moving backwards (which isn’t a great idea), you’ll have to understand what is and isn’t accessible in an old build. And fix that issue.

      Or just not move backwards, your call.

      Let’s not forget that YOU decided to upgrade to CC and YOU decided to use newer functionality not found in CS6 and YOU decided to move back a version. So YOU have to fix the layer that has newer functionality (flatten). OR just stick with CC.

      >>I want to edit my old files.
      So do I. And no, the current situation isn’t ideal. But if you’re going to jump on new technology, then go backwards, you better plan this move!

      The idea however that you will move from say CS6 to CC and you can’t go back isn’t correct. There ARE situations where you will not be able to move back, but not too many. I’ve opened CC generated doc’s in CS6, no problem. But you have to do it ‘correctly’. And moving backwards in version’s of software isn’t a good idea if not handled correctly.

      • James Sinks — 1:59 PM on May 09, 2013

        >>The ONLY way a subscription is acceptable is if at the end of the subscription period I own my software and can do whatever I want with it…

        “Then it wouldn’t be a subscription”

        That’s rather my point.

        >>Read-only PSDs are unacceptable.

        “What would make them read only?”

        John Nack is talking about only allowing us to print or export our PSDs (and if you think we’re going to get layers exported…well…I’ll just leave it at that). That’s pretty much the definition of read only. You can’t change the file.

        “Let’s say you do have CS6.”

        I do have Design and Web Premium CS6. I paid for it. I can use it forever. I can create or edit files as long as I can find an OS that it will run on.

        “All the layers you outlined above would be accessible in both CS6 and CC. Now if you build a layer in CC that uses technology not in CS6, you simply can’t edit that data in CS6. Any more than Photoshop 2 can open or deal with layers built in Photoshop 3. BEFORE moving backwards (which isn’t a great idea), you’ll have to understand what is and isn’t accessible in an old build. And fix that issue.Or just not move backwards, your call.”

        I don’t want to move backwards. If I pay for the Creative Cloud–for a year ($360 at intro price), or two years ($960 counting intro price), or three years ($1560 counting intro price)–I want to be able to use the software I have paid for at the end of my term. Forever. I don’t care if it’s feature-locked and unsupported. I want what I paid for, and I want it free and clear.

        >>I want to edit my old files.

        “So do I. And no, the current situation isn’t ideal. But if you’re going to jump on new technology, then go backwards, you better plan this move!”

        Who said I’m jumping on new technology? I have avoided Adobe’s subscription services precisely because it was obvious they were a trap.

        • Andrew Rodney — 9:41 AM on May 10, 2013

          >>If your Photoshop stops working, you will not be able to do anything with your files (even reading).

          Stops working because YOU stopped it?
          Yes, if you have NO copies of Photoshop, your PS documents are difficult to open IF they have Photoshop specific proprietary stuff like layers. This will not happen with a flattened TIFF (or if it does, open it elsewhere).

          >>’m just saying they turn into a bunch of binary gibberish without photoshop.

          Indeed, proprietary data requires the app that built them. Move that data into a more open format or don’t lose Photoshop. I’ve been using Photoshop since 1990, I’ve never lost it.

          >>f you can point me to any Alternatives that can actually read the various formats (.psd, .psb, .ai, .indd, .fla..) then this point is also moot.

          Let me try again! Any alternative that isn’t Adobe’s can’t understand proprietary info. IF you save that data as a good old TIFF, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of products that will open that data. TIFF is an open and widely supported image format (that BTW, Adobe owns). How about JPEG?

          YOU bought into the Adobe image processing proprietary workflow the day you opened an image and built (as just one example), a layer.

          >>What John promised just now in this blogpost is a step in the right direction, but so far that’s nothing official (at least not that i know of).

          What John could/should do is explain why we’d need this. The user decided to place CC updated, proprietary stuff in their documents. IF they save a TIFF with PS Compatibility, any TIFF reader who’s up to date can open it, you can print it, etc. That product can’t edit the layers of course but neither would John’s solution.

          To add to your comment, let me ad: If your OS stops working, you will not be able to do anything with your files (even reading).

          • Claudius — 11:04 AM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, please stop writing here.

            CS6 (and earlier): You stop paying, you got no updates (but still a way to open AND EVEN EDIT files).

            CC (and after): You stop paying, you can’t edit your files anymore (and up until that note from John you couldn’t even open them).

            If you can’t see anything getting worse from this direct comparison, please just stop commenting here. It is getting worse, you know? And We don’t have a choice. So we are pointing out the only choice we se – which is *keeping CS6 or earlier*. Which is in NO ONE’S best interest. Adobe doesn’t make any money, and we don’t get any new features.

            I don’t believe in a no-win scenario.

          • Andrew Rodney — 11:27 AM on May 10, 2013

            >>Andrew, please stop writing here.

            I will if you will, promise!

            >>CC (and after): You stop paying, you can’t edit your files anymore (and up until that note from John you couldn’t even open them).

            IN CC yes because YOU stopped paying. What do you expect. In earlier versions of Photoshop, not at all. I told you how to do it, you can ignore the facts and believe that you can’t edit those files. I’ve done it! Have you?

            >> And We don’t have a choice.

            Of course you do. You just don’t like the ramifications. I understand and sympathize. But the facts are the facts, you CAN edit CC data in earlier versions of Photoshop if you don’t paint yourself into a corner. Again, I’ve done it many times over the months.

            You are entitled to your own opinion, you’r not entitled to your own facts. Even Dave Cross was able to access the CC created image in CS5 or 6. So both of us are wrong, meanwhile, do you even have Photoshop CC?

          • Claudius — 11:33 AM on May 10, 2013

            Again, you’re missing the point. This is useless.

          • jlua — 11:55 AM on May 10, 2013

            Claudius, I all the way with you. You are right, it´s pointless to continue discussing with some. We´ll vote with our wallets.

          • Andrew Rodney — 11:37 AM on May 10, 2013

            >> Again, you’re missing the point. This is useless.

            For once, we agree. But I think you’re the one missing the point and have apparently zero experience with Photoshop CC. Right?

          • Claudius — 11:54 AM on May 10, 2013

            Yes, you’re right i don’t use Adobe CC. This is also not the point i am debating (and what you’re probably missing). Those rules you are trying to explain to me are not magically appearing out of thin air. Adobe creates them, and they can change them if they like.

            I am just trying to get them to change them for the better. Better being: People are not FORCED to keep paying just to view their files.

            Photoshop CC does stop working because i stop paying, that is currently right. I just think that this is a particularly bad decision. I believe, that “read-only” access is the least adobe should offer after the end of a subscription. And it’s totally within their power to offer that. And i dare say: they won’t even lose a penny with this decision. I am – again – not opting for “IT MUST STILL WORK, I PAID”. Even though i would still love to see a perpetual buy-once-use-forever license as well.

            I find this to be a sensible compromise. People who feel coerced (like me right now) will probably end up saying “this is a bad deal, i’m not buying it at all”. As i said: Nobody will profit from that decision.

            Also i think that people being turned off will more likely turn to piracy. Which is – again – not good for Adobe’s bottom line, and by extension for their products, and by extension me.

            I do believe that Adobe themselves will be better off, if they change this rule.

          • Andrew Rodney — 12:06 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>Adobe creates them, and they can change them if they like.

            Let’s deal with actual realties of today instead of what Adobe might do. That’s an exercise in futility and solves nothing, OK?

            >>I am just trying to get them to change them for the better. Better being: People are not FORCED to keep paying just to view their files.

            OK, then let me help you with Adobe. I’ve been working with them for a very long time. Anyone who posts FUD, incorrect assertions or a lack of understanding in the process will be ignored by at least Adobe engineers. I AM NOT SAYING you are doing this. I’m saying there’s a lot of misinformation here and that’s going to work against those that want to affect change. And as I’ve said repeatedly, there ARE issues with CC that deserve both criticism and hopefully change on Adobe’s part. So we agree on that point I assume.

            >>Photoshop CC does stop working because i stop paying

            No argument, that’s WHY Adobe came up with a subscription. You stop paying, you stop getting. These guys are also smart business people although we’ll see how the market reacts. So yes, CC stops working because you pulled the plug. You decided to use it, you decided to stop using it, agreed? So what’s the net result? It is NOT your inability to access those files. You could purchase a copy of CS6 and IF you handled things correctly as I tried to outline, you could open all your files in that older version. You could keep subscribing. You could move to a different product (and lose ALL your layers and more). These are simple facts. The only person who stops CC is the customer at least until San Jose falls into the ocean dog forbid!

            >>I do believe that Adobe themselves will be better off, if they change this rule.

            So do I. But the less FUD their customers spew and the better customers express problems they will face BASED ON FACTS, the more likely they will be heard and more importantly, taken seriously.

      • ButchM — 4:01 AM on May 10, 2013

        “That wouldn’t be a subscription.”

        Funny, when I dropped my “subscription” to Nat Geo a few years back, I don’t recall them coming to my home and confiscating all my magazines.

        The absence of any equitable exit strategy is just a completely bone-headed and selfish move on Adobe’s behalf.

        • Andrew Rodney — 6:47 AM on May 10, 2013

          >>Funny, when I dropped my “subscription” to Nat Geo a few years back, I don’t recall them coming to my home and confiscating all my magazines.

          And Adobe doesn’t come to your home and confiscate your images. Those are yours. The software you stopped paying for by your own admission stops working. As simple as that!

          • ButchM — 7:05 AM on May 10, 2013

            C’mon Andrew … I never said I thought Adobe would confiscate my images … simply pointing out that at least with the magazines there is something tangible from my purchase … other than the privilege of reading them. I fully understand the licensing model Adobe has chosen to offer … however, that doesn’t make it any more palatable … I just chose the publishing analogy since many of Adobe’s customers are in that industry … and the fact that if most of those same client’s … even the ones who are embracing this license model … could never get away with the same scheme with their own customers. Because, Adobe is the only monopoly in the equation … the rest of us have competitors and can’t afford to be so arrogant …

          • Andrew Rodney — 7:20 AM on May 10, 2013

            >>I never said I thought Adobe would confiscate my images … simply pointing out that at least with the magazines there is something tangible from my purchase

            The tangible “something” is the images you processed with the software. Or you want to subscribe and do nothing with the software product? That’s fine but kind of a waste of money.

            If I were to rent MS Word, write the great American novel, but MS word stopped working because I didn’t continue to pay, I’d still have the results of using that software!

            >>I fully understand the licensing model Adobe has chosen to offer … however, that doesn’t make it any more palatable

            I’m not expecting it to be more palatable! I don’t like what is happening either. But to say you subscribe to a piece of software and then when it stops working because you decided not to pay any longer is akin to having no tangible assets doesn’t wash. The idea is to pay for the software such you actually accomplish something. Those result are not taken away from you. Only the product that could continue to produce more tangible assets.

            As I said, there’s lots not to like about this new model. But if we’re going to effect a change, we have to do so without making spurious comments or FUD.

          • Claudius — 8:46 AM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew: The point you’re missing is, that Word is available as subscription AND “old-style” one-time-fee-license.

            In that case, the customer at least has a CHOICE.

            The second thing is: MS Word has offered a free read-only alternative for a while now. So you don’t only have a file, but you can also read it. This is the key element that has been promised here, that mitigates some of the anger. But this is still relatively new information.

          • Andrew Rodney — 9:02 AM on May 10, 2013

            >>The point you’re missing is, that Word is available as subscription AND “old-style” one-time-fee-license.

            I think you missed my point due to using MS as an example and looking at whatever licensing they provide. Let me try again. Forget what MS is doing, consider that the fruits of our labor using a software product (MS Word) is what we create with that software, not the software itself. My “great American novel” doesn’t disappear because MS word did. That’s my point. A subscription for software gives you a tool to create things and when that software goes away, those things don’t.

            Again, IF you guys want me to let you know all the areas of CC I don’t like, I’m game. But suggesting that when software you subscribe disappears therefor erases the work you made and associating this with keeping your magazines where the mag is what you get to keep, my point is the image documents are what you get to keep.

            There’s plenty to dislike here, but let’s not make the arguments in our favor less salient and suggest we’re losing our data files. That’s not happening. Let’s not go there. It makes “our side” seem whipped up and not clearly thinking about the real issues with this subscription based schema.

          • El Aura — 9:59 AM on May 10, 2013

            With PS, normally the product is the final image. With InDesign, the product can often be a template that is used over and over again. In a way, such a template is like programming code. Loosing InDesign is then like loosing the compiler for the code you have written.

            I have tons of work in Matlab, a proprietary scripting language for numerical simulations. But I only ever had a network license from my work place for it (which not only required constant internet access but also a VPN or SSH tunnel). I change my job, and my work might become unusable.

          • Claudius — 9:13 AM on May 10, 2013

            If your Photoshop stops working, you will not be able to do anything with your files (even reading).

            This is why i’m advocating for (at least) a read-only version after termination of the subscription.

            I never said they delete my files. I’m just saying they turn into a bunch of binary gibberish without photoshop. So in essence it doesn’t matter much IF i keep the files or NOT. Because they will be useless.

            If you can point me to any Alternatives that can actually read the various formats (.psd, .psb, .ai, .indd, .fla..) then this point is also moot. But so far, nobody could come up with anything besides the creative suite itself.

            What John promised just now in this blogpost is a step in the right direction, but so far that’s nothing official (at least not that i know of).

          • Durk Pearson — 11:40 AM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, from your comment I suspect that you aren’t a long time Photoshop user. PSD files are NOT mere images. Every adjustment to every layer made by the Photoshop licensee is their intellectual property just as the code that transforms these adjustments into image changes is the intellectual property of Adobe.

            When one stops subscribing to Adobe’s cloud, they lose their ability to revisit those adjustments and improve them. This doesn’t bother some customers, but it is unacceptable to others such as myself.

            Previously, Adobe offered two different marketing models, one for each type of customer – cloud service/rental contract (15% of Adobe’s revenue) for the former, and permanent licenses (85% of Adobe’s revenue) for the latter.

            If that latter 85% wanted your cloud service contract/rental model, they would have already moved to your cloud lockin strategy.

            Do you know of any major company that successfully changed a fundamental policy in opposition to 85% of their customers?

            Of course, you have the right to make this change. Whether that detested change is win/lose or lose/lose is another matter. You ckaim and may actually believe that that change is win/win – but 85% of your customers beg to differ.

          • Andrew Rodney — 11:50 AM on May 10, 2013

            >>Andrew, from your comment I suspect that you aren’t a long time Photoshop user.

            I purchased Photoshop 1.0.7 in May of 1990. What was your first version? Oh, I’ve been a beta for Adobe since version 2.5 and an Alpha since CS. You?

            >>Every adjustment to every layer made by the Photoshop licensee is their intellectual property just as the code that transforms these adjustments into image changes is the intellectual property of Adobe.

            Agreed and I already said that several times. Jumping ship to another company’s product is going to really hurt you with all those layered documents, assuming you want to edit them there!

            >>When one stops subscribing to Adobe’s cloud, they lose their ability to revisit those adjustments and improve them.

            IF (big if), they have no other version of Photoshop to fall back on. If they do, then if they move back and do so correctly, all is fine. Again, I’ve done this with Photoshop CC, how about you?

            >>Previously, Adobe offered two different marketing models

            STOP. We’ve been over the model and that’s not the topic under discussion in this set of posts. The idea you can’t go back is the topic which is incorrect. You can go back, you just need to be smart about it. Or don’t move back.

            IF you want to split off the discussion about the new model, which I’ve also discussed, fine. But in no way does moving to CC force any previous Photoshop owner to lose access to their previously edited files! It may force limitations on what you can further edit in the older version, but the file can be opened, edited, printed etc. Those are simple facts. Been doing it for months and months!

          • Durk Pearson — 12:45 PM on May 10, 2013

            I already wrote that I started using Photoshop with version 5 in 1998.

            Then why would I want to subscribe to your cloud service? If I use the new features that are not in Photoshop CS6, I can’t readjust them in CS6 (nor would I expect to be able to do so.) If I avoid this problem by not using the new features, what is the advantage to me of my paying Adobe every month to use their cloud service?

            You don’t see this as a problem that would discourage my use of your cloud service. Sorry, I do.

            I’ll continue using Photoshop CS6 until something that I think is both better and is available via permanent license becomes available – if not from Adobe (and I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a policy change), then from someone else. As you can see (or won’t) from reading these comments, I’m not alone in my views.

            I understand that I’m not going to change your view that Adobe’s new policy is a great idea for everyone. That view is lose/lose for both of us.

          • Andrew Rodney — 12:50 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>I understand that I’m not going to change your view that Adobe’s new policy is a great idea for everyone.

            If that’s directed at me, my view is the opposite actually. And I I’ve expressed this multiple times.

            >>If I use the new features that are not in Photoshop CS6, I can’t readjust them in CS6

            Yes you can albeit with less flexibility depending on the edits, if you do so with moving backwards in mind. IF you want total flexibility, don’t move back.

            Sorry, I don’t have a solution for those who want their cake and eat it too. But the idea you get no cake and you can’t eat at all is just wrong.

          • Claudius — 12:01 PM on May 10, 2013

            That “big if” must seem that way from your “PS 1.0.7″ perspective.

            Truth is: CS6 is (as of right now) the last fallback there is going to be. And most of us aren’t comfortable with that.

            Backwards-compatibility is something that will only get worse with time. Would you consider, even for a second, to fall back to photoshop CS? That’s not even 10 years back. So in 10 years, we don’t have anywhere to go to, if we make a bad turn in life and can’t afford a photoshop license anymore?

            Or if we retire and dont earn money off of photoshop, we’ll still have to pay just to revisit our previous work?

            I think this is very wrong.

          • Andrew Rodney — 12:15 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>Backwards-compatibility is something that will only get worse with time.

            Especially if you let it. Don’t. There ARE ways to move backwards although it’s not anywhere as ideal as moving forwards. I expect some of you have been doing this for years. Me, for 23 years.

            >>Would you consider, even for a second, to fall back to photoshop CS?

            Sure. If I had to. Truth is, I do 85-90%+ in Lightroom. Content Aware is useful. So is Shake Reduction. But I can live without them in MY workflow. You are talking to a guy who used to use version 1 of Photoshop so just don’t take my clone tool away for starters. Or convert to CMYK, that’s big. CS could fit the bill. But I own CS6 so that’s moot.

            >>So in 10 years, we don’t have anywhere to go to, if we make a bad turn in life and can’t afford a photoshop license anymore?

            In ten years, what’s the likelihood CS6 will run on my current machine? Very good assuming it doesn’t explode. In 10 years what’s the likelihood it will run on the latest Mac and OS? Probably ice cube’s chance in hell. How’s that for future options and sticking with a circa 2013 software product? I make my living with digital imaging. Assuming I’m not retired in 10 years, I’ll probably be subscribing to CC. I have little choice and Adobe knows that. I also have no idea what a gallon of gas will cost but I’ll get I have to shell it out to drive. And I’ll do so. I don’t have to like any of this but reality can suck.

          • FrediW — 7:20 PM on May 22, 2013

            So to follow your theory about Adobe the Monopoly, being compared to National Geo.not taking your magazines away, but unable to get more issues…Adobe cuts off your app, and if you don’t have CS5/6 you are left with no way to open files, and with no alternatives to substitute those apps with others that may or may not work from somewhere else, and I am not just talking about PS. FACT: There are no others. Compare it to buying a car. I chose a Nissan Maxima. I buy gas at Mobile. I chose mobile because I like their quality and pricing (free market). When I run out of gas, my car won’t run. BUT I still have my car and I still have the option to use other gas that may or may not run my car as well, but I can still use it for the purpose I need it. ADOBE IS A MONOPOLY, the only game in town. They roped us in as users for decades with a certain product protocol for full user access as long as you have a computer the Apps work on. Now they have changed the game midstream, after millions of users are committed to their software, and cannot possibly go any where else to get like kind functionality. This is entrapment. A form of Antitrust that has crushed the competition, and made themselves the only choice for millions. They could still upgrade as effectively under the old protocol, and allow “ownership”. If you chose to upgrade you should be able to own these upgrades as well even if at a higher price if you want post subscription capability as we have had. If you stop the subscription you should own what you have paid for to date. They could easily do this with Cloud based downloads. They have chosen to screw their loyal professional customers and make them pay through the nose forever. There is talk of an anti-trust lawsuit being filed against Adobe at; NO; ADOBE, NO! “We’re mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more! ”

            The Class Action Federal Anti-Trust email address is ready, NOW!

            ADOBECLASSACTION@WALLKILLWIDEAWAKE.ORG

            Anyone wishing to participate should email their full contact information and their understanding of the damages they would be subject to under the Adobe CC marketing scheme. Think broadly about this issue; the impacts will be felt in many ways by many different people, businesses, educational institutions, not-for-profits, etc.

            The information sent will ONLY be used to develop the aggrieved class for the purpose of litigation against Adobe.

          • ProDesignTools — 11:02 PM on May 23, 2013

            “If you can point me to any Alternatives that can actually read the various formats (.psd, .psb, .ai, .indd, .fla..) then this point is also moot. But so far, nobody could come up with anything besides the creative suite itself.”

            Photoshop’s PSD file format is publicly documented and freely available.

            For example, XnView (free) will read and write .PSD files, also opens Adobe Illustrator .AI files.

            ADOView ($10) will read and display any InDesign or InCopy file, also reads Illustrator files.

            Adobe PDF is another open and published spec, and various programs both read and write those files.

      • Dan Routh — 12:09 PM on May 10, 2013

        Andrew, most of us know who you are and we understand you are a long time Photoshop guru. However your condescending attitude is doing little to gain you or Adobe friends. We understand that we can still use CS6 and we don’t have to go the CC route, and we also understand that if we think about things we can even try CC and drop back. What you don’t seem to understand or care about is that eventually our hardware or our OS is going to break CS6 for us. Then, under Adobe’s new scheme, it’s either their way or the highway. In either event, there is going to be a lot of pain for us, be it being forced to pay monthly for the rest of our lives or by having to deal with in my case 22 years of proprietary files that have to be dealt with so I can make sure I can get to all my intellectual property and coming up with a completely new workflow for me to create images.

        • Peter — 12:21 PM on May 10, 2013

          Hmmm … so when the day comes that I upgrade to Windows 10, for example, my version of CS6 may not work. (I think that’s what you are saying.)

          OK, that might be a concern unless all my files were flattened TIFFs, compatible with any imaging software.

        • Andrew Rodney — 12:25 PM on May 10, 2013

          >>However your condescending attitude is doing little to gain you or Adobe friends.

          I don’t care nor need such friends. I would however like to express fact based posts and if those facts are incorrect, I’m more than happy to be corrected.

          >> We understand that we can still use CS6 and we don’t have to go the CC

          I love when one person speaks for everyone, especially after a recent post just here where someone asked if CS5 is moving to subscription! YOU may get it, a lot don’t.

          >>What you don’t seem to understand or care about is that eventually our hardware or our OS is going to break CS6 for us.

          It may if you let it. I told you your options. In this case, don’t upgrade your OS. Oh you want to? Then guess what, back on the Adobe subscription train.

          I’ve got CMS software that can’t run under anything above 10.5 that cost about 3X what Photoshop does. And it isn’t getting updated. I have an older machine to run it because I have to. Am I happy I can’t get an update? No way. There are lots of aspects of computing and imaging that I don’t like. I can’t stop working, I have to find solutions.

          >>Then, under Adobe’s new scheme, it’s either their way or the highway.

          I’m aware of that. I don’t like that fact. But it is a fact (unlike the idea you can’t access your older data).

          • Claudius — 12:31 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>>>Then, under Adobe’s new scheme, it’s either their way or the highway.

            >>I’m aware of that. I don’t like that fact. But it is a fact (unlike the idea you can’t access your older data).

            No this is not a fact. A fact can’t be changed. Licensing agreements, however CAN be changed. And i believe adobe is working their asses off *right now*. We’re voicing our concerns, so we can all be happy.

          • Dan Routh — 12:34 PM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, thank you for correcting all my mis-stated facts and opinions. I look forward to the day when I have to keep multiple systems running old OS’s as well as standing on one leg with one eye closed in order to work around Adobe’s screwed up scheme just because you have informed me multiple times that I can.

        • Andrew Rodney — 12:39 PM on May 10, 2013

          >>No this is not a fact. A fact can’t be changed. Licensing agreements, however CAN be changed

          You really want to go down this Semantic rabbit hole? It’s a fact today and will remain a fact until it changes IF it changes. At that time, let’s talk. Until then, you’re wasting a lot of time with ‘what ifs” Don’t you have something better to do with OUR time?

          >>And i believe adobe is working their asses off *right now*. We’re voicing our concerns, so we can all be happy.

          Look, you can believe the earth is flat. You have no proof of anything happening inside Adobe corporate, heck, you don’t even have access to prerelease software! I told you how you might affect change by being vocal in a way in which you don’t come across as a kook. But the more you write thinks like the above, the more anyone inside Adobe (and some out) dismiss you. Such ideas don’t serve OUR cause.

          • Dan Routh — 12:43 PM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, what exactly is “our” cause other than you slapping down everyone who has an honest opinion?

          • Andrew Rodney — 12:46 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>Andrew, what exactly is “our” cause other than you slapping down everyone who has an honest opinion?

            To affect a change in the subscription model, hopefully one that provides a ‘buy out’ option.

            I have no problem with honest opinions. I have problems with opinions that have no basis in fact. It hurts that cause I outlined.

          • Claudius — 12:59 PM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, i believe you are in violation of the prerelease terms by stating that you are part of that programme. I believe Mr Kandpur might find that interesting.

            Of course, i don’t know those terms or mr Khandpur. I know nothing of that prerelease thing myself. But why are we even playing this “i’m better than you”-game?

            BTW: I am not trying to waste your time. You are not the center of my attention. Those terms are. And i am trying to change them for the better, whether you like it or not.

          • Andrew Rodney — 1:14 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>Andrew, i believe you are in violation of the prerelease terms by stating that you are part of that programme.

            You’d be wrong. Why don’t you worry about making salient posts then going down yet another rabbit hole.

            >>Of course, i don’t know those terms or mr Khandpur.

            I’ll add that to the other items you don’t know about…

            >>And i am trying to change them for the better, whether you like it or not.

            You’re not doing a very good job. I was trying to help you in that respect. You might do some research as to who you’re talking with too.

          • jlua — 1:23 PM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, we don´t know who you are and we don´t care who you are, we only care about what you say and how you say it. And I also just don´t agree with what you say, or rather the tone I have seen you have been using in some of your conversations here. Even if you were Adobe´s CEO. Over and out.

          • Andrew Rodney — 1:28 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>Andrew, we don´t know who you are and we don´t care who you are, we only care about what you say and how you say it

            Another poster speaking for all posters here. Gotta love that moxie.

            Sometimes, no matter how delicately you tell someone they are wrong, they get all huffy. Sorry, don’t take it personally. It would serve you well to know who you’re talking with, it can help separate facts from BS. The BS factor on the web, since CC was announced has sky rocketed.

            IF say Thomas Knoll came here and told you that you were wrong, assuming you don’t know who Thomas is, you’d be real foolish to argue with him. I’m not even close to being in the same room as Thomas of course. But if there’s something technical I’ve written that’s incorrect, again, I’m welcome to corrections based on fact, not religion.

          • Dan Routh — 2:55 PM on May 10, 2013

            “You might do some research as to who you’re talking with too.”

            Jlua, he’s the “Digital Dog”, the “Sultan of SWOP”, a man who’s knowledge of Photoshop and color management is only overshadowed by his immense ego. Andrew, what is your point?

            John Nack, you should thank Andrew for stepping onto your blog and moving the focus away from their primary intention of telling Adobe about their distaste for the new scheme and instead pushing some agenda I can’t seem to figure out.

          • Andrew Rodney — 3:07 PM on May 10, 2013

            >>Jlua, he’s the “Digital Dog”, the “Sultan of SWOP”, a man who’s knowledge of Photoshop and color management is only overshadowed by his immense ego.

            Love, love LOVE posts like this. Why? Because instead of replying to my points that are based on an understanding of image processing and the like, actually providing an argument that itself might be based on fact, instead you want to wrestle. That clearly illustrates to me I’m on point!

            Your arms are too short to box with Dog and you probably recognize you are wrong or at least highly confused.

            >>Andrew, what is your point?

            IF you haven’t gotten the point(s) this long into the discussion, and can’t add anything but insults, you’ll never get it.

            IF you want to vilify Adobe, you’ll do a far better job using facts instead of FUD. Fact based arguments work well as well for the uneducated as the educated! FUD only fuels the fire of the ignorant. What’s solely lacking in many of the posts here is any resemblance to a fact based discussion (or argument).

            Keep em coming, I love the depths some have to wonder into to avoid the science. Want to argue the world is 6000 years old next?

          • Dan Routh — 3:14 PM on May 10, 2013

            Andrew, no one including myself is making any kind of argument. I am stating the fact that I don’t like Adobe’s new scheme. And that is a fact. I don’t like their new business model.

          • Claudius — 3:25 PM on May 10, 2013

            >> You might do some research as to who you’re talking with too.

            If i would have wanted to talk about you, i’d have gone over to your blog. This one is not about you. It’s also not about me. So quit it, ok?

            And i still do believe that Adobe may be listening to its customers. The outcry isn’t all that small and it’s easily (and cheaply) remedied. Many of the suggestions on this page are interesting. I bet Adobe are doing their homework when it comes to terms and pricing, but i bet there’s an idea or two in here, that didn’t come up. Or didn’t sound right in a meeting situation.

            So, yes, i still believe posting here might change something for the better. Right now, two people from adobe are reading these comment. That’s a start.

      • Tony — 3:12 PM on May 10, 2013

        Yes it would still be subscription if people could use the software after subscription cancellation.

        Autodesk handles subscriptions in this manner. Once a person has bought a software license and participated in subscription if the person cancels subscription, they can still use the software indefinitely in the current state when the subscription was ended they just don’t have access to future updates anymore.

  • Andrew Rodney — 1:44 PM on May 09, 2013

    >>The ONLY way a subscription is acceptable is if at the end of the subscription period I own my software and can do whatever I want with it…AND I can reinstall my featurelocked software if I need to.

    Actually, what if you could end your subscription, pay Adobe $700 and get locked into THAT version of CC forever? That OK? Because I suspect Adobe might like that idea. It’s like the end of a car lease. You want it, you pay for it. Adobe would just need to access your end of lease serial number and ban you from any further updates.

    • James Sinks — 2:00 PM on May 09, 2013

      Nice straw man.

    • El Aura — 4:52 PM on May 09, 2013

      “Actually, what if you could end your subscription, pay Adobe $700 and get locked into THAT version of CC forever?”
      Yes, that would a perfect solution. Except that people would pay for one month subscription, then end it, pay $700 and then two years later again subscribe for month and pay the $700 again. Which is pretty much a buying a new version every two years.

      Adobe’s rationale is that they don’t want to have to maintain two parallel branches, one with only bug fixes, the other one with also feature additions. Allowing for snapshots is keeping the previous system but just explicitly saying only the CC versions get bug fixes (but then it is not that PS received much bug fixes anyway).

      There is nothing wrong with your suggestion, except that it doesn’t help Adobe to have a steady income if they keep allowing for snapshots to be ‘purchased’.

      • Aldo — 3:33 AM on May 10, 2013

        I think “snapshot” is a very good term. For Adobe this means it is the software the customer currently owns, ie: this particular snapshot does not need further maintenance of a special version. For the the customer it means they have already been using the snapshotted version under their CC subscription, so any bugs should not come as a surprise; They know what they are getting.

      • Toby Marshall — 7:30 AM on May 20, 2013

        Adobe could specify a minimum subscription time before a buyout option would be offered, say a minimum of one year or 18 months. That would assure them of a relatively steady income with a broad subscriber base. To opt-in again, the clock resets and no new version could be “bought out” until the same time period of subscription had happened again.

        • FrediW — 11:29 PM on May 22, 2013

          This just makes too much sense.

        • Landon — 7:30 AM on May 23, 2013

          Problem is from Adobe’s standpoint is that a rent-to-own or buyout idea of any type only guarantees them a steady income for 18 months (or until the own period) until people start skipping updates when there are no whiz-bang new features available. It turns CC into a simple loan-payment plan and not a perpetual rental agreement. Essentially it gives Adobe what they had right before the CC announcement–18% of users on the rental plan, and the rest buying perpetual licenses. Not what they want.

          The shut-off threat (exactly what it is) is what Adobe is using to keep users subscribed and smooths out Adobe’s revenue stream. Adobe is committed to that. If users don’t give in to CC, this is going to be a serious game of chicken. Adobe can probably last a few years before they give in (or a competitor develops to force them). It’ll be interesting to see if users can, or will want to, do the same. I’ve spoken to my corporate and non-profit customers about CC (they already knew), and they’re not exactly happy either.

    • Aldo — 3:24 AM on May 10, 2013

      It’s not a perfect solution, but this would work for me. I could even see a minimal subscription time for this buyout strategy to become available (eg only after a year of subscription you can buy a feature- and bugfix frozen copy).

  • Dan Routh — 1:53 PM on May 09, 2013

    Adobe’s software, especially Photoshop is great. Their business model as stated with only CC sucks. Twist it anyway you want and there are still a large number of folks that don’t want to rent software for the rest of their lives. They want some way to access their intellectual property whenever they want or need to without have to pay a ransom. Granted, the rent might not seem like a lot per month, but it’s for the rest of my life, and if for some reason I can’t make that monthly payment down the road, I’m screwed. It would be wonderful if Adobe would recognize this fact and sell us the license we want. Why would any company refuse to sell a product that people want? If not, we may be forced to play their game, but only until another piece of software is developed to replace it by a developer who is willing to work with us. The rotten part is the fact that those of use who used the PSD format as a standard for our work files are going to have convert thousands of those files into a format that Adobe doesn’t control. That’s the thanks we get for supporting that format in my case from PS2 all the way through CS6. Believe me John, Adobe is going to have to make some huge about faces to ever get the nasty taste out of my mouth.

    • Andrew Rodney — 2:39 PM on May 09, 2013

      End of lease can’t be inexpensive or it fails to benefit the new schema. If it doesn’t do that, why should Adobe even consider letting you buy out. It also can’t be such that you’d subscribe for 1 month then ask for the buy out. Maybe a cell phone service or cancelation like fee. But the point is, after 1 year of subscribing, the buy out has to be much higher than the person who’s subscribed for 2 years would pay to buy out. And there’s no way I see Adobe having some $1 after 10 years but who know.

      The “end of lease, you now own but can’t upgrade this version of CC” plan has to be something Adobe structures so you don’t want to but could get out of this lease. And 7 months later, if you want to re subscribe to get new features, you can’t end that new lease in 3 months later either. Got to stick with at least 1 year at $20 per month or $240.

      Or something along those lines…

      • El Aura — 4:57 PM on May 09, 2013

        “The “end of lease, you now own but can’t upgrade this version of CC” plan has to be something Adobe structures so you don’t want to but could get out of this lease.”

        Which is another way of saying: We keep the previous system but make buying perpetual licenses much less attractive than buying the subscription.

        • Andrew Rodney — 5:00 PM on May 09, 2013

          >>Which is another way of saying: We keep the previous system but make buying perpetual licenses much less attractive than buying the subscription.

          Yup, which is hopefully better than the current situation which is, you have NO other options.

  • Scott Valentine — 1:59 PM on May 09, 2013

    End of Lease buyout is one possible solution, but it has to come with the caveat of not being supported by Adobe (tech support, I mean).

    From Adobe’s perspective, they’d have to protect against a de facto version skip, which means the price has to be high enough to discourage buying out, waiting a while, then starting up again to avoid intermediate costs.

    That simulates a perpetual license without the cost to Adobe in maintaining legacy versions – you just basically walk away and deal with your own issues, or start paying the monthly fee again.

    An advantage to the market of the subscription model is keeping users more or less consistent, rather than having tons of different versions floating around. That means easier collaboration as well as reduced resources supporting old versions.

    • James Sinks — 2:04 PM on May 09, 2013

      End of lease buyout is only okay if:

      1) It’s not extortionate. $1 to own seems reasonable, given that the non-introductory CC cost per year is already higher than the creative suite upgrade costs were.

      2) We have the ability to redownload and install our feature-locked software at a later date.

      3) We no longer have to phone home every X months.

      • Scott Valentine — 2:40 PM on May 09, 2013

        You don’t seem to get the point about preventing people from skipping versions. In your model, a $1 buyout could be seriously abused: pay for a 1-month rate, stop for a year using the frozen features, then pay another month’s fee. You’re essentially asking for the ability to upgrade at arbitrary intervals for the cost of one month’s subscription.

        In the case I just outlined, you’d be getting the new software for $20, then upgrading after a year for another $20.

        A buy-out has to be strategic for the provider to avoid abuse by customers. So perhaps the buyout price is reduced by 10% per month of subscription up to some limit.

        As for redownloading, how can you possibly justify that? You’re asking Adobe to maintain *every* legacy version in perpetuity. 30 days to let you d/l an executable installer that *you* must maintain would be about all you could hope for.

        Not phoning home is probably the only solution, otherwise Adobe has to maintain absurd numbers of live records, so you’d probably get that no questions asked. The download would probably install a local license server so you can’t redistribute old versions, but again, that’s code which has to be maintained.

        Don’t forget that OS upgrades would also no longer be Adobe’s problem for your buyout. In the extreme case where you were on 32-bit and your OS magically jumped to 64-bit without legacy support, you’d have no recourse.

        You can’t expect Adobe to assume all the risk – you chose to use the tools, you are free to choose others.

        • James Sinks — 2:56 PM on May 09, 2013

          Where did I say end of lease buyout should be applicable after one month? Nowhere. I never even hinted at that. Know why? Because it’s an absurd.

          Adobe’s Creative Cloud already has a payment plan that requires a yearlong commitment. Require people to commit to a one or two year lease with a $1 to own buyout at the end.

          • Scott Valentine — 3:04 PM on May 09, 2013

            You also have the option to go month-to-month, which is what some people would try to do. A $1 buyout is equally absurd. Even after a year, you’ve not paid for a full commercial license. For PS Extended, starting from zero, you’d have to subscribe for 5 years to equal purchase plus upgrade.

            And consider that during the 5-year time frame, you’ve had multiple updates, something you would not get typically with perpetual licenses. Certainly you’d have gotten a few fixes, but not feature upgrades. So you’d still have to pay for the incremental advancements.

            You’re asking Adobe to take a loss with a walk-away option. Don’t forget – they’d have to include that bit of code to convert you from sub to perpetual, and that also costs money. They will have to implement a new license structure to handle what you’re asking for. That’s not impossible, but it takes resources to build.

          • James Sinks — 3:17 PM on May 09, 2013

            Scott, have you completely missed the point where people have said that the Creative Cloud costs more than yearly upgrades? It sure does for me. Have you completely missed the point where everyone who doesn’t use the Master Collection has said exactly the same thing?

            Adobe is a profitable company. Adobe has cut out retail distribution of the Creative Suite, which has increased their profit dramatically. Adobe is charging more for this product. Per dollar of price, Adobe is making a hell of a lot more money with the Creative Cloud than they were with Creative Suite licenses…but we’re being charged more, we’re expected to pay forever, and we lose everything the day we stop paying.

          • Scott Valentine — 3:26 PM on May 09, 2013

            No, James, I haven’t. Do the math, starting from a new purchase, then upgrading at 18 or 24 months. It’s a short term reduction if you utilize both the contract and prior ownership discounts, then the cost model inverts. I get that, and in a previous post (which got deleted) I noted that the only reduction is to MC subscribers who previously upgraded at every release. Everyone else eventually pays more and does not have the option to skip.

            This is clearly a revenue-increasing model for Adobe, and I recognize the increased cost of doing business with them.

            You are attempting to justify retaining your current spending strategy, which is understandable. Adobe is telling you “no”, but John is offering to take suggestions up the chain. Those suggestions have to be reasonable in context of the new model, not going backwards.

            There are two components to this discussion: future access to your own work; overall price.

            I don’t think you’ll see any relieve on the pricing. Adjust what you charge your clients or move to another tool.

            Adobe wants to make money, and are targeting bigger customers. I don’t happen to agree with it, but your counter proposals are not yet credible.

          • James Sinks — 3:36 PM on May 09, 2013

            Scott, pricing is secondary. Objectionable, but secondary. I can afford the Creative Cloud. I don’t need or want all of it, but I can afford it.

            The primary objection is spending thousands of dollars and winding up with nothing when you stop spending.

            I can afford the thousands of dollars. At the moment. I can afford the thousands of dollars for the forseeable future. Forseeable is the important word, not afford.

            I cannot afford the risk of losing everything due to unforeseen financial catastrophe.

        • Dan Routh — 5:04 AM on May 10, 2013

          Scott, what you don’t understand is that customers are also telling Adobe no. They are saying they will not rent period.

          • Scott Valentine — 2:03 PM on May 13, 2013

            Yeah, I get it, Dan. They are free not to rent. And Adobe is free to ignore them. Is that a wise business move? Hardly – and you’re seeing Adobe try to reconcile this. Adobe will primarily look out for Adobe, and they aren’t taken care of if they ignore the user base. Perhaps it’s time to consider that you are not part of their plan.

            However, I think the reality is they are in a state of flux. They probably know pretty well who gives them money, and they think they have a good idea where it will come from in the future. Business plans are built looking forward.

            They do make mistakes, but their view of a mistake and ours may not line up. Free markets can be harsh that way.

          • Dan Routh — 2:22 PM on May 13, 2013

            Scott, I am quite aware that if Adobe insists on this business model, I am not part of their plan. That awareness, however does not make any of this the least bit more palatable.

          • Scott Valentine — 2:39 PM on May 13, 2013

            Of course it doesn’t, nor should it. You missed the entirety of my post. There will likely be some kind of amendment that offers an option, but there may not be. I really do hope they produce a buy-out option after some length of time. As someone else noted, this is likely to reset the clock, so you would need to start a new contract or pay the much higher cost of a monthly fee ($30 for one month of PS).

    • El Aura — 5:14 PM on May 09, 2013

      “An advantage [..] of the subscription model is keeping users more or less consistent, rather than having tons of different versions floating around. That means easier collaboration as well as reduced resources supporting old versions.”

      Has Adobe ever supported multiple versions? Except maybe by trying to keep the newer version’s files to be openable by previous application versions?

      Yes, a situation where every user always uses exactly the same version seems like the perfect solution .. except that users might find it very scary if they have no chance to not install an update. If there ever should be a bug or an incompatibility with another element (software, printer, etc.), you cannot play safe anymore by first testing any software changes on a non-production machine, you outsource your IT management to Adobe.

      • antonio — 9:00 PM on May 09, 2013

        this argument of Adobe wanting all users to be on the current version holds no water, since they have said that the user doesn’t have to download and install each update that is released through Creative Cloud.

        • Scott Valentine — 12:07 PM on May 14, 2013

          You’re right – I missed that in the FAQ previously. They do freeze builds from time to time, but I suspect if you want support, you’ll have to update.

  • jlua — 2:00 PM on May 09, 2013

    No it wouldn´t. Because it still would require a mothly payment for life (!) that happens to be twice as expensive than what we pay today per version refresh cycle.

    It is that “twice as expensive” part that is the killer for me. Plus, now you can skip a version if you are not interested in the new features that were introduced in a new version. However, with the new “scheme” you have to pay whether you like what´s coming or not, and you have to keep paying for the rest of your life, and at double the cost today. That is completely unacceptable.

  • Marc — 2:02 PM on May 09, 2013

    John… I appreciate you trying to help come up with a solution to “the problem” but I’m not sure you are going to be able to. From what I see, the “main” problem everyone is having, is paying every month for something and it never becoming ours to keep. But it seems that is the whole reason Adobe is doing this… To make everyone pay, every month, and never actually get to “own” a copy of the software.

    I realize that there are “services” that you always pay for and you never get to own anything, but this is different. This is software. People want to buy a piece of software, they don’t want rent it.

    I know this has been brought up by many other people, but I’ll share my specific situation. I can’t afford a monthly payment for something that is just a hobby for me. And before you, or anyone, says “it’s not that much per month”, that’s not the point. The point is, there are only certain times when I have some extra money and can splurge on buying new software. When I get a tax refund for example.

    I can’t bring myself to pay a monthly fee just to be able to use a piece of software. Unless I knew that at some point I would get to keep it.

    • Mike Chambers — 1:16 AM on May 10, 2013


      I realize that there are “services” that you always pay for and you never get to own anything, but this is different. This is software.

      Ah, this is actually a really important point, and something that has been lost in the conversation this week. It is increasingly not just software.

      Adobe is making a fundamental shift in what it builds and sells. For the past couple of decades, we have primarily built and sold desktop software, that would then be bought and used on the desktop. This is changing. We are shifting to creating and selling a more expansive creative process and workflow, of which the apps are only one part.

      You can read more on this (and the why) at:
      http://www.adobe.com/go/creativevision

      You can find a really good diagram showing what the parts that make of the Creative Cloud at:
      http://imgur.com/NsiEVev

      We also went into a lot of detail on this in the MAX Keynote this week. You can see the relevant section at:
      http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2013/a-creative-evolution-the-creative-process/

      This shows some of the initial integration we have done between the apps and cloud, as well as some of the mobile apps and services we are working on.

      Now, I understand that a lot of people may not be interested in all of the Cloud stuff, and may say, do both. However, that presents problems, particularly over the long term.

      First, we strongly believe that building a more expansive, and connected creative process is the right path for both us, and the larger creative community. But to get there requires a lot of work, and we want to focus on that path (and not split our efforts across multiple paths).

      However, more practically, over time more and more functionality in the desktop app will be based on, and or require access to services made available via Creative Cloud. Right now that includes things like sync settings, colors, fonts, etc… but eventually could include advanced image manipulating algorithms, or other image apis (in the case of photoshop). You would still use your desktop apps, but the core processing and work could happen in the cloud via open apis.

      Why have that functionality in the cloud? Well, there are a number of advantages, including being able to do much more CPU intensive work (since we can take advantage of hardware farms in the cloud), and making the functionality open and available to other applications (including desktop, mobile, web and non-Adobe applications).

      It is this last point that I am particularly excited about. Because access to the APIs would require a Creative Cloud account, it would be in Adobe’s interest to allow anyone to use and build on top of those APIs (even traditional competitor’s to Adobe apps). This is a model good for Adobe (more Creative Cloud members), good for non-Adobe app creators (get access world class Adobe technology for their apps) and to users (have a wider range of apps and solutions). This is a huge change in incentives around Adobe technologies, as before, our incentive was to keep it as closed as possible so competitors don’t use it and eat into sales of individual products.

      Now, of course, you may say, “I don’t care about all of that stuff”, and that is completely fine. However, we do care. This is something that we think can completely change how people create, share and discover, and it is a vision that we are passionate about.

      So, in summary, it is not just software anymore.

      Anyways, hope that at least help someone understand what we are actually trying to do.

      mike chambers

      mesh@adobe.com

      • jlua — 6:50 AM on May 10, 2013

        And how do you explain to raise the upgrade cost per version refresh cycle for Photoshop to MORE THAN TWICE the cost today? Don´t you understand what we are saying, or is it that Adobe doesn´t want to understand?

      • Claudius — 8:35 AM on May 10, 2013

        “Anyways, hope that at least help someone understand what we are actually trying to do.”

        You might want to re-read that last sentence. It might come across as looking down on us. We have legitimate concerns (judging from this comments-section a LOT of us have) and you are – in essence – telling us we just don’t get what you’re trying to do?

        Gee, thanks.

        We may not fully understand how you’re doing business. But that should be OK, we don’t try to sell anything to you. You, on the other hand, try to sell ME somthing. So i think you should try harder to understand how I’M doing business.

        • Mike Chambers — 12:00 PM on May 10, 2013

          No, not looking down on anyone. If I was, I wouldn’t spend the time to post.

          However, this change has been completely lost in the conversations this week, and the focus has been almost soley on pricing / pricing model.

          Creative Cloud is not CS6. It is something much bigger, of which the apps are only a part (where as CS6 was everything). So comparing the price of CS6 to Creative Cloud is a bit of apples to oranges.

          However, I also understand (as I posted above), that some people are not interested in the other stuff in Creative Cloud. I get that. But, and again, as I posted above, we have chosen to focus on the model and solution which we think is the right path.

          As indicated by this article though, we are also trying to find solutions that will ease concerns about the new model.

          mike chambers

          mesh@adobe.com

          • Claudius — 12:12 PM on May 10, 2013

            Thanks for getting back on this one. I appreciate you taking the time to answer here.

            I guess we can assume that all of the posters here have very strong feelings for photoshop, so we’re in the same boat to some degree. We’ll figure something out.

          • jlua — 12:38 PM on May 10, 2013

            How about giving the user OPTIONS? Is that unreasonable? OPTIONS!!! Not mandatory subscribing and having to pay higher prices.

      • Durk Pearson — 11:10 AM on May 10, 2013

        No thank you. The service that you describe is not the product that I want, hence I won’t be paying for it. I have loved using (and have paid for) Photoshop from version 5 in 1998 through Version 13/CS6.

        I don’t want the rest of your suite of services, and I won’t rent Photoshop for $240 per year (and inevitably substantially more after a few years of lockin).

        I’ll just have to regretfully accept that my permanent license Photoshop CS6 is the last tool that I will ever buy from Adobe, and you will have to accept that my upgrade to permanent license CS6 Photoshop is the last of my money that you and Adobe will get. Loose/loose for both of us.

        15% of Adobe’s income currently comes from your Cloud services. Some of the other 85% of your revenue stream customers will reluctantly allow you to push them into your Cloud service contract lockin strategy.

        The others will provide a new and – until now – previously closed potential market for competitors. Are you listening Corel? Pixelmator? Apple? Microsoft? The latter two firms have huge capital and human resources that dwarf Adobe’s and are constantly looking for new opportunities to profitably deploy them. Adobe’s new policy has created a brand new opening for these titans.

        Thank you Adobe for the last 15 years of wonderful Photoshop. I’m sorry to say goodbye, but your proposed alternative doesn’t work for me.

        PS: Mike, do you own your own home or do you rent? If you aren’t renting, why not?

        • Mike Chambers — 12:08 PM on May 10, 2013

          Yes, I understand that not everyone is interested in the broader solution we are building, and are comfortable in the old model.

          As indicated by this article though, we are trying to find solutions that will address some of the concerns.

          As far as whether I rent my house. I own my house (or rather the bank does right now). I also subscribe to my file storage (dropbox), code storage and file versioning (github), project management (basecamp), photosharing (flickr), entertainment (netflix, hulu, cable, xbox online, mmo of choice. satellite radio).

          mike chambers

          mesh@adobe.com

          • Dan Routh — 12:11 PM on May 10, 2013

            Mike, for a lot of us the on solution that will work for us is if Adobe punts.

          • Dan Routh — 12:12 PM on May 10, 2013

            That’s “only solution”.

          • Peter — 12:16 PM on May 10, 2013

            I guess I am one of the few people that does not have a huge problem re: leasing a car, subscribing to cable TV, paying for electricity, water, telephone, etc. on a monthly basis, etc.

            As long as Photoshop CC will not be expensive (and the $10 per month for the first year is a bargain!) I am OK with the concept of paying a monthly fee — instead of a lump sum, up front — to upgrade from CS6.

            And if the day comes when I cannot afford the monthly subscription to Photoshop CC, I should be able to revert to working on my files with CS6 (which I will keep in my PC.) Although I may have a problem with layered PSD files that contain layers made with some feature unique to Photoshop CC.

            At least I hope my understanding of all these aspects is correct.

          • Mike Chambers — 12:29 PM on May 10, 2013

            Yes. You are understanding it correctly.

            mike chambers

            mesh@adobe.com

          • James Sinks — 4:46 PM on May 10, 2013

            Mike, the issue is that for a lot of customers, Adobe isn’t building a “broader solution”, they’re building a broader problem. And what’s more, you’re trying to spin this problem like it’s a great leap forward for Adobe customers.

          • mike chamberd — 4:53 PM on May 10, 2013

            I’m not trying to spin anything but am trying to explain Adobe’s views on this and what we are trying to build.

            I also explicitly acknowledged that we understand that not everyone may be interested in this path.

            mike chambers
            mesh@adobe.com

          • Egal — 6:42 AM on May 14, 2013

            You are trying to build a better revenue model for Adobe stakeholders. That’s nice for them, not for us.

      • anna — 2:55 AM on June 28, 2013

        I’ve been in publishing many years. Quark Express was the ONLY software out there. Evey publisher used it, therefore every printer used it, every supplier (designers, typesetters, editors, subeditors, copy editors) every freelancer used it.
        Then Quark Expressed pushed theri customers over the cliff and InDesign took over.
        Now InDesign is pushing their customers over the cliff and, hey, believe me, Quark Express has been updating their product and are poised to take over.
        I can’t wait. I rather liked Quark Express.

        • bababonga — 7:57 AM on June 28, 2013

          Me too. Always used it parallel to InDesign.
          (Would say it´s more easy to handle and faster espec. in case of “very big” documents)
          Now I kicked InDesign out & the complete Adobe Video Solutions.
          (With a few tears to all the 10thousands of Euro for all the PlugIns)
          Web-Design was easy to replace.
          Last problem is PS – but I think, My PS CS6 will make it the next years till competitors got their chance.

  • Eric Carlisle — 2:02 PM on May 09, 2013

    Hi John,
    I think the point being made is that we are committing to Adobe by using Adobe tools to create. Making the software a subscription service places all created work in a state of uncertain limbo. So let’s say I decide to subscribe to the Cloud service and I am confortable with paying $30 / month for an upgrade subscription. Can I be absolutely certain that Adobe will respect my best interests for the foreseeable future? Will there be a rate increase? A change in licensing terms? Anything that would change my comfort level with my subscription?

    With everything else, consumers are encouraged to buy, not rent – houses, cars, furniture, etc. Why should software be any different. I’d like to have the choice of saying “CS6 is good enough for me – I want to use it for N years, even if Adobe no longer supports it” and I have made that choice with other software.

    Now, for enterprises, that’s completely different? Rent software? Defer expenses over time? Absolutely, why shouldn’t I? I’m just surprised that after building one of the most impressive user-communities, they would take this step. It’s an injustice and will serve to disperse the community.

    If you REALLY want my advice of how to make a subscription service work, give the user perpetual rights to the software after N months as a loyalty initiative. That way, the user can defer their expenses over time, but can look forward to eventually being owners. That, in my opinion, is a Michael Scott WIN WIN WIN.

    Thoughts?

    A share the following URLs as indications of how Adobe’s decisions are upsetting their customers.

    https://www.facebook.com/DontKillFireworks

    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dont-kill-adobe-fireworks/

    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-don-t-kill-adobe-fireworks

    https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/adobe-com-release-adobe-fireworks-to-open-source

  • Leigh — 2:05 PM on May 09, 2013

    Maybe Adobe should let you keep what you have as-is at the completion of your contract, obviously with no services, upgrades etc. It would be nice to at least have something to show for putting in thousands of dollars in subscription fees over the years.

  • Chris — 2:14 PM on May 09, 2013

    Why not use the current ability of users to download old versions to allay their CC concerns? Give everyone who subscribes to CC for at least 1 year a perpetual license to CS6 MC.

  • Rene Hache — 2:15 PM on May 09, 2013

    I think Alan Ralph has it pretty spot on. Allowing the opening, printing and exporting of documents after expiration is fair.

    However DO NOT mistake “fair” for “ideal”.

    Ideal for me would be the ability to do what I want with documents that were created before my subscription expired. I would even be fine with a minimum charge for those who cancel their subscription early.

    There is a big difference between an online service — like Basecamp, for example — using a subscription model and software where you create original art. Maybe that distinction will be blurred once everything is on the cloud, but for something like video editing and graphic design that reality is a long way away.

  • Richard Earney — 2:23 PM on May 09, 2013

    I would add an end of lease fee if desired. But all Photoshop CC renters should also get a copy of CS6, so that there is the possibility of going back to a version which will sort of work for a while.
    It isn’t a panacea, but there isn’t an obvious way of squaring the circle unless Adobe relents, which I can’t see them doing, nor do I think they should.

  • David Anthony Rogers — 2:23 PM on May 09, 2013

    Scouring through what seems like thousands of comments, posts, and responses, a recurring theme is heard over and over.

    Between the misinformation and disinformation and downright idiotic conclusions of what CC is and is not, I get the impression that what people are upset about is the ownership of a product. Sure we never actually owned anything (EULA and all that) but lets for the sake of argument equate having discs in hand after purchase – ownership.

    After the CC contract has come to term the user is left with nothing in hand. That is the problem. Up to now, if a user decided not to upgrade they did so with the knowledge that they could not access new features from newer releases but they could continue to use the software they already “owned”.

    I dont believe a reader version of any software is the answer or any form of solution. Theres only one reason I want to open a PSD, AI,ID file, and that is to do something to it.

    A buyout at the termination of the contract is probably the best way to calm a lot of fears now. Locking the account from upgrades but still allowing all the functionality the user has become used to. Just as if someone made a decision that CS 3 or 4 was all they needed, perhaps CC2013 is sufficient until such time they either have funds available or a feature is introduced that will enhance their workflow enough to sign up for another contract.

    The “out” fee would need to be less than a continuing year of a contract but sufficient for Adobe to recover lost subscriptions. That can only be solved by the business minds and not the creative users.

    Month to month users get no such benefit.

  • Jack Foster Mancilla — 2:36 PM on May 09, 2013

    For me, there is no other software for Photography, and the application of the photographic results elsewhere, than the Adobe Suite.

    But the price, while seeming inconsequential to you, is abhorrent in todays income scheme, where point-and-shootilists are taking jobs away from photographers, where every mothers child, with a camera, is calling themselves photographers. We are working in a declining income profession, trying to live off the fruits of our labors using exceptional tools provided by Adobe. All other photography tools are second-best, at best. …

    And Adobe is raising the prices, as well as cutting of access to what we have paid for as soon as we cannot come up with the scratch.

    Adobe is offering a student price like a cocaine dealer. Get ‘em hooked, then milk ‘em dry.

    Today, I am very unhappy with Adobe’s direction.

    Jack

  • Mike — 2:42 PM on May 09, 2013

    I’m not into the end of lease fee idea. Suppose you subscribe for 5 years. That’s 5x12x$50 = $3000. After $3000, I would feel like I’ve earned the right to keep using the software, just leave me out of future updates.

    I don’t know what that cutoff should be, but certainly at some point it would feel right. 10 years/$6000 (too much, I think)? 2 years/$1200 (maybe)?

    Seems another benefit of this would be to keep Adobe on its toes. Once I’ve reached the point of my opt-out clause, Adobe better have some new features coming to keep me subscribed, otherwise too many people would take the opt-out clause.

    Of course such a plan may not be in Adobe’s short-term financial interest, but sometimes you’ve got to think of the customer’s interests. Customer happiness isn’t easy to enter into a spreadsheet, but in my experience it matters.

    • Scott Valentine — 3:06 PM on May 09, 2013

      Except that at the end of 5 years, you’ve also benefited from multiple enhancements and fixes. So today’s price does not account for these upgrades.

      Consider that if you skip 5 years, you’ve missed two versions at a minimum. For the $3k starting price, you’ve now got to consider at least two upgrade prices, bringing you closer to $4500. It might be reasonable to ask to pay the difference plus a premium to keep people from just trying to circumvent the structure.

  • Jack Foster Mancilla — 2:45 PM on May 09, 2013

    One other thing. … The concern over a lapsed rental is not so much a concern that we lose access to our work, the concern, nay the fear, is that we lose access to our abilities.

    As we learn more and more, the rental model threatens to cut off my brain, eye, and hand connections.

    The threat to those abilities is bug-nuts crazy.

  • David Remley — 2:45 PM on May 09, 2013

    I don’t lease and I don’t rent… and that applies to software too.

  • Andrew Rodney — 2:47 PM on May 09, 2013

    >>John Nack is talking about only allowing us to print or export our PSDs (and if you think we’re going to get layers exported…well…I’ll just leave it at that). That’s pretty much the definition of read only. You can’t change the file.

    I can see that IF you never owned a copy of Photoshop but if you do, use that older copy. As long as the newer functionally isn’t an issue, you CAN move backwards. I’ve done it (CC to CS6).

    >>I don’t want to move backwards.

    IF you move off subscription you have to either move backwards (using an older version of Photoshop which should support most of the functionality) or move to a different product which supports far less or NONE. Or just stop working on images files .

    >>If I pay for the Creative Cloud–for a year ($360 at intro price), or two years ($960 counting intro price), or three years ($1560 counting intro price)–I want to be able to use the software I have paid for at the end of my term.

    Understood, that’s when you buy out your lease and own CC, but it’s going to be expensive. Just like it’s far more expensive to buy out your car lease instead of just making payments monthly to own. Again, if Adobe has us by the short hairs with a subscription that never ends, they are not going to let us out of the lease and own (with no future support or upgrades) without asking for further and excessive compensation. But at least you are out of your lease and you can work with the CC version you’ve been leasing.

    OR don’t get the lease buy out, use an older version of Photoshop understanding you may lose editing flexibility or a different company’s product (you lose even more flexibility).

    • James Sinks — 3:09 PM on May 09, 2013

      >>John Nack is talking about only allowing us to print or export our PSDs (and if you think we’re going to get layers exported…well…I’ll just leave it at that). That’s pretty much the definition of read only. You can’t change the file.

      “I can see that IF you never owned a copy of Photoshop but if you do, use that older copy. As long as the newer functionally isn’t an issue, you CAN move backwards. I’ve done it (CC to CS6).”

      For now. Only for now. The minute Adobe start screwing around with PSDs, our only options will be the flattened preview or paying Adobe. Again. The day will also come when ACR updates go cloud only, and at that point anyone with a post-CS6 camera is in a world of hurt.

      >>I don’t want to move backwards.

      “IF you move off subscription you have to either move backwards (using an older version of Photoshop which should support most of the functionality) or move to a different product which supports far less or NONE. Or just stop working on images files .”

      And that is exactly what people object to. You don’t seem to understand the fundamental problem people have to the creative cloud: paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a product and winding away with nothing except a bunch of locked down files if they decide to stop forking over.

      >>If I pay for the Creative Cloud–for a year ($360 at intro price), or two years ($960 counting intro price), or three years ($1560 counting intro price)–I want to be able to use the software I have paid for at the end of my term.

      “Understood, that’s when you buy out your lease and own CC, but it’s going to be expensive. Just like it’s far more expensive to buy out your car lease instead of just making payments monthly to own.”

      How is what I have described not “payments monthly to own”? What I have suggested is the very definition of lease to own: pay every month, own it at the end (perhaps with a $1-to-own clause, as some leases are fond of including). The CC’s pricing scheme is already the classic lease-style scam where you pay a lot more than you would if you actually bought the product outright.

      • Andrew Rodney — 3:57 PM on May 09, 2013

        >>paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a product and winding away with nothing except a bunch of locked down files if they decide to stop forking over.

        I don’t see how you’ve got a bunch of locked down files simply due to a new model of ‘selling’ software. Do you realize that this has been the case since day 1, that if you have a layered PDS or TIFF, the only way you can edit them is with Photoshop. IF you want out of that mode, you can save a layered TIFF. The files, the assets are still yours you just need to better handle that data IF you decide to move away from the product that created them.

        You have piles of images that ARE yours. You want to edit them, fine. HOW? You want to use PS layers, you’ve locked yourself into PS technology. It’s as simple as that. No one forced you to make proprietary edits with layers that only an Adobe product can understand and edit. You are free to produce a non proprietary image file format where all those edits are baked (Flatten).

        You don’t wind away with nothing! You end up with edited image files which is exactly what Photoshop as a tool provides.

        • James Sinks — 4:06 PM on May 09, 2013

          “I don’t see how you’ve got a bunch of locked down files simply due to a new model of ‘selling’ software.”

          I DON’T have a bunch of locked down files because I have not subscribed to the Creative Cloud. I have no intention of doing so because it’s a terrible idea.

          If I do go CC and I stop paying after a year, or two years, or ten years, I have nothing except what can be interpreted in CS6 or third party software package (or some read-only interpreter like John Nack is suggesting). After paying thousands of dollars to Adobe, that is unacceptable. Not just to me, but for thousands of other users as well.

          We want to own our software, not rent it.

          This is clearly not a concept you grasp.

          I’ve put it as simply as I can, several times. If you don’t get it by now, you never will.

          • Andrew Rodney — 4:17 PM on May 09, 2013

            >>If I do go CC and I stop paying after a year, or two years, or ten years, I have nothing except what can be interpreted in CS6

            That’s just not true! It *could* be true in a rare case or if you do something really silly prior to canceling and expecting you can take those files elsewhere. A properly saved TIFF from CC can be opened in hundreds of products. They do NOT cease to exist. This is FUD. I’m actually surprised John is playing into this, it never has to happen.

            [I'm not trying to play into anything; I just can't keep up with the volume of comments! --J.]

            I can open a CS6 generated TIFF in Photoshop 1.0.7! With layers? NO WAY. I understand how silly it is to expect Photoshop 1.0 to open a layered TIFF or PSD. I actually understand how this stuff works. So prior to pulling the plug, IF I wanted to open that data in a 23 year old copy of Photoshop, I’d save it as a flatted TIFF.

            IF you are a dumb user, do this: Subscribe to CC. Build image files with proprietary processing. Then pull the plug and try opening that data to edit in another application. You’ll be in for a rude awaking. But NONE of this is any different from expecting something unique to Photoshop CS6 can not be accessed in CS5.

          • James Sinks — 4:33 PM on May 09, 2013

            >>If I do go CC and I stop paying after a year, or two years, or ten years, I have nothing except what can be interpreted in CS6

            “That’s just not true! It *could* be true in a rare case or if you do something really silly prior to canceling and expecting you can take those files elsewhere. A properly saved TIFF from CC can be opened in hundreds of products. They do NOT cease to exist. This is FUD. I’m actually surprised John is playing into this, it never has to happen.”

            At no point did I say my files would disappear. I said that would be locked down and I would be limited in how I could use them based on what CS6 or third party software could interpret. Stop putting words in my mouth, Andrew. Stop misrepresenting my statements. Stop making strawmen.

            Your argument seems to be: you can always save all your files (including raws) as tiffs without smart objects and vectors and type layers.

            Guess what, Andrew: I paid for Photoshop because I needed Photoshop’s features–competent color management, smart objects, type, etc. If I could get by with MSpaint, Irfanview, and adjusting my monitor by fiddling the saturation control, I would.

            “I can open a CS6 generated TIFF in Photoshop 1.0.7! With layers? NO WAY. I understand how silly it is to expect Photoshop 1.0 to open a layered TIFF or PSD. I actually understand how this stuff works. So prior to pulling the plug, IF I wanted to open that data in a 23 year old copy of Photoshop, I’d save it as a flatted TIFF.”

            At no point have I said Adobe should make their files backwards compatible. Never. Ever. I haven’t even considered it. I don’t expect Indesign CS6 files to open without a hitch in Indesign CS4. I don’t expect Indesign CC files to open without a hitch in Indesign CS6. I don’t expect a 8 gig PSB with nested smart objects, smart filters, and smart tranformations to open in Photoshop 2.5.

            I do, however, expect to be able to use the software that I paid for for as long as I want.

            Since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in, let me say this again:

            I want to own my software. I want to use it for as long as I like, for whatever purposes I see fit. I do not want to rent. I do not want to lease. I want to own.

          • Andrew Rodney — 4:55 PM on May 09, 2013

            >>At no point did I say my files would disappear. I said that would be locked down and I would be limited in how I could use them based on what CS6 or third party software could interpret.

            Again, that’s untrue.

            Sorry, it isn’t my intent to put words into your mouth. Let’s look at this logically and if my logic is flawed, show me how.

            You have CS6 yes? If so, nothing stops you from moving from CC back to CS6. As long as you do so smartly. By understanding what is unique and proprietary to CC and what isn’t. But assuming you have no interest in CC, you own CS6 and nothing stops you from using it until you can’t. Where is the lock down and limitation you refer to?

            I understand some would like to work with CC and it’s new features and possibly go back to an older version (CS6). I though I explained why this isn’t possible. Any more than Photoshop 2 can read a Photoshop 3 document. You CAN lock yourself out if you’re not working smart.

            >>Your argument seems to be: you can always save all your files (including raws) as tiffs without smart objects and vectors and type layers.

            Yes although I recognize it’s not the ideal situation. But proprietary functionality which is version specific is proprietary. Doesn’t matter if we are talking Photoshop or MS Word!

            >>I paid for Photoshop because I needed Photoshop’s features–competent color management, smart objects, type, etc.

            Yes you did and you got the functionality you paid for no? And considering a large amount of what you paid for is unique to Adobe processing, you either have to stick with it, save a compatible file format to move on, or don’t move on. Nothing here has changed in terms of this forward/backward movement of versions.

            What’s changed is the mindset that we’ll use Photoshop version X and then upgrade to version Y and later version Z and go FORWARD forever, ignoring going back, or misunderstanding this is all proprietary processing could eventually affect you. Subscription doesn’t change this, it changes your options IF you decide to get off the Adobe train. Prior to this huge shitstorm Adobe brought onto itself, no one ever considered going back to an older version (and if they did, hope they make a good game plan).

            There’s stuff not to like in this new plan. The inability to access your data isn’t one unless you paint yourself into a corner.

            >>At no point have I said Adobe should make their files backwards compatible.

            YET THEY ARE! The processing isn’t. If someone insist in moving the wrong direction in terms of processing, they are going to screw yourself.

            >>I do, however, expect to be able to use the software that I paid for for as long as I want.

            And how does this not occur for you as an owner of CS6 or even an earlier version of Photoshop?

            >>I want to own my software.

            Then the answer is really simple, you can’t upgrade to CC. And that’s fine with me.

          • James Sinks — 5:39 PM on May 09, 2013

            Andrew, let me start by saying that I’m getting a little irritated. It’s not personal, and please don’t take it as such.

            >>At no point did I say my files would disappear. I said that would be locked down and I would be limited in how I could use them based on what CS6 or third party software could interpret.

            “Again, that’s untrue.”

            I’m sorry, but how is that untrue? If I make a bunch of files in Photoshop CC and then lose CC, I am limited in how I can use those files based on how CS6 or third party software can interpret them. I mean, that’s pretty obvious. You’ve even said similar things yourself in this very discussion.

            “You have CS6 yes? If so, nothing stops you from moving from CC back to CS6. As long as you do so smartly. By understanding what is unique and proprietary to CC and what isn’t. But assuming you have no interest in CC, you own CS6 and nothing stops you from using it until you can’t.”

            And that’s pretty much what I plan on doing. And I’m not happy about it.

            “Where is the lock down and limitation you refer to?”

            At the moment, there’s nothing too onerous. As CS6 and the CC diverge, however, it will get worse. Try opening an Indesign CS6 doc in Indesign CS2. Try opening a big PSB from CS6 with lotsa layers and smart objects in CS1. But that’s not what I care about.

            >>I paid for Photoshop because I needed Photoshop’s features–competent color management, smart objects, type, etc.

            “Yes you did and you got the functionality you paid for no?”

            Yup. And not only did I get it, I still get it. For what I paid, that’s what I expect.

            “And considering a large amount of what you paid for is unique to Adobe processing, you either have to stick with it, save a compatible file format to move on, or don’t move on. Nothing here has changed in terms of this forward/backward movement of versions.”

            I don’t care about backwards movement. This seems to be what you don’t get: I want to give Adobe money and get something I own in return. Own forever, not rent. I don’t care if my CC files won’t open in CS6. I really don’t. What I want is to be able to open my CC files in CC after paying thousands of dollars to Adobe. I want to use the software I’ve paid Adobe for for as long as I want.

            “What’s changed is the mindset that we’ll use Photoshop version X and then upgrade to version Y and later version Z and go FORWARD forever, ignoring going back, or misunderstanding this is all proprietary processing could eventually affect you. Subscription doesn’t change this, it changes your options IF you decide to get off the Adobe train. Prior to this huge shitstorm Adobe brought onto itself, no one ever considered going back to an older version (and if they did, hope they make a good game plan).”

            There are plenty of people who’ve rolled back to previous versions due to bugs or keep old versions around because plugin XYZ only works in an old version. For me personally, CS4 was a nightmare and I spent the first few months installing the latest updates, then immediately uninstalling the suite and reinstalling it without updates in because the bugs in the updates were worse than the bugs in the unpatched software.

            “There’s stuff not to like in this new plan. The inability to access your data isn’t one unless you paint yourself into a corner.”

            And there I disagree with you. Strongly.

            A bug in the authentication software or DRM isn’t painting yourself into a corner.

            Adobe being DDOSed so that authentication fails half the time and discovering that hold time calling Adobe India for support is three hours isn’t painting yourself into a corner either.

            Giardia, lyme disease, $25,000 in hospital bills and six months bedridden aren’t painting yourself into a corner either. With perpetual licenses, as soon as you can use a keyboard and mouse again, you just fire up CS6 and start chasing clients. With subscriptions, you have to figure out how to pay another monthly bill when your credit cards are already maxed out and you have nothing in the bank.

            >>At no point have I said Adobe should make their files backwards compatible.

            “YET THEY ARE! The processing isn’t. If someone insist in moving the wrong direction in terms of processing, they are going to screw yourself.”

            Well yes, that rather goes without saying, doesn’t it? I use smart filters. I use smart transformations. Those are the kinds of things that CC is going to wind up screwing with down the road. But again, personally, I don’t care about backwards compatibility. I want to open my files in the software I created them with, not something eight versions back.

            >>I do, however, expect to be able to use the software that I paid for for as long as I want.

            “And how does this not occur for you as an owner of CS6 or even an earlier version of Photoshop?”

            I do use CS6. I will continue to do so. I’m not going to the cloud. I’m an Adobe customer, I’m not happy with their new products, and I’m letting them know.

            >>I want to own my software.

            “Then the answer is really simple, you can’t upgrade to CC. And that’s fine with me.”

            And it’s not fine with me. I am an Adobe customer, and I am complaining–vociferously–about their move to subscriptions.

          • Andrew Rodney — 6:01 PM on May 09, 2013

            >>If I make a bunch of files in Photoshop CC and then lose CC, I am limited in how I can use those files based on how CS6.

            To some degree you are. How and why did you lose a newer version that has unique processing capabilities? Before you lost CC, did you prepare your data for backwards compatibly using the processes I discussed? You lost CC because you purposely decided to lose it. And you may have used newer processes in that product that isn’t available in the older product. Hardly rocket science.

            >>I mean, that’s pretty obvious

            The above is pretty obvious to me. Going from newer to older software means you have to fix what you just did (decide to use older software that has less support for new processing). You can’t have it both ways and this has zero to do with rent, subscription or buy.

            >>At the moment, there’s nothing too onerous.

            OK when the FUD is real and too onerous, let’s talk. Until then, keep in mind that what you are proposing to do is not recommended and I don’t know of ANYONE over the 30 years I’ve been working on a computer would recommend moving from a newer to older piece of software AND expecting everything will work.

            >>Try opening an Indesign CS6 doc in Indesign CS2.

            Why would I do that? It’s like saying try opening an InDesign CS6 doc in MS Word. Or Photoshop 3 layered doc’s in Photoshop 1. Isn’t it clear not only will this not work, it’s kind of a silly idea?

            Is the concept of new software versions not supporting older software that has new functionality new to you?

            >I don’t care about backwards movement.

            Then why would you say: Try opening an Indesign CS6 doc in Indesign CS2? Don’t we both agree it’s silly?

            >>There are plenty of people who’ve rolled back to previous versions due to bugs or keep old versions around because plugin XYZ only works in an old version.

            I’m one of them. Doesn’t change what I’ve written a lick. Going back isn’t 100% guaranteed, never was, never promised.

            >>Well yes, that rather goes without saying, doesn’t it?

            I thought so!

            >> I use smart filters. I use smart transformations. Those are the kinds of things that CC is going to wind up screwing with down the road.

            Yes, it will IF you go to an older version. Because the newer proprietary processing you just decided to use can’t be used in an older version (I thought you said: I don’t care about backwards movement. Please make up your minds ).

            >>But again, personally, I don’t care about backwards compatibility. I want to open my files in the software I created them with, not something eight versions back.

            So confusing… now you don’t care about going backwards. So what’s the problem? You will not rent the new product, that’s fine. You own CS6, keep using it. There’s no going backwards, there’s no going forward.

          • James Sinks — 7:33 PM on May 09, 2013

            >>At the moment, there’s nothing too onerous.

            “OK when the FUD is real and too onerous, let’s talk.”

            Andrew, you yourself said that expecting to open a CS6 PSD in Photoshop 2 was ridiculous. Do you honestly think that five or ten years down the line a CC PSD isn’t going to be problematic in CS6?

            But again, I do not care about that. The ability to open CC files in CS6 is irrelevant. The ability to open files in (and continue using) CC after paying thousands of dollars to Adobe is the issue.

            And before you say it, cost is not the issue. Ownership is.

            Also, making future predictions based on past and current events isn’t FUD. Especially when the prediction is “Down the line, CC files are going to be real hard to deal with in CS6.”

            “Until then, keep in mind that what you are proposing to do is not recommended and I don’t know of ANYONE over the 30 years I’ve been working on a computer would recommend moving from a newer to older piece of software AND expecting everything will work.”

            Andrew, I have said over and over and over again that I DO NOT WANT TO MOVE BACKWARDS. I do not recommend it. I have never recommended it. I do not think it is a solution because IT IS NOT A SOLUTION.

            “So confusing… now you don’t care about going backwards. So what’s the problem? You will not rent the new product, that’s fine. You own CS6, keep using it. There’s no going backwards, there’s no going forward.”

            The problem, Andrew, as I keep stating and restating, is:

            I am an Adobe customer. I use the Creative Suite. I wish to remain an Adobe customer. I wish to continue BUYING ADOBE SOFTWARE. I do not want to rent it. What is so hard to grasp about that that it requires endless explanation?

            I truly do not give a damn about opening CC files in CS6 any more than I gave a damn about opening CS6 files in CS2.

            I don’t understand why this is isn’t sinking in, so I’ll say it again as simply as I can:

            I am an Adobe customer. Paid up and street legal from Photoshop 5.0 to Design and Web Premium CS6. I want to buy Adobe software. I want to use the latest and greatest and I am happy pay for the privilege…but I want to own my software, not rent it.

            I’m well within my rights to complain about this latest move, just as you are well within your rights to defend it.

        • ButchM — 6:20 PM on May 10, 2013

          Apparently you just don’t get it (or you really do and don’t care to acknowledge it) that you can shout from the highest point on the planet “FUD!” or “YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND RENTAL AGREEMENTS!” and it will not change the fact that the upper echelon of executives at Adobe screwed the pooch on this effort.

          For every individual that has responded to this blog, there is likely 100 if not a thousand users that even are aware that this blog or the new licensing agreement even exists …There will be more than a few who will show up in the coming months ready and willing to exchange their hard-earned currency for the next upgrade to Ps only to discover they have been hung out to dry months ago by a select few that believe they know better.

          It’s time that even YOU admit, Adobe screwed up and alienated a very significant “layer of revenue” they once thought they owned without question.

          While Ps may have been originally developed as a graphic arts tool set long ago … that ship has sailed because Adobe made no effort to warn us that our currency was misplaced in order to advance the cause to help create what Adobe is today.

          Adobe made a grave error … not we users …the ball is in their court … no matter how you wish to address it …THEY made the error in judgment … not their loyal customers. Either they assumed we were too stupid or too lazy to recognize we are being taken for granted. Either way it boggles the mind they are willing to turn their backs on that income … no matter how inconsequential they once thought it was.

          Whether it is San Jose, Cupertino, Bellevue or a place yet yo be designated … some enterprising entrepreneur WILL hear us … by then it will be too little … too late … for Adobe to recoup the loss.

          • El Aura — 7:12 PM on May 10, 2013

            “Adobe made a grave error … not we users …the ball is in their court”
            You play a high stakes game. Your hope is that Adobe rather reverses course than loosing you and suffer the bad publicity you cause them.

            But what if Adobe says: ‘Good riddance, we’ll make more money with subscriptions even if we loose 30% of our customers and are loathed by most.’ Then you’ve achieved zero (except getting some personal satisfaction).

            If you however offered constructive discussion about a compromise, you might convince Adobe that by offering a compromise solution it might even make more money.

            The question is really how likely you think it is that Adobe will go ahead with this despite being confronted with people that react like you. And how likely it is that constructive dialogue will achieve something. For example, if there is a 1% chance of getting what you want and a 30% chance of getting a compromise, what is rationally your best path of action?

            Of course, there can be both, a bad cop good cop approach. But I don’t think that the bad cop fighting with the good cop publicly over strategy is the most effective move.

  • David Biedny — 2:48 PM on May 09, 2013

    The short answer, John, is that yes, it seems to me like your proposed solution would indeed be a productive, acceptable one.

  • Cian Walsh — 2:51 PM on May 09, 2013

    I was looking at the CC ecosystem and it did seem attractive to be able to move and adapt your workflow as new apps and features get added. I live inside the iOS world and there’s some degree of lockin there with an inability to move “files” outside of that ecosystem once you buy into the business model.

    My one concern probably echoes the points here in that losing access to an app after paying for 1-2 years is the one huge mental shift for me. What was an application/tool is now being turned into a service but it should be my needs that make me turn to that service. I moved to using Spotify daily instead of iTunes since it suited my needs better but I know I still have the ability to use iTunes for offline use and the two can exist alongside each other. With CC currently, I have no backup model if I cannot pay the subscription anymore. My use of the CS3 applications still provides me with a great deal of value and when I made a judgement call that my workflow didn’t require CS6, there was no impact to anyone except Adobe sales.

    Losing control of what you consider a good enough amount of functionality for your job is a wrench. If there was a waypoint which allowed you to keep something like Photoshop CC (Oct 2014) at the end of your yearly commitment with no updates, it would go a long way to making CC something that didn’t upend decades of software as a tool.

  • Claudius — 2:56 PM on May 09, 2013

    For me, as a professional who earns money with this software, this would somewhat mitigate the problem. Maybe to the point that i’d actually sign up. But i’d have to re-evaluate the offers. And i still think that the deal got worse (for many calculation examples, head over to Scott Kelby’s blog he was recently on the receiving end of a minor shitstorm on this topic).

    For me, as a private digital media enthusiast, the CC offers are not really affordable. You could set aside some money and run for a few years with one version of photoshop (i used PS6 well into the CS era). PS elements is not really a substitute once you get used to the real thing.

    For me, as a former student, i wonder why (i may well have misunderstood this part) there’s only one offer for students and this seems to be limited to 12 months?

    For me, as a contributor to a 501c-like entity (german “gemeinnütziger Verein”), it’s really not possible to buy software on a subscription basis. If it’s a regular cost, i’ll just not get a green light for “buying”, well actually renting it.

    I am in a lot of different roles, and for most of them, the “old” offer still seems more fitting. It certainly seems more affordable.

    I am very interested in how all of this turns out. But right now, i don’t really see myself jumping on the CC wagon.

  • Rick Popham — 2:56 PM on May 09, 2013

    I posted this suggestion the other day in the “Adobe Brass” thread:

    “John,

    You’ve mentioned before on this blog that Adobe may need to do a better job of earning our business, and asked what would make us happy.

    As a long time Photoshop Standard customer, these are my problems with the CC:

    You’re trying to sell me a service I don’t want;
    Based on features I don’t need;
    And you want me to pay twice what I’m paying now.

    But I’ve been thinking. Adobe is still selling the perpetual version of CS6, and has said it will update ACR, etc.

    Adobe has said it has no plans to develop further perpetual versions. But, every couple of years or so, why can’t you take a snapshot of the current state of CC, lock in the feature set, and offer it as an upgrade to perpetual customers? Hasn’t it already been “developed”? Treat it the same way you’re treating CS6 now, with the same type of updates — ACR, etc.

    Perpetual customers will remain a generation behind, but reasonably up to date — CC will still be the star of the show.

    Adobe could also offer this version at the upgrade price for CC customers who don’t wish to re-subscribe at the end of their contract. It might even draw more customers to CC because it would eliminate a lot of the angst about losing everything if it wasn’t possible to continue subscribing.

    Something like this would make ME happy. I want a solid, stable image editor that I can spend time with, not a moving target that’s constantly changing.

    The way things stand now, I won’t spend a dime on CC.

    • Dan Routh — 3:39 PM on May 09, 2013

      Rick, a reasonable proposal. Otherwise we wait for another developer to create something that does what we do now, and they offer to sell us a perpetual license for the same price and the same upgrade path Adobe used to offer. Sounds like a sure thing since Adobe already proved they could make billions using that scheme.

    • El Aura — 6:01 PM on May 09, 2013

      Rick, was is the difference between your proposal and the status quo as it existed until now? At first sight very little.

      So, why then doesn’t Adobe want to continue the status quo? They’ve released PS 13.0.1, 13.0.2, 13.0.3, 13.05, 13.1, 13.1.1 and 13.1.2. Apparently, developing and pushing out those updates to individual users on a discrete, version-based schedule was not identical to the way they were pushed out to CC users. One difference is that there are obviously free and payable updates for conventional licenses whereas such a distinction does not exist for CC users. To keep things a bit more tidy, conventional users get changes bundled into a few updates whereas CC users could get every change as it was finished on a daily basis.

      To release an annual snapshot would require extra care and testing to go into that snapshot but it would also orphan those snapshots if one week after their release a bug or security problem was discovered.

      I think the main problems here are that Adobe would not want to ‘sell’ something (via a buyout of those annual snapshots) that receives zero maintenance (maybe even for legal reasons) and that Adobe does not want to worry about whether files created with snapshot 2014 can be opened with snapshot 2013 or if files created with snapshot 2013 would crash snapshot 2014. Short-term, Adobe wants to deal with two formats only: CS6 and whatever is current. Long-term it only wants to worry about opening any previous file (though in reality there will be limits on how much newer versions will break files from older versions) with the current version of the application.

      • Rick Popham — 6:56 PM on May 09, 2013

        El Aura,

        I’m not a programmer, and I don’t know how all this stuff goes together. But I don’t think that what I proposed is the “former” status quo. The “snapshots” would be a generation behind, like CS6 is now, and supported like CS6 — that is, minimally, with bug and ACR. I suggested every couple of years, not annually, but whatever.

        They would have to only deal with two formats (if there even are formats): Current CC, and the last snapshot.

        Adobe might balk at letting perpetual users upgrade to these snapshots — I don’t know. It seems reasonable to me, but I don’t know what Adobe is thinking. I have honestly never encountered a company that worked so hard to lose my business.

        • El Aura — 7:28 PM on May 09, 2013

          “The “snapshots” would be a generation behind, like CS6 is now, and supported like CS6 — that is, minimally, with bug and ACR. They would have to only deal with two formats (if there even are formats): Current CC, and the last snapshot.”

          But that is the status quo. Currently CS6 is supported minimally (as would be the snapshots in the future) and there are two versions to worry about, the last snapshot (CS6) and the current CC. And that is the system Adobe wants to leave so it only has to support the current CC version.

          • Rick Popham — 7:41 PM on May 09, 2013

            Ah. I thought you meant when they were supporting both CS6 and the “Cloud” version of CS6. Sorry about that.

            Well, it doesn’t matter. They’ll never implement it. We’ll get something like Acrobat Reader for CC files. Rather, the CC subscribers will get that reader. I’ll be checking out exit strategies.

  • Mike Milo — 3:08 PM on May 09, 2013

    I feel that the problem that Adobe is not seeing (or is ignoring) is the plight and business model of the creative artist in general. The guy who does freelance to make his money. Many of them do not have a steady job and work gig to gig instead of for a studio (which then pays for the software themselves).

    Let’s say you get a gig and buy Photoshop with the way it has always been until now. You add the price of your budget and boom you’ve got Photoshop now for eternity because like it or not Photoshop CS3 is still pretty damn awesome on it’s own. Now you can make money with that version (that you legally paid for) and produce more money for yourself because you own it outright free and clear. You can also work on other things in between jobs.

    I personally use Flash CS3 a lot which I bought when I had a high paying gig years ago along with the entire Creative Suite. I’ve made my money back many times with it getting new jobs over and over. But those jobs were never STEADY and there were many many dry times where months would go by where there was not a gig coming in. Did that mean I stopped being an artist? Stopped animating? Stopped creating? No. Of course not, but with Creative Cloud I would have had to pay monthly for that privilege to use the software each month.

    With the Creative Cloud way, everything changes. In the new scenario, you buy the Cloud, pay for it for the length of the gig and then when you don’t have money to continue the payments, you lose it. Flat out. Gone. All the stuff you’ve done is useless to you unless you pay the extortion fee to use it again. Because that’s really what it is; extortion.

    Using the scenario above about the car, yes at least at the end of the lease you can pay off the rest of the cost of the car. If you’ve got to go this way fine then at the end of the lease you have the option to pay off what’s left of what Photoshop or Flash would cost and it ends there. We should be able to end with something. Even with cellphones, you pay a monthly fee for service and get a phone at a subsidized price. At the end of the contract, you OWN the phone. You’re not forced to give it back. You own it because you paid it off. Please Adobe don’t stab the creative people with your creative dagger. We don’t make money hand over fist like you do. Give us the option to KEEP the software.

  • Jonas Hummelstrand — 3:15 PM on May 09, 2013

    Yes, that together with a frozen buy-out version without support would be a great way to relieve many of their FUD.

    I compare this to the high-end compositing application “Nuke” which will only let you download bug fixes and new releases if you are on their yearly support contract ($1155–$1470/year). If you let that lapse, you can’t get on it again without paying between 50% and 100% of the original license cost (between $4155 and $8700 depending on feature set.) you can also rent it for $1350–$2900/quarter.)

  • Richard Look — 3:51 PM on May 09, 2013

    “You should never lose access to your work, period.” John, it is very good to hear you say that. Finally, I feel like we have some common ground.

    I’m afraid that just being able to export or print is not enough. If you pay for software you should be able to own it and use it at will. It should not stop working. (Or even worse if you actually read the CC license.)

    I would like to own the software and then choose to pay for updates. I’d want to choose between an incremental plan (via subscription) or an occasional plan via a version update. Either way Adobe gets paid for their work, but maintains an incentive to innovate. The forced subscription may kill innovation as there is no incentive to make the sale.

  • Durk Pearson — 3:54 PM on May 09, 2013

    I’m sorry to say goodby and exit the Adobe Photoshop upgrade train. I’ve licensed Photoshop from Version 5.0 (way back in 1998 before digital photography was affordable to the photographic enthusiast) through CS6. I upgraded time and time again. Adobe has the right to market its software any way that it pleases, and I have the right to get off the train if the new marketing model displeases me.

    Please don’t be so arrogant as to try to tell me that I “should” love this new policy or that it is in my best interests. With all due respect, that is entirely my call, not yours.

    I am what is generally called an advanced photo enthusiast. I spent $6,000 on my Nikon supertelephoto 500mm F/4 lens, and expect to use it for at least a couple of decades. I wasn’t interested in renting one.

    I’d be happy to continue upgrading my permanent license Photoshop for a couple of hundred dollars every few years, and truly regret that Adobe is no longer interested in this sales model.

    I am far from alone in my preferences. When there is a marketplace vacuum,someone will eventually fill it. A few years from now, I’ll bite the bullet and switch to a different software vendor – with gnashing teeth due to the inevitably steep learning curve for a worthy Photoshop competitor.

    The good news for both folks like me and Adobe’s shareholders is that the shareholders will have a few years to fire Adobe’s current President and return to offering both product sales models. That can’t happen too soon as far as I am concerned…

    • Dani Staeger — 1:25 AM on May 10, 2013

      Support tihis statement to 100%

  • varela — 4:19 PM on May 09, 2013

    John, your suggestion seems sound. I don’t have much need, though, for revisiting old files. I learn as I build them, then move on.

    I’m enjoying use of my Creative Cloud subscription and expecting the best of the upcoming changes. Adobe has always treated me fairly and provided the best software for the job.

    I *do* miss the T-shirts that used to ship with Illustrator in the early days.

    Thanks.

  • Paul Howson — 4:22 PM on May 09, 2013

    This change to subscription-only fundamentally changes the relationship between Adobe and its customers. It shifts control of the relationship from the customer (who chooses if and when to pay money to Adobe) to Adobe (who chooses if and when the customer can use their tools).

    • Eric Carlisle — 4:25 PM on May 09, 2013

      … And how much the customers pay in the future. I’m sure I’m not the only one complaining that their cable bill goes up every month.

  • Eric Carlisle — 4:23 PM on May 09, 2013

    Well, it’s good to know that I’m not the only one thinking that Adobe has taken a big step in the wrong direction. I’m wondering what kind of reaction this would cause, especially at MAX, the largest opportunity for Adobe to showcase strong progress and strengthen its customer/user community. Hubris? Bad strategic planning? Lack of of per-release feedback collection? I’m hearing a lot of “I’m jumping ship!”, “WTF?” and my personal favorite, “You’ll have pull Fireworks from my cold, dead hands.”

    Adobe claims to be listening. If true, they’re getting an earful. I hope that they act upon the feedback. It’s very strong and united. Makes me less surprised of Lynch’s resignation.

  • jlua — 4:35 PM on May 09, 2013

    Please consider signing this petition to Adobe:

    https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

    • varela — 4:37 PM on May 09, 2013

      No, thanks.

      • jlua — 6:51 AM on May 13, 2013

        Varela: The petition says to eliminate the “Mandatory” subscription model, not to eliminate the model altogether. Why would anyone be against having a choice?

  • Jim47 — 4:36 PM on May 09, 2013

    What about the hundreds, or thousands of hours of work that went into saved non-destructive layers and adjustments? That will all be gone once you stop paying.

    [No, it won't. It *is* true that no other app exactly matches Photoshop's rendering model, so no other app can exactly reproduce what Photoshop shows (depending on the complexity of a file). But the integrity of your files isn't dependent on subscribing, and a read-only viewer would at least let you render out your file to another format. --J.]

    So it’s not entirely true to say a person’s work will not be lost.

  • Dan Routh — 4:37 PM on May 09, 2013

    “You should never lose access to your work, period.”

    Well, sorry, if you base your archive on the Photoshop format, under Adobe’s new scheme, that is inevitable. No one will be able to pay a monthly fee forever just to keep access. Again, that is forever.

  • Gayle — 4:47 PM on May 09, 2013

    John,
    To answer your original question, that solution would answer one concern. I do worry that I would lose access to my files should I am unable to continute the subscription. But…I would prefer a choice of subscribe or purchase. I have purchased every version of Photoshop for the last ten or more years and would prefer to own rather than subscribe.

  • ButchM — 4:49 PM on May 09, 2013

    John, in all honesty there is nothing you or Adobe can do that will undo the harm that was done on Monday. I’ve never regretted anything more in my professional career than the money I have invested in Adobe products since 1993. I’ve completely lost any and all trust or faith that I ever had for Adobe and question if they ever had my best interests in mind or if customer loyalty ever meant as much as their bottom line. No software developer is so good or so powerful that I would every agree to a perpetual rental agreement … because as many tenants can attest … sometimes you have to withhold the rent just get the landlord’s attention to fix the leaky pipes … something that is untenable with the Creative Cloud model. So I’ll say no thank you … I’d much rather be a home owner in a outdated, modest cottage that I can call my own than a temporary tenant in a luxury penthouse that can never be owned.

    • RHernandez — 10:31 PM on May 09, 2013

      LIKE. Well stated!

    • Landon — 7:59 AM on May 30, 2013

      Well put.

  • Spin up — 5:00 PM on May 09, 2013

    No matter what, it is clear Adobe’s clumsy launch of CC is a massive PR disaster.

    I thought nothing could be worse than Adobe’s customer service.

    I was wrong.

  • A. Dias — 5:19 PM on May 09, 2013

    At the end of a subscription period (TBD) a customer should have full access to the version of the software as of that date, indefinitely with full functionality. Further, should the software need to be re-installed (computer change, HD crash, etc.) the customer should be able to do so.

  • Stephen Best — 5:37 PM on May 09, 2013

    No. Unless there’s a viable exit strategy (even if it’s only psychological) such as keeping the fully functional software after a certain length of subscription I’m currently inclined to pass on this … even if I can see a couple of useful features in Photoshop CC 1.0.

    I know Adobe isn’t just Photoshop but this does seem like a crazy move when more and more people are questioning their need for Photoshop at all.

  • Marc Troy — 5:42 PM on May 09, 2013

    John,

    a few weeks ago I had to re-open a few Premiere projects I worked on 6 years ago. The latest Premiere CS 6 wasn’t able to open the project files at all.

    Lucky me I still had the old license and installer and the old Premiere version ran just fine in a VM. I was able to satisfy a client and therefore strengthen my business.

    With a subscription model this wouldn’t have been possible: There would be no access to older builds and there’s even the chance that you discontinue products (So, how would I open Fireworks files in, say, 5 years?).

    In my opinion getting rid of boxed applications is a big mistake, in a few years there will be “pre CC” documents that will work fine with the archived installers, and then there’s “post CC” docs that might or might not open up with the latest CC-tools.

    John, your company isn’t good enough to handle backwards compatibility this well. No company is. And why would I care about an exporter. I need to access my old docs and the tool I used to create them.

    I’d gladly pay 100% extra, just to keep my standalone installers + license.

  • William Chinn — 5:51 PM on May 09, 2013

    Is there a policy in print that when a subscription is cancelled Adobe will keep the data for x number of days?

    [Do you mean data stored in one's Creative Cloud account? I don't recall offhand, but as long as the data is in a folder that's synced with your hard drive, it doesn't really matter as you retain a local copy.

    As for whether the apps immediately stop working the day your subscription lapses, I believe there's a grace period there as well, but I don't recall its length. --J.]

  • Laurent — 6:00 PM on May 09, 2013

    JNack, dude, you are a brave, brave man. As angry as anyone is here on this thread, I hope they appreciate just how f-cking rare it is to have someone this central to the process routinely make themselves _this_ accessible (and vulnerable).

    [Thanks, Laurent. No matter what it'll always beat slinging breadsticks at the South Bend Olive Garden. #NeverGoingBack --J.]

    There’s a larger question of access to _functionality_ after subscribing — being able to edit and update files — that I can’t address. I completely understand why people are unhappy about paying hundreds / thousands of dollars to use an app for years, and get instantly cut off from using it any more. I have no idea what to do about that. I have no problem with the model when I’ve bought into it as the deal from the start, but if Microsoft or Apple announced they were going to start charging me a monthly fee to use Windows or OS X, I’d be pissed. (Although without a doubt, that’s almost certainly where they’re hoping to go, too.)

    In terms of “Your work is your property”, though, I think Google’s already modeled what you need to do. Adobe could address a lot of the concerns on that front by committing to maintaining a free, standalone “data liberation” app that meets the following criteria:

    VERSIONING
    – Always had an update released with each release version of the CC app
    – Would work with files from a certain range of older versions of CC
    – Always had older iterations still available for download, so even if the latest version didn’t handle your older files, you could DL an older form that did

    FUNCTIONALITY
    – Single / batch export individual layers, in any standard image format
    – Export any older saved file versions, undos, etc. that are stored in the document, in any standard image format
    – Export all available meta data like EXIF data, layer names, layer order, hidden / shown status, etc. using a publicly defined XML schema
    – Export all available parameters for filter settings, smart layers, etc. using a publicly defined XML schema
    – Export all custom palettes, brush definitions, etc., using a publicly defined XML schema
    – Basically, promise to export any and all information that the _user_ generated, using publicly defined standards

    Whether or not it’s actually feasible, the _goal_ should always be to export a level of detail that — if that information were re-imported back into CC — it would re-assemble back into the original file. Granted, that’s a high bar, but “my work” means _all_ the creative decisions I made are accessible and portable, not just “some”. None of the creative decisions I make about an image that can’t exist outside CC can really be considered my “property”, right? ;)

    The flip-side, of course, is that Adobe rightly has its own intellectual property at stake, too. I understand that there may be a lot of difficult lines to draw, in terms of proprietary file formats, algorithms, etc., that I don’t think Adobe has _any_ obligation to disclose. For me, the basic criterion should be that if “the user entered the data, then it should be exportable”. Anything settings that are entered into a dialog box, slider settings, should ideally be exportable, into a publicly defined format (whether that’s XML, or whatever). Whatever Adobe needs to do to obscure their proprietary file formats, code modules, etc. is fine, as far as I’m concerned. If it means putting out a sanitized XML schema that just exposes the core user params, then that’s totally fine. (From what I know, there’s a good chance that exists, already.)

  • Paul Howson — 6:08 PM on May 09, 2013

    From John’s previous post on this topic: [Let's assume that doesn't happen & think creatively about other approaches. --J.]

    The lack of practical alternatives to the key Adobe apps has allowed Adobe take control of the customer relationship by attempting to enforce a subscription-only scheme.

    It’s time for some small, nimble and innovative software companies to step in and challenge the Adobe monopoly, in the same way that Adobe stepped in and challenged the existing publishing/typesetting monopoly in the 1980s.

    One of the fledgling alternative image editor companies that has already proven their capabilities could start a crowd-funding project called “Let’s build a good enough Photoshop alternative”.

    Of course they cannot expect to replicate all of Photoshop, but if they could attract some really smart programmers and designers to their team, they could set a goal of creating a “good enough” replacement for Photoshop in, say, two years.

    The deal would be that they would promise to offer saving/exporting to publicly documented file formats, sell it at a fair price (a smaller operation would have much lower overheads than corporate Adobe) and NOT adopt a rental model.

    I get the sense there are people ready to jump from the Adobe ship if there was a “good enough” alternative.

    I would certainly make a donation as an insurance policy for the day when I might need a Photoshop exit option.

    The same could be done for a vector illustration tool.

    (Or perhaps one tool could do both. There are already examples of software which bridges the two paradigms, and Photoshop and Illustrator have been progressively encroaching on each other’s territory anyway.)

    Some Adobe apps already have viable alternatives: Premiere Pro (video editing), Audition (audio editing), Dreamweaver (web design), After Effects (video effects), etc.

    The difficult one would be InDesign. There’s a lot of arcane knowledge built into InDesign.

    History tells us that monopolies are seldom a good thing.

    Practical alternatives, i.e. real competition, is really the only long term solution. It would shift the power back into the customer’s hands.

    • Eric Carlisle — 6:14 PM on May 09, 2013

      The ideal bitmap/vector app was Fireworks, my Photoshop alternative. But…

  • Durk Pearson — 6:15 PM on May 09, 2013

    Apparently Adobe stockholders aren’t mostly happy campers, either. Since the Adobe President’s Cloud Future Only announcement, Adobe stock has lost about 6% of it’s value while the market has has gained every day…

    ["Buy on rumor, sell on news." The stock is up nearly 50% for the year and hovers near its all-time high. --J.]

    Do you own your own home? If so, how wold you react to a land use ordnance that allowed only rental homes to be upgraded?

    • Dave — 10:27 PM on May 09, 2013

      I think the corollary here is really more similar to something common in Hawaii real estate; Lease Hold or Fee Simple property ownership. Which do you think is more popular?… owning outright or holding a 99 year lease? The answer is Fee Simple, for anyone who hasn’t already guessed.

    • Claudius — 1:33 AM on May 10, 2013

      Lets not pull that stocks-statistics voodoo here. But if we must, i have two things to add to it:

      We’re fresh out of some bad years (stock wise, at least) so a 50% increase really means nothing besides “adobe performed about as well as any other stock”.

      The all-time high was around 12 years ago. adjusted for inflation, you’re not hovering anywhere near that.

      • Dan Routh — 8:50 AM on May 10, 2013

        Adobe was once the leader and cutting edge in creative digital imaging. Today they have become just a corporation that produces graphics software. Because they control a large group of proprietary formats, they now have decided that they can leverage increased profits by extorting their customers. How long do you think that will work?

  • Mark Fuqua — 6:18 PM on May 09, 2013

    Wow, seems like November 2011 all over again. You guys should have been on the Flex wagon when Adobe flipped it over. Now that REALLY sucked. The CEO of Adobe is a bit of a hardhead…I don’t see him backing down unless it really, really hits the bottom line.

  • Mark Fuqua — 6:20 PM on May 09, 2013

    I am also a Fireworks guy…Flex and now Fireworks? Adobe owes me some vasoline.

  • Brian — 6:49 PM on May 09, 2013

    I personally don’t like the idea of subscription software with no option for a perpetual license. But the short answer to your question, John, is that yes, making a read only or “viewer” option for the software once my subscription lapses would work for me.

  • Rick McCleary — 6:53 PM on May 09, 2013

    There have emerged two lines of argument with Adobe’s subscription-only concept:
    1. Cost
    2. Control

    For me, cost is not the issue that is keeping me from jumping onto the CC train. Photoshop, InDesign, Premiere, and all the rest are professional tools – by far and away the best in the business. I expect to pay for them. Whether it’s a rental, a lease, or an out-right purchase, the money spent is the cost of doing business. The current CC pricing structure doesn’t seem onerous to me. So cost is not the issue.

    The big issue is control – or the loss of it. I believe Adobe has made a major miscalculation about the anxiety they have stirred up with this move. Let me explain what I mean:

    Imagine that we’re 5 years down the road in the year 2018, having subscribed to CC in 2013. During those five years, Photoshop has gone through a process of constant evolution (…one of the stated advantages of the CC concept…) and it’s turned into an even more amazing product, able to do things we can’t even imagine now.

    Now, about that anxiety.
    During those five years, I will have created a very large volume of work, both commercial and fine art. Work that has significant dollar value for me and for my heirs. What happens when I decide to hang it up? What happens when I die? How will my heirs be able to access my work? They would have to keep a subscription active – indefinitely. For a young person who has a 30 year career ahead of them, let’s say they are 10 or 15 years down the CC path – far enough that CS6 will not do the trick with recently created files. What happens if they have a career change and want to sell real estate? In order to access their files, they would have to keep a subscription active – perpetually. Their files are beholden to their monthly Adobe payment. And, let me speak the unspeakable. Let’s say we’re 15 years down the road with CC and Adobe goes out of business. What then? (It happens – Kodak, Wang, etc… I still have an entire shelf of unreadable Kodak PhotoCDs.)

    With things as they are now, the only solution to the control/anxiety problem for me is to not get on the CC train in the first place – just stick with CS6 and turn off the “Adobe channel” so I can ignore whatever development is going on there. Anxiety gone. But none of my dollars going into Adobe’s pocket. A weak win (kind of) for me, a total loss for Adobe.

    But, there is another option. A really great idea suggested by Rick Popham.
    Keep the CC scheme, but then every couple years, take a snapshot of the current state of the software and offer it with a perpetual license for the usual upgrade price – no dot releases, no support, just a working version of the software frozen in time. If Adobe offered that, I would gladly jump on the CC train and stay on it, paying whatever they’re charging with the knowledge that I can jump off when the time is right for me. Control would be back in my hands, and my dollars would be flowing into Adobe’s pocket. Big win for me, big win for Adobe.

    • RHernandez — 7:52 PM on May 09, 2013

      Seems too simple and beneficial to customers – I doubt Adobe would do this.

      • Asbjørn — 1:31 AM on May 10, 2013

        Exactly! Thank you for explaining this so clearly. This is exactly the problem. I’m young and just getting started. How can I possibly commit to paying Adobe $80 a month for 50+ years?
        So John, sorry, but a read-only solution is NOT enough. It sure is better than nothing, but all we ask for is to be able to keep the current version after having been subscribed for a certain number of years (2-3 years should do, I think). I also wouldn’t be opposed to paying a one-time fee (maybe a year’s subscription in advance) to get off CC. Just give me the option!
        I’m not opposed to CC as such – in fact, I would love to have all these abilities, but without an option to keep the current version at the end of the subscription, I simply cannot use it.

        • Scott Valentine — 12:21 PM on May 14, 2013

          First, your example is pure hyperbole. It’s $75/mo to carry the Complete collection with an option to cancel any time. If you commit to 1 year, it’s $50/mo. And if you have ANY licensed product from CS3 or later, it’s $30/mo for the first year.

          Oh, and if you have CS6 right now, you can get Photoshop CC for $10/month.

          You’re aggrandizing to make a nonsense point.

          If you’re going to be making a living with this software, you were either going to have to pay $2500 *now* or put it on a credit card and pay over time, probably with interest. And if your business doesn’t clear enough to pay $80/mo, it’s possible that you need to raise your prices or look for other work.

          This is professional software. Figure the cost in as overhead and adjust your business accordingly. Just like you would for the $3000 laptop, your $40/mo internet connection, your $75/mo cell phone bill, your $200/mo gas bill, rent, insurance, etc.

          • Landon — 9:27 AM on May 30, 2013

            Agreed that it’s $75 for monthly/no commitment for CC and not $80 like the poster said. ~$50/month with commitment.

            The introductory offers, while nice if you are planning to do it anyway (a dab of lube if you’re not), are no justification for the rental-only-model being a good deal. That price evaporates in a year and then you’re paying the full price indefinitely.

            As for your rebuttal on price, it’s $2500 now for the full version of Master Collection, but IIRC the upgrades cost usually in the $800-$1000 range. Upgrading to CS6 from 5.5 cost $525, or CS5 to CS6 is $1049. Draw that out over an 18 month development cycle its $29-$58, less on a 24-month cycle. To be fair, CC contains software that CS doesn’t, and CS allows you to use it perpetually while CC doesn’t. So the offerings are a bit different. Quibbles though. CC is a good deal for someone with no legacy files, no library of software, someone adding a seat of software for a short time and can fit it in an operating (not capital) budget, someone who doesn’t care about control, or who doesn’t care about getting shut off if they stop paying. For the rest of us though, it redefines the relationship from customer to renter, and gives much less flexibility in what we pay, when we pay, if we pay, and what we get for our money. It’s a put up or shut up deal. That’s fact, not hyperbole.

            If you look at it from a value standpoint, when you are done paying for your CS your software it has 100% usability and value; when you’re done paying for CC you have 0%. That’s simply the difference between buying a perpetual license and renting. You may find renting comforting and easy, but I do not. We probably have different businesses.

            Lastly, and I only point this out because this argument you put out there–I see it a lot–makes me cringe: “…And if your business doesn’t clear enough to pay $80/mo, it’s possible that you need to raise your prices or look for other work. This is professional software. Figure the cost in as overhead and adjust your business accordingly. Just like you would for the $3000 laptop, your $40/mo internet connection, your $75/mo cell phone bill, your $200/mo gas bill, rent, insurance, etc.”

            Let me throw that right back at ya:
            [ahem] …And if your business plan doesn’t include the $2500 to buy the master collection or enough to pay $900 for an upgrade every few years (you can wait longer, the software will still work!), it’s possible that you need to raise your prices or look for other work. This is professional software. Figure the cost in as a capital purchase (it’s an asset!) and adjust your business accordingly. Just like you would for the $3000 laptop, your desk, your office chairs and photocopier. This is basic business!

            Both arguments are stupid because they make the assumption that everyone and every business is the same. That everyone who uses Adobe software MUST use it professionally (some are pro-sumers or hobbyists), must use it in the same way (always upgrade!), always be financially healthy (coming out of the worst recession since the great depression), budget in a certain way (some non-profits and corporate entities don’t even allow for rental contracts), that rental agreements are fundamentally good/bad for everyone, or some other such nonsense. As a business you want as many people to buy what you’re selling. If a renter can’t afford $50-$80 a month for perpetuity, then a one-time CS purchase with upgrade options would make a great deal of sense for them (some of us save up our money!). CC might not work for them but be great for a small company adding a few temp designers for a seasonal period. I don’t want the rental personally, and I think it’s a lousy thing to do to your customers to shake a long-standing customer relationship by forcing it this way. But then Adobe has taken all options off the table except for rent-or-leave, as CS6 will not work indefinitely on a changing OS. Enjoy!

          • RHernandez — 3:35 PM on May 30, 2013

            Well said Landon, but in case other people missed your post, the best part was:

            “I think it’s a lousy thing to do to your customers to shake a long-standing customer relationship by forcing it this way. But then Adobe has taken all options off the table except for rent-or-leave, as CS6 will not work indefinitely on a changing OS.”

          • Durk Pearson — 4:25 PM on May 30, 2013

            “Well said Landon, but in case other people missed your post, the best part was:

            “I think it’s a lousy thing to do to your customers to shake a long-standing customer relationship by forcing it this way. But then Adobe has taken all options off the table except for rent-or-leave, as CS6 will not work indefinitely on a changing OS.””

            Improvise, adapt, and overcome:
            I will be using a very simple solution to that problem: I will keep my Photoshop CS6 running on a legacy machine (a 2010 Mac Mini that cost $365) with a legacy OS (OS X 10.6.8 Snow Leopard). It joins a shelf of legacy machines with legacy operating systems, all connected to my monitor, keyboard, trackball, and Wacom graphics tablet via a $50 KVM (keyboard, video, mouse) switch. I can revive Photoshop CS (or even Photoshop 5.0) with the press of two buttons.

            Others may prefer to run CS6 under a compatible OS as a VM (virtual machine) on whatever machine and OS they will be using in the future.

            There is no reason to fear that you will be unable to run CS6 for a decade, if it takes that long for worthy competition available as a perpetual license to be developed. Indeed, my wife, a million copy best selling author, uses Wordstar (circa 1978, originally for CP/M) every day, running under MS/DOS on a 1991 IBM 80486 PC. (The only maintenance required in 22 years was replacing the on/off switch.)

            I’d much rather continue to purchase periodic perpetual license updates to Photoshop, but Adobe won’t sell them because that would defeat their new rent-forever-no-exit Cloud trap business model.

            I predict that CS6 will remain a viable industry standard for a decade or more, just as Windows XP has done. Note that both Windows 7 and 8 have an XP SP3 compatibility mode.

            As a photographer, it is painfully clear that Adobe no longer wants our business, except on terms unacceptable to many of us. It isn’t the end of the world for us, although Adobe may be rushing pellmell towards its Kodak moment.

          • Landon — 8:07 PM on May 30, 2013

            I know it’s off topic a bit, but I remember Wordstar Durk! I haven’t thought about that for ages. My church had it back in the early 90s and I used to do ASCII art on it before services, lol! I spent most of my time on IBM Writer Assistant on my old IBM PS2 Model 25 though (it had the newer 3.5″ diskettes!). Still have that machine (workable) somewhere in storage. I didn’t touch MS Word until around ’93 when I started playing with Aldus PageMaker on a Mac LCII. That brings back memories.

            I agree with you that CS6 will become the Win XP of the graphic art world. Great comparison. On the up side, the 3rd party plug-in and book/tutorial market for Photoshop CS6 is going to flourish for a while so a lot of really smart little companies are going to have a chance to shine.

          • Durk Pearson — 8:24 PM on May 30, 2013

            Landon,

            You have a mighty important point about how CS6 being the last perpetual license Photoshop is going to incentivize third party plugin creators and give them a stable platform for for their products for years to come.

            It will take many years before there is something else comparable to Photoshop CS6, and no one man band is going to write such a tremendously complex program, but plugins are something a small outfit or even an individual can create.

            We may see a veritable renaissance of bright creative ideas for new Photoshop functions!

            The opportunity for a big outfit like Corel is obvious, but big outfits are not likely to be hotbeds of creative new ideas. Adobe’s Creative Cloud only business plan may result in a lot of new creative products that plug into CS6.

    • ButchM — 3:46 AM on May 10, 2013

      Cost? Doesn’t bother me.
      Control? Absolutely.

      If the executives in charge had thought this out in a more meaningful manner, there wouldn’t be any outrage today … if CC truly was such a great deal, we all would have signed up for it a year ago and they could have dropped perpetual licensing on Monday last and it would have gone unnoticed … Someone was asleep at the wheel because Adobe has turned their back on a substantial amount of cash and good will.

    • jlua — 4:39 AM on May 10, 2013

      Cost may be is not an issue for those who need the full “suite”, but being asked to pay up twice as much as until now per refresh cycle (18-24 months) to keep up for Photoshop as a single tool, is way too much and completely unacceptable either.

  • Mayoi — 7:28 PM on May 09, 2013

    I think Adobe would retain a lot more customers if they had some kind of severance package for those who couldn’t, or chose not to, pay for the monthly subscription. The cost of that severance package would be reduced by the amount of time the customer was a subscriber — as an incentive to continue that subscription, as well as an incentive for Adobe to come up with innovative updates. For example, you could price a Perpetual License for a new Photoshop customer at $1,000, reduced by $20 per month for every month you subscribe up to a maximum reduction of $900. If at any time you cancel your subscription and resubscribe, you lose all previous subscription credits and start at the maximum rate for a perpetual license again. This encourages customers to subscribe which evens out both their costs and Adobe’s income, while still providing a method to own the software. I’m not sure how you would price that for existing customers since Photoshop CC is the extended version of CS6 (which costs $400 more), but there certainly could be some kind of severance package that would assure customers that they could get a perpetual license if they absolutely had to have one, while still providing them a financial benefit to subscribing. You are still going to lose customers, in fact I can’t think of any way that you won’t lose customers with a subscription-only model, but with at least SOME method of providing ownership, you might reduce the number of customers you lose.

  • RHernandez — 7:52 PM on May 09, 2013

    Cracks are starting to show up in the media… http://seekingalpha.com/article/1412811-adobe-jumps-off-a-cliff-leaves-parachute-behind?source=nasdaq

  • JWise — 8:18 PM on May 09, 2013

    While everyone laments their Photoshop files, some of us also must deal with lost Ae, Pr, Au, Ai, and Id files. How would I go about using read only Ae files? What is going to render out my video files?

    This talk of supporting CS6, is that going to work in 15 years on Windows 14?

    The guy who pointed out the fear of catastrophic financial problems not allowing us to pay for access to our content is the thing that galls me the most. And as we can already see from our annual social security forms, if our SSI is going to be $1250 per month and in 10 years the monthly cost of CC is $150, we’ll be locked out due to simple economics.

    For me, CS and my commitment to Adobe since 1989 (costing more than $10,000 over the years) is my hobby, entertainment, TV. A person who buys power tools for woodworking doesn’t lease his tools of creativity, one must only replace the wood. I expected to own my digital power tools, only needing to replace hardware, electricity, and on occasion I would have to update the tools when they wore out. Now I’m forced to buy new tools every month for the rest of my life so I can maintain my interests.

    CS is not a career for me, it is my passion for play. Adobe, you are killing off (collectively) millions of years of loyalty to your company. Long live New Coke, Windows Metro, and now Adobe CC.

    • RHernandez — 8:21 PM on May 09, 2013

      LIKE.

    • James Sinks — 1:17 AM on May 10, 2013

      I’m the guy who feared financial catastrophe and it is a very, very, very real danger. I had a real bad stretch from about 2003 to 2008. I couldn’t afford to upgrade my Adobe software.

      If I had been on a subscription plan, I never would’ve been able to work my way out of the financial hole I was in.

      Perpetual licenses are security.

      Subscriptions are nothing but risk.

  • antonio — 8:50 PM on May 09, 2013

    SIMPLE SOLUTION: Adobe admits this software rental scheme was a massive miscalculation, issue an apology and re-commit to traditional software packages with fair licensing.

    ANYTHING ELSE IS A NON-STARTER.

    We don’t need some hair-brained exporting/conversion tool that requires lots of workarounds to get our art works out of your software system!

    Remember, it’s Adobe’s job to serve the customers who buy its products. It is not our job to jump through hoops to deal with your products.

    • Scott Valentine — 12:12 PM on May 14, 2013

      Maybe you’re not the customer they have in mind, antonio. Buying out with a frozen version after your term is up seems like a good deal. It benefits Adobe and gets you a perpetual, if unsupported, license.

      Functionally it gives you exactly what you have now, but lowers the cost of entry for lots of folks. It has the bonus of getting you upgrades during the term of your contract, too.

      Before you go demanding a return to the old scheme, perhaps you should consider your contribution to Adobe’s bottom line, and your own business model.

  • Justin — 9:02 PM on May 09, 2013

    Hi John. I hope you’re doing well.

    The main problem that most people have, especially myself, is that there is no way to have a perpetual license at the end of your subscription with the software. You are tied to and locked in with this new model until the end of days. What people need, and depend on, including myself, is the ability to have a permanent perpetual license to software that we want. The idea of hosting files in the cloud can be separated with the idea of a subscription versus a perpetual license.

    In the idea of only being able to print, export, or view only your documents is a rather ludicrous idea. Like another person mentioned, if we need to modify the files, like layers for example, we have no ability to do so. We need the option of a perpetual license, and give users the option of the creative cloud as well, so they can make a choice for themselves what they want to do. Both options do have positives in general, but the majority of people it seems really really need the option of a perpetual license for future software updates.

    And a really important fact that I need to mention… Adobe representatives have reiterated the fact that CS6 will be Still be available to download as a perpetual license and will get bug fixes, but how is that a long-term solution for people who are eventually going to want and/or need new features and updates but still want a perpetual license? You will be forcing users to upgrade to this new cloud service, which is inexcusable.

    Give people what they need. An option for a perpetual license now and for the future with your products. Thank thank you for your time John.

  • Richard Hamilton — 9:51 PM on May 09, 2013

    John, thank you for taking the time to try to find a much needed solution.

    I am a photographer who “owns” two licenses of the Creative Suite 6 Master Collection and two copies of Lightroom. I have upgraded with each upgrade for as long as I can remember and would continue to do so if there were made available. I appreciate that Adobe wants to move to a subscription service and I don’t have an issue with this “in theory”. (Please note that I use “own” herein to refer to a customer that has bought a license to use the software and not a subscription)

    As it currently stands, I will unfortunately not be subscribing to CC because I think it creates an unnecessary imbalance between Adobe and their customers. For example, currently Adobe is stating that subscriptions will be $50/month after the first year. This equates to approximately the cost I have been paying to upgrade each year. If Adobe stated that this price was guaranteed for life, or that it would not increase more than the rate of inflation, it would remove a significant concern I have. Previously, if Adobe tried to unreasonably raise the upgrade price, I would simply not upgrade. The current subscription plan removes my ability to do this.

    The second reason why I will not be upgrading, is the inability to continue to use the software after terminating my subscription. Your suggestion of retaining the ability to open, read, print and export is not sufficient. Considering that I have purchased two box versions of the software and taking into account that I would be paying $1,200 per year for my two licenses, I would expect the ability to continue to use the software in perpetuity. I like the idea that I would receive a snap-shot of the software as it stands when I terminate my subscription. This would allow me to continue to access and work on my projects.

    I appreciate that Adobe may not want to provide “free” snap-shots as it may encourage individuals to stop their subscriptions for a period of time while using the snap-shots. I don’t necessarily think this is a bad idea, but I am trying to also balance out Adobe’s needs/wants.

    Therefore, as an alternative, I like the idea of a buy-out if you cancel your subscription. I think a sliding scale could be used to fairly compensate Adobe. The scale would take into account the software:
    A. previously owned by the customer; and
    B. that the client would like to be able to continue to use after they terminate their subscription.

    I have included a few example of what I am thinking:
    1. A customer who has previously owned the Master Collection – In this situation, the customer can receive a snap-shot of the software in CC at no additional cost since they have previously purchased the complete collection. The annual subscription fee is essentially treated as their yearly upgrade fee.

    2. A customer has previously owned a copy of the Extended Photoshop – Here, the customer can receive a free snap-shot of the Extended Photoshop software from CC upon termination of their subscription. If they want to continue to use any of the other software (i.e. Illustrator), they will have to pay a price that is equivalent to purchase price of the software (i.e. the price today they would pay to purchase the software adjusted for inflation.)

    3. The customer did not previously own any of the software included in CC – Upon termination, the customer can choose which software they want a snap-shot of and would pay the purchase price.

    I would further propose that one can obtain the “free” snap-shot only once per license. I.e. If I were to terminate my subscription and receive a snap-shot and then decide later to restart my subscription, I would fall into category 3 above if I terminate my subscription for a second time.

    I would very much hope that the above proposal, coupled with some cap on price increases, would eliminate the major concerns that your customers currently have while satisfying Adobe’s desire to move to a subscription model.

    I would be happy to further discuss this and welcome comments and suggestions.

    Kind regards,
    Richard Hamilton

  • Jeff Davis — 10:16 PM on May 09, 2013

    Unlike the idea of view, print and export functions available after the subscription. Loss of access to my files at the end of my subscription period is my biggest concern. The other significant thing for me is having a package and pricing more geared to hobbyist photographers like myself. I think PS + LR for $15 a month is reasonable, ideally including a tablet version of LR as well (for Windows 8 as well as iPad).

    Maybe another way to deal with the perpetual issue if you don’t want to support a buy-out when canceling the subscription is to base something on subscription length. For example, if you cancel after one hear, you can view, export and print your files forever. If you cancel after five years, you’ve paid enough to justify the benefit to keep full functionality, albeit with no support or updates, on a permanent basis.

    Thanks for the dialogue!

  • Kirsten Rourke — 10:17 PM on May 09, 2013

    John,
    Thanks for asking what constructive advice people have. From what I’ve read here and other places I’d like to promote this from an earlier comment…

    “But, there is another option. A really great idea suggested by Rick Popham.

    Keep the CC scheme, but then every couple years, take a snapshot of the current state of the software and offer it with a perpetual license for the usual upgrade price – no dot releases, no support, just a working version of the software frozen in time. If Adobe offered that, I would gladly jump on the CC train and stay on it, paying whatever they’re charging with the knowledge that I can jump off when the time is right for me. Control would be back in my hands, and my dollars would be flowing into Adobe’s pocket. Big win for me, big win for Adobe”

    • Anthony Reimer — 11:09 AM on May 10, 2013

      I also think Rick Popham’s suggestion has the most potential and is better than a read-only option. To flesh it out further, I’d suggest it be more like the Extended Support Release of Firefox. albeit on a longer time horizon. That is, Adobe says that every 12 or 18 or 24 months, they will release a version of each app (timing amongst apps does not have to coordinate) that is available for perpetual licence, likely at prices similar to today. They commit to bug fixes for that version until the next such release (or, if only 12 months, the release 24 months away). Creative Cloud users would gain any additional features created inbetween these Extended Support Releases, but perpetual licencees would not (a little bit of a carrot there for CC membership).

      As someone who supports academic labs, this would also resolve two issues I am having with the new model: testing (for conflicts, bugs, etc.) and teaching (a fixed set of features for the duration of a class). When feature additions and bug fixes are tied, this can be a significant problem. In our case, we are going to use CS6 licences we already hold *even though our institution has signed a licensing agreement with Adobe* because the feature set is fixed and bug patches are being offered for the coming academic year. Using the Firefox ESR model would resolve our testing & teaching problems, as well as those of the people who have a problem with subscription as a model.

      I would rather see this option than Read-only. If that is not forthcoming, I would rather see publication of the file format details such that current and potential subscribers would feel like they could still edit their files if they had to abandon the platform for whatever reasons (usually financial). You could start with publishing the format for defunct apps like FreeHand and Fireworks as a test.

      • El Aura — 4:58 PM on May 10, 2013

        “Every 12 or 18 or 24 months, they will release a version of each app that is available for perpetual licence.”
        In what way is that different from as it was until now? Adobe does not want that, ostentatiously because developing bug fixes for the perpetual licenses in parallel to developing bug fixes and new features to the CC version is too complex. Maybe they also think subscriptions are a better business model for them.

        • Anthony Reimer — 10:45 AM on May 11, 2013

          It is different in that Adobe previously held all new features until a major release. Adobe says they don’t want to do that any more. So I agree that it is not much different, but it still gives people a specific incentive to move to Creative Cloud. The current plan is more “stick” than “carrot.”

  • Jeff Davis — 10:42 PM on May 09, 2013

    Sorry, first word of my last comment should have been “like”, not “unlike” :)

  • polyxo — 12:45 AM on May 10, 2013

    Any solution which doesn’t give access to the proprietary file format was unusable. Just forget trying to solve the problem with dng or similar. It won’t reflect the needs of your customers.

    As a CC member one would earn optional access to a permanent license after having payed for this period of time. Another 18 months later the next permanent release was made available.
    Each of these permanent releases just contained the published features of that very point in time.
    One needed to renew the subscription get the latest and greatest developments.

    If one only payed 17 months and quits CC themoney was gone. Todays subscribers seem to come along with this fact.

  • atze54323 — 3:15 AM on May 10, 2013

    DNG?

    really thats your marketing bullshit reply to our concernes?

    what about all the proprietary adobe formats.. AE, PREMIERE, ENCORE…

    again your telling nothing but BS!!!!

  • david stong — 4:26 AM on May 10, 2013

    With a Mac tower in my home as my work machine, I can access the internet via a mobile device at Starbucks or on a computer at the local library. My work machine is at home for work. Will I be able to download the software to an external drive at the library? Will I be able to check in every three months via those library computers or a mobile device?
    Costs are fine, and my work will stay on my machine accessible via CS6.

    • david stong — 11:59 AM on May 10, 2013

      It seems useless to voice concern that not everyone has a machine on the internet. Most do, I guess, though that’s a troubling assumption. I do not. I own CS6 master suite and I’m not concerned about losing access to my work. I’m concerned about getting cloud access on my machine so that I can get the software, and check in so it remains functioning. Can it be put on a jump drive and moved? Is there the possibility of some sort of ‘dongle’? A way that I can communicate with Adobe about a machine that they can’t see but has their software?
      I saw something like “if you’re going to the antarctic for six months, contact customer service”. I’m not in the antarctic, but my home is off the grid. Other folks are the same for whatever reason.

  • zagatov12 — 4:58 AM on May 10, 2013

    I think this is simply the writing on the wall. I have been and still am a long standing Photoshop user, since V7 in fact. This is so unsettling, but more importantly, this row demonstrates that Adobe has not thought through the consequences of their actions fro their customers. For me, their ‘take it or leave it’ approach triggers a search to find a reasonable replacement for Photoshop. I have no intention of using the Cloud.

  • Kin Corning — 5:56 AM on May 10, 2013

    First post ever here, but this matters to me so I’ll try to make a constructive suggestion.

    I have the same two fundamental problems that have been well articulated and don’t need long repeating: (1) the pricing structure doesn’t work — for the longstanding Photoshop-only customer in the UK, where I am based, I calculate the the monthly charge as at least a 58% increase relative to the amortised monthly cost of the most recent upgrade license — that isn’t a deal breaker for me personally but I don’t like feeling I’m being screwed, and it is a deal breaker for a lot of people when extended over their future life with the product (2) I feel like my content is being held hostage for lifetime future payments to Adobe.

    Part of the problem with your pricing model is that you have not differentiated adequately between upfront and incremental cost of ownership. The monthly subscriptions are the same regardless of whether the user has been using the product(s) for years or is a brand new customer. Yes, there is a one-year reduced price for existing customers, but it has a limited deadline which is at least 4 months earlier than a normal Photoshop upgrade would have come out by historical release standards, and it is 50% off after a 58% price increment, so the real savings are completely meaningless in the greater scheme of things.

    For the new user, who has never paid you £649 in the UK (or $600 in the USA) for their first PS license, you have lowered the barrier to entry and perhaps that was one of your objectives to encourage new customers. But in trying to reclaim some of that lost upfront fee, you have increased the ongoing fee for all customers, so the customer who paid their large upfront fee years ago and has enjoyed incremental upgrade pricing since sees this as a price increase. The problem for Adobe in that approach, based on 1000’s of posts on forums all over the web, is that you are going to lose at least one existing customer for every new one you may attract.

    Turning to the issue of content access after a subscription ends, a read-only version does not address the issue. The next debate would become which features are turned on and off in a read-only version. Can I use the print dialog? Can I apply an alternative crop? Can I turn existing print-specific adjustment layers on and off? Can I save for web? Etc. You would never get that right so it satisfied enough customers to address the problem.

    The idea of a lease buyout of the latest version addresses the problem, I guess, but seems like a negative approach to the problem (spend lots of money when exiting). Reverting to an older version is stupid for reasons which have been pointed out in this thread.

    Why you don’t build a tiered pricing structure based on length of upfront commitment? Not to make a specific suggestion but to illustrate the point: If I want Photoshop as it exists now I can have it with no future upgrades for £649 or whatever. It doesn’t have to be in a box. It can remain a download just like CC, and the buyer gets whatever incremental version exists at the time of purchase. You can still issue updates to the downloadable version at whatever frequency you want, which Adobe has said is a key driver of this strategy. And the software is the buyer’s to use under a perpetual license, until OS incompatibility and other issues render it useless. At some other extreme, if I am willing to commit to, let’s say, a 5-year contract I pay a monthly charge with little or no upfront lump sum. And again, I get a perpetual license to run the software in its final state at the end of 5 years if I do not renew. Add a choice or two in between and some price structure for the £649 user to change their mind and jump onto the subscription bandwagon.

    This is of course how cellular phones are sold. Buy the phone for a large fee with no contract. Or get it for nothing with a long term monthly contract commitment. Either way the cell phone remains yours at the end. That analogy is imperfect because the cell phone is near the end of its life at the end of a contract, and the software is in its latest version. But with OS and hardware changes, software gets old fast, so I don’t see why that is an issue that couldn’t be addressed in the pricing.

    I appreciate the details of a price structure like this would be complicated, and there are considerations I am skimming past. You asked for constructive suggestions and I’m just trying to illustrate an approach that seemingly would address the major issues that are being articulated by both Adobe and customers.

    Whatever the answer, this feels like a bit of an “Apple Maps” or “Instagram Copyright” moment for Adobe. I think you are going to have to make some significant changes, not modest incremental ones, and do it sooner rather than later.

  • Jim47 — 6:16 AM on May 10, 2013

    I don’t care what Adobe does at this point. Trust destroyed. Greed, dismissive attitude, and lack of respect for customers clear as day. So long Adobe. :)

  • Daniel — 6:26 AM on May 10, 2013

    Just restore the perpetual license on top of the CC service. There are several ways to do this:

    – Charge an up-front fee (Adobe won’t want to do this because it reduces the “get them hooked” factor that it obviously wants with the monthly payments).
    – Establish a minimum subscription time before the perpetual rights kick in (1 year?)
    – Charge a very reasonable exit fee.

    So once subscribers stops paying, their updates and patches stop and they lose the add-on cloud services (syncing and cloud storage; actually it shouldn’t be a big deal to keep syncing – even Firefox gives free syncing but whatever). BUT the customer can continue to fully use the software – just without updates and cloud.

    There would be some technical issues that would need to be worked out, particularly a robust roll-back, “state” system to mark what a particular customer had rights to and what not but Adobe really needs to implement a robust roll-back system anyway if it hasn’t already.

    And yes, this would start to erode the “smooth revenue” that Adobe is after and also reduce the “lock-in” that Adobe wants (but does everything possible to direct customers’ attention from in its advertising and PR). But Adobe is not the only company in the world that has to deal with seasonal or cyclical revenue. It all just boils down to whether Adobe wants to be known as an innovative company that obtains and retains customers based on its quality, value, and innovation or whether it wants to be like a cable or cell phone company that many use but universally despise.

  • Charles B — 6:37 AM on May 10, 2013

    I like the ideas about proposed of a perpetual license after a period of commitment of cloud subscription. Say 2 or 3 years of paying into the cloud, and you can have perpetual acces to a previous version of the software. Sort of a rent-to-own concept.

  • Greg Henry — 7:03 AM on May 10, 2013

    I have been an Adobe customer for a good number of years, having bought three versions of Photoshop CS and even several versions of Elements for personal use and as gifts for others.

    The “Great Recession” hit a fair number of those in the Photography field, as photo services are considered a luxury by both consumers and corporate decision makers alike. As a result, there are measurably fewer full time pro photographers who are making their entire livings from the art, or who are at least making a lot less income than they did a few years ago. I am one of those people. “Subscribing” would cost me a certain amount more per year than buying an upgrade, but more than the money, the whole thing to many does sound like a, “Subscribe or else”, thought pattern on the part of Adobe. We simply want to purchase software, install it, use it until we are ABLE to afford an upgrade, and continue using it from there. That has been taken away from us with only one option available now.

    I could have handled a price increase from $199 to $249 for an upgrade if I could still buy a boxed DVD of the software. I can see it, own it, put it on my bookshelf, and if the economy says I can’t afford to upgrade, I could at least use it until I COULD afford more.

    OPTIONS: Ok, you want options Mr. Nack, so here are my suggestions: I realize Adobe will never admit to an, “Oops, we shouldn’t have done that”, so Adobe needs to adjust the subscription for Photoshop CS to the $9.99 to $12,99 range, full time – NOT just as a “one year promotion”, and, they need to ditch the one year commitment clause on it and allow people to opt-out whenever they can, or suspend service for a time if they need to and pick it up again later. As another option, PS Elements could be beefed up a bit to appeal to a more professional level, while a new home user consumer product (Photoshop “Basics” perhaps?) could take it’s place, both being a purchase item, and never subscriber. Of course the best option would be to offer a boxed PS CS version again, backing it up to the way it was, but I don’t expect Adobe execs to agree to that.

    As it is now, as a CS5 user, I don’t plan on subscribing at all, or scrambling to buy any more in the way of Adobe products (CS6, Lightroom, etc) until I see how this pans out. You appreciate honesty, and Paint Shop Pro/Corel are stepping up to the plate to catch those who Adobe don’t seem too concerned about losing as customers. I’d prefer to stay with Adobe, but I also prefer to stay with those who act like they WANT me to stay, too. Right now, that’s sounding more like Corel. I do hope Adobe is listening.

  • Diana — 7:47 AM on May 10, 2013

    So if I already have CS5 I can’t use it unless I pay a subscription? Am I understanding this correctly.

    • Claudius — 12:28 PM on May 10, 2013

      Your CS5 will not be affected by creative cloud. You can continue to use it.

  • JD — 7:51 AM on May 10, 2013

    Continue to support open document standards including getting camera manufacturers to get of proprietary Raw formats.

    So as someone in the Pharma industry I have a bit of familiarity with access to documentsfor long periods. PDF is a standard in both Pharma and the Legal arena (see Rick Borstein). PDF files can be created and edited in a number of applications outside of Acrobat. DNG can also be read by numerous programs.

    Long term access to electronic files has been discussed since we got of paper. Look at the legacy of data groups like NASA deal with.

    This issue of access also applies to Nikon and Canon since their Raw formats are not open sourced or standards. What if they made access to a reader subscription only?

    Is the PSD file format documented and open?

    It appears thing like GIMP can open a PSD file. Can they open a layered file and give you access to all the layers? Otherwise tiff is the altrnative but one can’t tell if it is layered.

  • KC — 7:59 AM on May 10, 2013

    Dave Cross (former NAPP employee, long-time Photoshop instructor) did a quick experiment on moving PS CC files back to PS CS5, after adding some PS CS6- and PS CC-specific layers.

    http://davecrossworkshops.com/2013/05/10/moving-files-backwards-photoshop-cc/

    • Andrew Rodney — 10:26 AM on May 10, 2013

      >>Dave Cross (former NAPP employee, long-time Photoshop instructor)…

      Sorry for OT, but Dave left NAPP? 2nd most shocking thing I’ve learned about PS this week!

      FWIW, I just tried Dave’s experiment with slight alterations. Iris Blur, ACR filter, Shake Reduction but NOT as Smart Objects. Just good old layers. No problems at all opening the document in CS6.

  • Brian MacDougall — 9:10 AM on May 10, 2013

    There’s trouble in paradise when big guns get trotted out on blogs and web pages to do a lot of circuitous splaining, now with defensive posturing (I’m looking at you, Mike Chambers)! We’re second stage already–that’s bad. News flash: your brand got hit by a train this week. People now suspect your motives, ALL your motives, so something as benign as DNG suddenly looks sinister. Did I say it’s bad? It’s really, really bad. You’re five days into this, and people still think Adobe jack-booted thugs are going to take away their files?

    You borked your roll-out, just like Apple did with FCPX, only yours is much, much more severe. Apple jeopardized an infinitesimal sliver of their business; you went all-in. That no one in Adobe marketing predicted this is what’s really concerning, just like bringing back Rainn Wilson after last year is concerning. (So much so that you have to present your MAX vids with a disclaimer. Here’s an idea for another CC parody: new Premiere Pro feature that automatically removes Rainn Wilson from footage. Bet the audience would really respond to that.)

    You’ve got, what? 125 response on this thread? What do you normally get? Six?Ten? I’d get some outside PR help, stat. Is Marty Kahn available?

    • mike chambers — 10:15 AM on May 11, 2013

      I really dont understand this mentality. I am on here trying to engage in the conversation, and have a deeper conversation around how Adobe views this stuff (on topics which havent really been discussed), and that is considered “defensive spinning”?

      Btw, I am flattered that I am considered a big gun!

      mike chambers

      mesh@adobe.com

  • Mayoi — 9:53 AM on May 10, 2013

    The problem I see with read-only access is that a lot of photographers are going to want to change sharpness depending on whether the image is going to the web or being printed, they may need to change resolution, DPI, and color profile if they are having someone else print the image (such as in a book), they may want to be changing layer comps for a customer, if they’ve never printed the image before, they may want to make tonal changes after a test print, etc. I don’t see any way that you can selectively enable functionality that would safely ensure all customers could use their images the way they need to with a read-only product.

    • Rick Boden — 10:17 AM on May 10, 2013

      What if Adobe went a step further and offered free software that would let you adjust and flatten existing layers but not create new ones?

    • Claudius — 11:07 AM on May 10, 2013

      with read-only, at least you could convert it to some other format (or – worst case – copy&paste it somewhere else). You could still use another program to do the final fine-tuning. Yes, it’s not ideal, but in this case, i can see that canceling the subscription does have to come with some drawbacks.

  • Fausto Mauro — 10:02 AM on May 10, 2013

    This is about greed, pure and simple. If artist’s buy into this model, adobe will double their revenue. This is harmful for designers and artists. The market should punish them on three fronts. Firstly, designers should boycott buying into this strategy. Secondly, other companies should develop products that can really compete. Corel, Xara, Smith Micro, Autodesk (sketchbook pro) and any other company that’s dabbling in this space, here’s a great opportunity.. Kknock off the leader and take some marketshare.. And finally, the department of justice in the states should go after them for their obvious monopoly and using that position to fleece their customers.. Like I said before, they’re a s**t company.

  • Fausto Mauro — 10:08 AM on May 10, 2013

    I’ve been a loyal customer for 15 years, put up with all sorts of garbage from them.. bugs, crashes, poor performance, redraw problems, unfulfilled promises, registration issues and more.. This is the last straw, adobe won’t see one more penny of my money.. I’m looking for alternatives already but I’m sure others will crop up given how many people are annoyed by this latest misstep!

  • George Reis — 10:23 AM on May 10, 2013

    Hey John – Thanks for addressing this issue. My concern is for forensics users where the budget doesn’t enable the agency to renew their subscription. Having a version of PS that allows viewing and printing of work would be a step to help, but what if the court needed one to repeat the process from a copy of the original? Doing so would require that one have a working copy of the software. I can think of several other scenarios where the CC model is problematic, but I think this one illustrates it fairly well.

  • mike — 10:51 AM on May 10, 2013

    just the funniest take on CC –

    • Nico — 4:37 AM on May 11, 2013

      really? people who are angry about the subscription model are Nazis?

  • Sergey — 12:14 PM on May 10, 2013

    I hate the concept of software rental with nothing to show for the investment even after you have collected more from me than I would pay for a perpetual license. Make it “rent-to-own” and you got a deal.

  • Michael — 12:23 PM on May 10, 2013

    To me the problem is the sudden lack of incentive for Adobe to keep new features flowing. With purchased software, Adobe had to add enough features to make updating worthwhile. Now, we must continue to pay whether or not the software changes. If there were a strong competitor this would not be a problem. Perhaps this move will spark new competition.

    I understand that CC is supposed to simplify the release process, allowing new features to be released without a fixed schedule. The problem for the customer is that requirement comes from the old model.

    In the new model, Adobe makes the most money (short term) by reducing staff, reducing development, doing nothing, and letting the subscription money flow in.

    • El Aura — 5:01 PM on May 10, 2013

      “To me the problem is the sudden lack of incentive for Adobe to keep new features flowing.”
      That is the elephant in the room most people don’t dare to mention.

  • Jorge — 12:55 PM on May 10, 2013

    We are a professional photography studio that does commercial work for advertising. We will not rent software. Everyone we have talked to hates the idea of the cloud. We work with some pretty huge files and storage wise its not feasible. This whole concept of renting software is nothing but a money grab disguised as solution. Why can’t we buy out the software when you decide to not upgrade when the next amazing version of CC comes out?

  • Beat Krossner — 1:27 PM on May 10, 2013

    I already decided not to rent anything from Adobe, and this just cemented my decision:

    http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

    I spent many years in IT but have never seen anything more arbitrary regarding legal terms. This is at the farthest edge of the allowable, to say it politely.

  • Frank — 1:47 PM on May 10, 2013

    Mr. Nack,

    The title of this thread and the heart of the matter to me is exactly as you stated:
    “You should never lose access to your work, period.” You also state: “Your work is absolutely your property. Adobe fully agrees…”

    Contrary to your stated position, in section 20 of the Terms of Use for Creative Cloud, it reads “Adobe may also terminate or suspend all or portion of your account and/or access to the Services for any reason…”

    You can’t have it both ways. Which is it?

    How much is my work “mine” if someone else controls access to it?

    Looking forward to your response.

  • Frank Richards — 1:49 PM on May 10, 2013

    After an initial emotional response and reading most of the comments over the last several days, I decided that I should step back and think about this more objectively. I tried to think about what the CC model really means from my perspective – that of the serious amateur or small business professional photographer. What did I have with the perpetual model and what do I have today with the CC plan.

    P – Old model of purchasing a perpetual license
    CC – New subscription model
    CS5/CS6 – What’s happening under the new CC model

    P – New features in new releases about ever 18 mo
    CC – New features as available

    P – Upgrade cost about $135 per year (after initial $700 outlay)
    CC – Cost $240 per year for annual subscription ($120 discount first year)

    P – Have working software if choose not upgrade
    CC – Have no software if subscription lapses

    P – Download software to machine and activate
    CC – Download software to machine and Adobe checks license periodically

    P – Store images on machine
    CC – Store image on machine and in the cloud.

    P – No cloud storage
    CC – 20 GB will store 100 to 1000 images. Handy if collaborating, otherwise does not have much value

    P – ACR updates available for last version or two
    CC – ACR updates if you continue subscription
    CS6 – ACR updates to support new cameras as long as CS6 is being sold. No new features.
    CS5 – Upgrade to CS6 still available for $200

    P – New releases support OS changes
    CC – New releases will support OS changes
    CS6 – No more updates. No idea how long it will be available for sale. OS changes or Adobe will eventually render useless

    P – Beta releases allow users to provide feedback on changes
    CC – Unknown

    So what does this mean to me and a lot of people in my shoes. The cost has gone up, but I can probably deal with the increased rent. Actual mechanics of acquiring and using PS seem to be pretty much business as usual. Cloud storage is of little benefit. The biggest issue to me is having continuing access to PS and LR – will CS6 and LR X continue to play nice together and how long will PS6 be supported if don’t go CC, or if I move to CC, how will I be able to access and use my images if I decide to bail down the line.

    It appears that the comments are starting to focus on what might constitute a reasonable exit strategy from CC. Either the snapshot or current version buyout (at a reasonable price prorated on prior licenses and/or years of subscription) path to a perpetual license for an unsupported current version of PS CC would relieve a lot of my concerns and make me more willing to buy into the CC model. Guess the question is will Adobe listen.

    A yet to be addressed concern of mine is what happens to LR down the line. If LR follows the current CC model some time in the future, things could get really dicey.

    • James Sinks — 4:49 PM on May 10, 2013

      “P – Download software to machine and activate”

      If you think Adobe’s Creative Suite DRM was this simple, you’re deluded.

      • Frank Richards — 5:18 AM on May 11, 2013

        I am talking only to Photoshop and it can be little quirky to install as well. Point is there is not change here.

  • Tony — 3:17 PM on May 10, 2013

    I think this is how Adobe should do it if they are going to do subscriptions:

    Allow someone to purchase a software license and participate in subscription if they like so they can get updates. If a person discontinues subscription they can still use the software they bought a license for in it’s current state but without access to future updates unless they start subscription again.

    If they lapse in subscription for too long, like say 2 years, then to start subscription again they would be required to also pay a fee comparable to a regular upgrade.

    This is how Autodesk does it and it’s a lot more customer friendly than the way Adobe is trying to do a subscription model.

  • Adam — 3:22 PM on May 10, 2013

    Like many other users I am outraged by Creative Cloud, having invested thousands of dollars in Creative Suite products over the years. I am angry for a lot more reasons than access to my work.

    Some of the reasons I am angry:

    *Old perpetually licensed versions of Creative Suite can’t open files generated using the newer Creative Cloud. If a user cancels their subscription, they lose access to their own files. This essentially locks users into the service.

    *Adobe has a monopoly on design software which is made worse by the lock-in created by Creative Cloud. Adobe can exploit their monopoly by raising prices once enough users are locked in to Creative Cloud.

    *No perpetual licensing means the $600 in yearly subscription fees yields nothing if a user cancels their subscription. Conversely, a $500 yearly upgrade to Creative Suite yields a lifelong license.

    *Adobe can remove products from Creative Cloud at will, unlike boxed versions where the user retains a copy of the products.

    *Creative Cloud removes the incentive for Adobe to innovate because there are no longer major versions requiring innovative new features to generate sales.

    *Adobe can terminate its agreement with the user for any reason.

    *The new subscription only model goes against statements the company made in 2011 regarding a yearly release cycle for Creative Suite products.

    Perhaps the solution is for Adobe to offer Creative Cloud and a Hybrid version with perpetual licensing. The hybrid version would keep users up to date between major versions with the same monthly fee as Creative Cloud but requires a one-time perpetual licensing fee. If a user cancels the monthly subscription they retain the right to use the software indefinitely. If the user wants to reactivate the hybrid version, they have to pay for the missed months between versions to cover the cost of the perpetual license. The standard version of Creative Cloud would remain the same. Adobe could also retain the digital rights management incorporated into creative cloud that requires an internet connection to help prevent pirating.

    If Adobe doesn’t meaningfully address these concerns I’ll stick with CS6 until a competitor provides a product with a perpetual license. It’s too bad Adobe I wanted to give you my $500 for CS 6.5…

  • Michael Bailey — 3:25 PM on May 10, 2013

    I haven’t bought Photoshop before, I’ve been making do with GIMP until I could afford it. So at first this cloud thing might seem to be a good idea.

    I live in the countryside, can’t always hook up to the internet with wireless when I need to, so if I need to transfer work to a client, it’s a 25-mile drive to the highway, where it’s an 18 mile drive to town to use the internet connection at the UPS store.

    They have CS6 at the UPS store, and I can use that for conversion when a client insists on a Photoshop format, or if I want to edit with PS prior to delivery. They have informed they are not going to continue with the cloud subscription and they plan to move to GIMP themselves, or possibly another product.

    For me, the issue is that if I purchase CS6, I will cease to remain competitive in another year or so. If I go to cloud, I stand likely to lose my subscription if my wireless doesn’t connect at the wrong time. And be honest, folks, there are things like natural disasters, Chinese or Anonymous hackers that can cause access problems as well.

    And if the U.S. Government makes the decision to block access to the net while they sort out some kind of national security issue, what happens to the access to PS then?

    Essentially, I can’t see continuing with plans to purchase PS, because then I will be stuck with old software that’s not competitive. And I can’t see purchasing cloud-only access, because I’m not going to give up a 200-year old family property and move into the city just to satisfy their business model.

    I realize that most users aren’t in this situation, but surely there are other people that will be affected in similar ways. And it’s not going to matter if I do move into the city, if the gov’t decides that it has a need to shut off access to the internet to keep people safe.

    Governments in Europe and the US have both made moves to pass legislation that is going to give them control of internet access. There is no way to stop them from passing CISPA or something similar if that’s what they want to do. I’m not a conspiracy freak, just a realist.

    They are fighting terrorists, after all, and they seemed to feel the need to completely shut down an entire major American city to do that. They aren’t going to think twice about it if they think they need to do the same with the internet. At that point it doesn’t matter what the subscription price is, or how nice the cloud is.

  • Paul Howson — 3:26 PM on May 10, 2013

    The “Mac Performance Guide” blog has a series of posts related to the CC-only announcement. But the following one, cited in an earlier comment, picks apart the detail of the CC licence agreement:

    http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement.html

    Please read. Chilling.

    • John Stevenson — 8:26 PM on May 10, 2013

      Have you read any of the license agreements from other software developers and vendors? To my knowledge, Adobe has had tough T&Cs over a whole range of products and initiatives for a long time. For example, relative to the Adobe Marketplace/Exchange and the SDKs. But other companies establish similar terms also. In large part the legalese itself is fashioned around how the company wishes to be seen in protecting its investor’s interests. But, in any event, it’s not fully clarified as yet – in the U.S. – whether shrink-wrap or click-wrap licenses are fully enforceable/protective. Only very rarely do these license terms see the light of day in a legal action. (The last related instance I recall getting any publicity was a cease and desist effort made by Instagram, involving a Photoshop user who had built and was marketing Actions which emulated “their” filter effects by name. Do you know what’s in the license for Instagram use … chilling or not?)

  • John Lehet — 5:14 PM on May 10, 2013

    Unfortunately I feel a great deal of distrust in this model. Some of that is based on updates suddenly appearing on my machine whether I decide or not . Updating an application in the middle of a project is generally a no no for me, unless it is done very consciously. (I did that once in a Flash project. Flash 3 sucked so bad, and I thought Flash 4 might be better. It was. A little.

    The automatic updating is also scary to me in terms of security. Chrome auto-updates, and it is for the good. But Adobe doesn’t exactly have a good track record on doing security right. For instance I have no Acrobat Reader on my machine. On purpose. Will CC install a zero-day vulnerable version of Reader when I’m not looking?

    Most of it is based on price. I think the only way I would consider doing this would be with something like a 5 year price guarantee, which might even roadmap increases. As it is, prices could go up 400% or something in a couple of years, or the middle of next year. Right?

    I’m a serious photoshop user, since version 2; I also use Illustrator and InDesign. I’ve given up on Dreamweaver.

    I am very, very bummed out this week. Losing sleep. This sucks, IMO

    • Andrew Rodney — 6:52 PM on May 10, 2013

      >> Unfortunately I feel a great deal of distrust in this model. Some of that is based on updates suddenly appearing on my machine whether I decide or not .

      That’s NOT how the update process works. Who gave you that idea?

      You do NOT have to update. You may be notified of a new version but in no way are you forced to upgrade as there are reasons, such as the one you expressed, that a user would not want a new build.

      Another example of people here afraid or upset for no reason. Again, this model has issues, but people are scared and upset based on either misinformation or ignorance. Let’s be fair! Let’s get the facts straight before lighting the torches and gathering the pitchforks!

      Gang, do some research on this before the vein’s in your neck explode:

      http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html#desktop-products

      As a Creative Cloud member, am I required to install an upgrade to a desktop application when it becomes available?

      No. You are not required to install any new version of the desktop applications available in Creative Cloud. You can continue using your current version of the product as long as you have an active membership. You have flexibility on when you install a new release to take advantage of new product features, if you choose to do so.

  • John Lehet — 6:49 PM on May 10, 2013

    I’ll add that I’ve upgraded photoshop voluntarily, in order to get new features, without being forced, about 10 times. I’ve been content to wait. Early on, I was excited to upgrade, and I loved the paper manual with the New Features section. In recent years (the PDF manual isn’t even ready by release these days) I barely even know what the new features are, or how to use them. Really, it has been a mush, with some subtle improvements, and far less excitement about and understanding of the changes. To have new features rolled in slowly while I’m working sounds more horrible than exciting.

    The biggest problem is the sense that the ground has been yanked from under my feet. It’s more emotional than rational, but there are rational reasons too. Besides many reasons I don’t like this change — I agree with many, many of the posts on say the DPReview forum on this (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-CC-Creative-Cloud-Complaints-Poll-of-Photographers-Photoshop-users) — there is a sense that it doesn’t feel right, and I don’t trust Adobe anymore. I’ve been gradually feeling less love for Adobe as a company, from something like enthusiastic reverence in the 90s. Lately it feels more and more like I am more a source of income than someone for the company to serve. I serve your stockholders.

    So back to the point of this topic– sorry for the rant. I will never save anything important only as a PSD again. I will never use a Smart Object again (I have been using them more lately). I will always save a flat tif of anything important. I will look for alternatives to Adobe software and keep an eye on the door. This is how I will keep access to my work.

    • Andrew Rodney — 6:54 PM on May 10, 2013

      >>So back to the point of this topic– sorry for the rant. I will never save anything important only as a PSD again. I will never use a Smart Object again (I have been using them more lately). I will always save a flat tif of anything important.

      Now that’s smart thinking for someone who MIGHT decide to move back a version!

  • John Lehet — 8:06 PM on May 10, 2013

    Not that I might decide to move back a version.

    I’m going to do this with CS6 for as long as I can, or until I’m convinced the CC is benign rather than malignant to creative professionals.

  • Andrea Hoppe — 1:23 AM on May 11, 2013

    Over 20 years i used the software from Adobe. I have contracts with clients, that i not can use a cloud based software.
    So i never rent a software.

    So i have to change to other software, like quark, coda and photoline and aperture. Bye, bye Adobe.

  • Kin Corning — 4:43 AM on May 11, 2013

    I came across a Q&A on the Adobe Dreamweaver Team Blog answering the “myths” about CC. In response to the myth “I will be forced to always run the latest version of the software”, the answer is:

    “You are not forced to upgrade. You can continue to run which ever versions of the software that you want until YOU are ready to upgrade. This is crucial for workflows that involve working with clients or vendors that may not be on the latest versions of the software. You can continue using your current version of the product for one full year after the subsequent version is released.”

    Double-talk. I can run until I am ready to upgrade. But only for one year after a given version. What that means is that when a new CC version requires an OS upgrade, I have to make that OS upgrade within one year of Adobe demanding it or, presumably, my existing CC version will no longer authenticate? There certainly have been situations in the past where another piece of unrelated but important software on my Mac wasn’t ready for an OS version until quite some months after Adobe was ready. It fact, some of the mainstream 64-bit plug-in upgrades for Photoshop took the best part of a year as I recall, though I haven’t gone back to look exactly. But now the options for managing that balance and deciding when to upgrade the computer are further constrained. Before too long we’ll end up with a computer to run Adobe software, and another machine to run everything else. What happens when some other software vendor moves to a subscription model and their most recent version won’t run on the new OS yet? Don’t through away any of your old computers, because they may well be needed again.

    Question after question after question. Has Adobe really thought this whole thing through? All the vision stuff about an “expansive, and connected creative process” and future “advanced image manipulating algorithms” in the cloud is great, but it would be nice if the core functionality wasn’t degraded in the process.

    We are assured the drivers for CC are a better software delivery process and meeting future customer needs, and not primarily revenue. I found this quotation from Adobe CFO Mark Garrett, stated as being from Monday’s presentation, on an investor-oriented blog: “So our end goal, from my perspective, of faster revenue growth for this business and more recurring revenue is now even clearer than it was before, and these announcements today really reinforce that.” Ok, it is a quote of a quote, so if it isn’t accurate tell me so, but it looks accurate to me. Is the PR machine using the same story with investors and analysts that it is using with customers?

    207 comments just on this little blog post. The DPReview poll had 750 respondents two days ago, 1750 last night, 1955 now. The petition someone is doing to Adobe management has 7150 signatures. I could go on listing numbers from other forums. Is Adobe actually going to address some of these concerns or is management still hoping to ride out the storm? I am not ranting. This is a serious question. And I know it isn’t a question for you, John, either, but you have the unenviable job of being one of the more public faces of the company at the moment and one who is at least providing a direct-to-Adobe avenue for customer feedback.

    • Andrew Rodney — 7:54 AM on May 11, 2013

      >>I came across a Q&A on the Adobe Dreamweaver Team Blog answering the “myths” about CC. In response to the myth “I will be forced to always run the latest version of the software”, the answer is:

      Kim, that OLD URL (and from Dreamweaver as you note) is incorrect. I talked with jeff Tranberry at Adobe Thursday and he confirmed THAT page is old and incorrect and I was expecting it to be taken down or fixed by now. Jeff told me in no uncertain terms that the URL I provided (newer) is correct, you are NOT forced to update your software.

      YES, that Dreamwevare page is really confusing and shows that Adobe needs to get it’s act together in the communication dept. But again, that page is WRONG and Adobe needs to get it fixed ASAP, it’s not helping them one bit.

      • Durk Pearson — 8:49 AM on May 11, 2013

        Has this part of Adobe’s Creative Cloud agreement been changed, too?
        “11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.”

        Has this been changed?
        “3.3 Adobe may require you to provide consent to the updated Terms before further use of the Services is permitted. Otherwise, your continual use of any Service constitutes your acceptance of the changes.”

        Please specifically answer these two simple questions in your response. Thank you.

        • Andrew Rodney — 9:01 AM on May 11, 2013

          >>Has this part of Adobe’s Creative Cloud agreement been changed, too?

          Where does it say you are forced to update? You agree to updating yes, not the same as you must. But I’m not a lawyer. Bottom line however is this, the DreamWeaver site referenced is wrong needs to be fixed to match the URL I provided.

          • Durk Pearson — 9:36 AM on May 11, 2013

            “11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe….
            You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.”

            That is what the CC Agreement says. Since the CC Agreement hasn’t been changed, when one signs up for CC they agree to allow Adobe to update the Software “with or without your knowledge” with no requirement for any further permission from you – you have already given them all the permission that they need.

            One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand what this part of the Agreement says; unlike some legal Agreements, this language is very straight forward.

      • Kin Corning — 9:25 AM on May 11, 2013

        Ok. Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that on Adobe’s behalf.

      • mike chambers — 11:29 AM on May 11, 2013

        That post is from March, when this was the policy (for what reason I can’t fathom). Anyways, that is no longer the policy, and we in the process of updating the post.

        I am also looking into adding an item to the FAQ to make it very clear you can update when / if you want.

        Sorry about any confusion.

        mike chambers

        mesh@adobe.com

        • Kin Corning — 7:01 AM on May 12, 2013

          Thanks Mike, for confirming Andrew’s information that the “one year” restriction was an outdated policy still on a web page.

          I didn’t see your subsequent requests for the URL until just now, but you said that you found it and indeed I can confirm the page I had bookmarked has been changed to point to Terry White’s Tech Blog.

        • Durk Pearson — 10:18 AM on May 12, 2013

          Adobe may have changed the Dreamweaver blog and FAQs, but here is a different fact from Adobe – the CC contract:
          “11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.”

          Will this be changed? No one who I know would want their software changed during a time critical project (and aren’t they all time critical). If Adobe is never going to do that why does Adobe insist that their CC renters agree to those contractual terms?

          Straight answers please regarding your legally binding CC contract terms, not more talk about legally non-binding blogs and FAQs.

          Adobe has the right to market their software any way Adobe’s CEO wishes, but doubletalk about the customers’ legal rights and obligations isn’t helpful to your customers or to their retention.

        • Peter K Burian — 7:44 AM on May 14, 2013

          Mike: Can you confirm when Photoshop CC will be available for download? i.e. specific date.

    • mike chambers — 10:06 AM on May 11, 2013

      Can you provide the link for that? The “you have to upgrade within one year” is old, and is no longer valid. You can run whichever version you want for however long you want.

      That old messaging used to the be in official FAQ but was removed.

      Sorry about any confusion.

      mike chambers

      mesh@adobe.com

      • mike chambers — 10:11 AM on May 11, 2013

        I found the link. We are in the process of updating that blog post to reflect the correct policy.

        mike chamber

        mesh@adobe.com

        • Peter K Burian — 9:00 AM on May 14, 2013

          Yeah, you’re right; that is in the FAQ … I was hoping they might make it available sooner than June 17.

  • Charles Badland — 7:20 AM on May 11, 2013

    I have not read all the suggestion, so apologies if this idea has been posted:

    Photoshop Restricted®.

    Every two years Adobe offers a perpetual version of the current Photoshop CC (Bridge and ACR). This would be free for Cloud Members who have subscribed for those 2 years. For non-cloud users it could be bought for a nominal price, say $150 – $200. This Photoshop Restricted® would be a full version of Photoshop CC. Have all the features. All the bells and whistles. Open and edit the most recently made PSD files.

    BUT you would not be able to save a layered document.

    You could save as a flattened TIFF, JPG, a non-editable PDF. Just not a PSD or layered TIFF.

    This addresses many problems. It would not compete with Photoshop CC as it produces no usable (for a professional) document. It rewards and attracts loyal Cloud members and makes them secure in the fact that no mater what, their previous layered work will be available to them in a MEANINGFUL (ie editable) form. It shows respect for the Photoshop user with decades of work that Adobe IS concerned that they have full access to layered files in the future. You just would not be able to create any new layered documents.

    • FrediW — 7:56 PM on May 22, 2013

      That does not sound feasible. If I create a complex image in PS with multiple layers for publications or ads, and can only save a flattened version, that means you have to redo the creative graphic layers, every time you need to make a change? What good is that?

  • Dan Routh — 7:55 AM on May 11, 2013

    OK Adobe. How about a compromise on Photoshop. Take Photoshop CS6 Standard which has everything I will ever need to post-process my images and access my archive. Call it Photoshop Lite (which I think used to be what you called Elements) or for that fact, call it anything you want to. Don’t do anymore development other than compatibility or speed updates. Don’t ever add any new features except perhaps new formats that are publically recognized. Then sell a license to me and sell me periodic updates. Let the CC people go their merry way and develop away for them. Or, to some other developer out there, do the same thing and have a pre-sold customer base.

  • John Lehet — 12:33 PM on May 11, 2013

    Maybe I’ve got this wrong, misinformation posted online. Maybe Adobe needs to look at some of the things they would make us agree to. From the EULA:

    “6.5 Adobe may modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the Services or Materials, or any portion thereof, with or without notice. You agree that Adobe shall not be liable to you or anyone else if we do so.”

    and

    “11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.”

    Maybe people are cherry-picking the most terrifying bits of legalese and posting them online, but it is certainly off-putting.

    • Scott Valentine — 8:08 AM on May 13, 2013

      Standard language – similar language says they may revoke your perpetual license at any time, too, which is a common element in software EULAs. Check out the license agreements with your music and movies, your operating system, etc.

      Fun trivia – Apple included a restriction against using their mobile devices in the construction or operation of nuclear weapons. It has to do with export control issues, not that they think someone would set ‘Dr. Strangelove’ to play whenever they launched.

      • Eric Carlisle — 7:39 PM on May 14, 2013

        Holy Crap! In one day I discover two people that actually read EULAs! :-)

        As far as I know, I may have given Apple the legal right to my organs or perhaps they’ll make they’ll use me to make a human cent-iPod. ;-)

        • Scott Valentine — 7:06 AM on May 15, 2013

          for “cent-iPod”

          Well played, Eric.

  • Sol — 4:15 PM on May 11, 2013

    I have used PS since version 2, also Illustrator. Indesign since version 1. Actually I own CS2 upgraded to CS3 (CS2 activation servers are down, CS2 ist “not supported any more”, CS3 following soon?), and additionally I own CS5 wich I wanted to upgrade to CS7 by buying an upgrade to CS6 in the grace period. I am a graphic artist and designer, I teach PS, ID, AI in public courses and convinced many people in Germany to buy student versions to excercise for their work or hobby. My way of teaching can be done in 20 hours for photoshop, if you want, I can do this with CS2. In my opinion CS3 is good enough for us professionals, but in the last years you have started to make software for nerds and geeks always looking for the newest needless blinky-blinky features, AND besides for professionals dependent on your software.

    But now? It’s enough. Be sure I will STOP to spread the word for Adobe. I NEVER will “lease” software – NEVER! And be sure: Not me alone, I know companies working with CS but CC is an absolut no-go for their IT infrastructure. With your decision in direction Japan-like-cloud-hype you have lost long time customers and multipliers with one hit – wow! Oh this blinkered ignorance!

    • Andrea Hoppe — 8:03 AM on May 12, 2013

      Very good comment, i agree with you one hundred percent.

  • Gary Politzer — 6:47 PM on May 11, 2013

    I will never rent Photoshop. The last money Adobe may see from me will be if I decide CS6 is worth the upgrade. Then, I’ll start looking for alternatives. Creative Cloud can go to hell.

  • Bill — 9:03 PM on May 11, 2013

    This weeks CC move by Adobe is one of the most arrogant anti-customer situations I have ever witnessed by a prominent company. Instead of offering customers things like, you know, options on how to buy products, you guys tell us “take it or leave it.” Perhaps you believe you’ll always be on top, given the prominence of Photoshop and AE in the marketplace currently. But you’ve just lost a massive amount of trust that is going to take years to recover from, and as a long time customer, I am saddened and disappointed.

    I can tell you this, if I have to use any of your titles under these new conditions, it will be at the absolute minimum, which is a complete reversal from my previous buying habits with regards to Adobe products.

  • Craig Wall — 10:47 PM on May 11, 2013

    I write as someone who owned the master collection 5.5 and then used the cloud over the past year. I also was an authorized Adobe trainer about 15 years ago.

    Imagine a scenario where you built yourself a house…but where when you stopped renting your carpentry tools…then you weren’t permitted to inhabit your own house anymore. Imagine! Locked out of your own house by the vendor who rented you the tools. That’s beyond absurd isn’t it? Isn’t it!?

    But that’s the exact same scenario here. My files are my work. It’s my effort. My perspiration. My ideas…But because I used Adobe’s tools…I’m forever at the mercy of their gatekeping to be able to access my stuff.

    Sorry John…any talk of merely being able to access them in read-only format is just simple bullcrap and you KNOW IT!

    This isn’t free market. This is naked blackmail.

    John I suspect you are a good man. I see that you have no choice but to resign from Adobe if this policy persists. Or you will be working for a company building it’s future on a business practice of blackmail.

    This is wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Actually I’ll be precise and call it for what it is: evil.

    • Scott Valentine — 8:04 AM on May 13, 2013

      The industry is full of proprietary applications and formats. Even cameras have proprietary file formats that require licensing to other companies so you can use the files. And this has always been the case with Photoshop.

      John is specifically asking about ideas that would keep you from getting locked out, and I bet Adobe is actively considering what to do about future access. They may take the position that you’ve got 180 days to figure out a solution, so you’d better start saving out flat files and finding alternatives.

      If you choose a different tool, you’ll be in the same boat unless someone decides to propose and push an open document format. Consider also that your “forever” software eventually fails to run – Apple patently doesn’t care about that, and check out their customer base. So by not purchasing, you’re just shortening the timeline to obsolescence, not making a fundamental change.

      • Durk Pearson — 10:56 AM on May 13, 2013

        Scott, while most of what you have said is sensible – especially about unproductive anger – you are off the mark with “Consider also that your “forever” software eventually fails to run…”.

        My wife is a million+ copy best selling author. She likes using Wordstar, a text editing program that hasn’t been sold for about 25 years. She uses this software for hours per day, seven days per week. How is this possible? She runs it on a 1991 IBM 486 PC under MS-DOS. The only maintenance has been replacing the computer on/off switch. I’ve got three more old computers that can replace it if the motherboard fails; they cost about $5 each. She doesn’t want or need the complexity of MS Word.

        I have four Macs (three being obsolete IBM PowerPC machines running older versions of OS X and even one with OS9 Classic) hooked up to a KVM (keyboard, video, mouse) switch. I can run Photoshop CS – or even Photoshop 5 from 1998 – with the push of two buttons. I don’t need to do so because I have a perpetual license to your outstanding Photoshop CS6.

        I’d rather pay for further perpetual license upgrades to Photoshop, but you have every right to refuse to sell them – that is your call.

        But you are misleading Adobe customers when you say “Consider also that your “forever” software eventually fails to run…” It won’t fail to run if the perpetual licensee keeps an old machine with a compatible old OS version hooked up to a cheap KVM switch. There is another alternative: set up a VM (Virtual Machine) running the legacy OS and software. Either method will keep your perpetual license software running forever.

        Photoshop CS6 is lightyears ahead of the competition so it may take 5 years or so before a worthy competitor arises. However long that takes, I’ll be running my perpetual license Photoshop CS6. It will never “fail to run”; that is Adobe FUD.

        As far as I can tell, Adobe’s new CC lockin rental model is unique. Autodesk has a subscription system for their very good and very expensive software – but one receives a perpetual license for the software as it was when they cease subscribing. Of course, that doesn’t lock users into paying monthly rent until death do us part, which is clearly Adobe’s new business model. Adobe has every right to try to impose that model rather than giving their customers a choice for buying upgrades to a perpetual license.

        What Adobe doesn’t have is the right to misinform their customers “that your “forever” software eventually fails to run…”. It doesn’t have to be that way – and I doubt that you really are so ignorant that you don’t know it. More honesty will get Adobe less anger.

        • RHernandez — 11:38 AM on May 13, 2013

          LIKE – Well stated.

        • Scott Valentine — 1:57 PM on May 13, 2013

          First, I am not an Adobe employee – I just want to clarify that because not everyone who isn’t pissed off is on the payroll.

          Second, I advocate a perpetual license buy-out option. For the moment, we have CS6, which would be somewhat analogous to your maintaining Wordstar example. Don’t presume that I’ve drunk any Kool-Aid here. Your hardware also has a lifetime, and eventually will fail. That’s why you laid in stock. But what about when that dries up, or becomes prohibitively expensive?

          Of course there are exceptions to my statement, but it generally applies. Further, the business world recognizes that you don’t manage by exception. What fraction of the user base do you think will maintain legacy hardware to run older applications? Most users will continue to upgrade their tools without retaining legacy items. In the general model, CS6 eventually fails to run in a modern business setting.

          If you are in the business of creating PSD files, and you stop paying for the tool that creates and edits them, what’s your business case for wanting to continue working on them? Your choice in the future would be to rebuild the files in some other application, or to buy back in to Adobe’s system.

          John has said, and I agree, that you should never lose access to your work. He’s not suggesting that everyone freeze their hardware configurations. The point is to push Adobe to provide some remedy for future-proofing our work.

          Your one-issue missive is just a distraction from the core issue: looking forward. Trying to preserve the past in the manner you describe is a game of diminishing returns for most people. Is it possible? Yep. Is it feasible? Not for the overwhelming majority.

          Change happens. Due diligence suggests that we take parallel paths to mitigate the negative impact while preparing to take advantage.

          • Durk Pearson — 3:07 PM on May 13, 2013

            Scott, Thank you for clarifying your relation to Adobe. Please accept my apologies for my misunderstanding.

            There is a great divide between two groups of Adobe Photoshop users: big business and individuals.

            Indeed, big business IT departments aren’t going to want to maintain legacy hardware and software. If they don’t like Adobe’s rent only model, they are currently screwed.

            Individual users like myself have more flexibility and viable options – and I think that most of those complaining here, especially the most vehement, are individuals.

            For folks like me, the legacy hardware/software solution works. Hint: Hot running equipment dies much sooner – don’t count on a laptop running for 20 years, even a Macbook Pro. On the other hand, equipment with good cooling, such as a big multi-fan tower (such as a Mac Pro or an old IBM tower), is likely to last until there is a viable competitor to Photoshop CS6, even if it takes a decade. Want to be extra safe? Buy a few New-Old-Stock Hitachi UltraStar 3.5″ 1,000,000 hour+ enterprise server grade hard disks (for about $50 each for 240 GB drives), put them in your tower in a RAID array, plug your tower into an APC UPS/power conditioner, and you are all set for a long cold winter.

            You are right about the unhappy plight of big business IT departments; they aren’t going to be willing to give Adobe high level administrator user names and passwords so that Adobe can:
            “11.4 The Software may automatically download and install updates from Adobe. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the Services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new Software modules, and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Adobe to deliver these to you with or without your knowledge) as part of your use of the Services.”

            If Adobe’s CC download server got cracked and the blackhats got those admin usernames and passwords, they would own every Adobe CC customer. I don’t know of any solution to that other than the elimination of 11.4. I do not approve of the Feds interfering with private business contracts, but they may see some national security vulnerability implications here as a basis for intervening. Adobe might be able to solve this problem by requesting advice from
            http://www.nsa.gov/ia/mitigation_guidance/security_configuration_guides/operating_systems.shtml

            If anybody knows how to solve that knotty corporate security problem, I’d expect them to be the one.

          • Scott Valentine — 3:35 PM on May 13, 2013

            No apologies needed, Durk :)

            I understand your points and perspective. And the market is even more striated than business/individual. My guess would be that hobby/amateur users account for a nice fraction of sales, but Adobe’s actions seem contrary to that. If so, that might be a long-term loss because if people shy away from using PS in non-professional settings, their learning curves are much steeper when adopting it on the job. Look at the 3D world as an indicator – it’s more rarified for expensive applications.

            The security issue is a tangled one, indeed. But that EULA language is pretty common. The typical scenario is the software knocks on a low-level door, the door then spits out a download. Passwords in that case are not usually sent. Many applications do this constantly (I suspect OSX reports your typing rate and nose hair count to Apple support).

            There is also a government/LE system in place for CC that allows for offline or private network installations, and has other regulatory and compliance elements built in. I work in a secure environment, so have first-hand dealings with similar situations.

          • Durk Pearson — 4:26 PM on May 13, 2013

            Thanks, Scott.

            You have a very powerful point about how, in the past, amateurs bought perpetual licenses (particularly for Photoshop), learned the very complex software by using it (that’s my case – my formal education was MIT physics, not graphic arts), and thereby became capable of being hired as corporate pros. (I got hired as a corporate pro rocket scientist – my photography is just for fun – lots of fun, which is why I’m going to keep my Photoshop CS6 running come hell, high water, and new OS X versions.)

            I think that Adobe’s best bet to keep the Photoshop part of that skilled people pipeline flowing is to continue to sell perpetual licenses to Photoshop CS6 for as long as there is a market for them. I read that Adobe is still doing this, but if they are, that offer is sure hard to find on Adobe’s website. Try going to Adobe.com yourself and looking for anything other than CC. Adobe may have an overzealous marketing department problem.

            Another powerful way keep the Photoshop skilled individuals pipeline open would be to sell permanent licenses to Photoshop CS5 for $199 with no support, no more bug fixes, and no upgrades. That development is a sunk cost, and there would be no support costs. Why CS5? Its 64 bit for both Windows and Macs. I think that it would sell very well, reduce piracy, and very strongly disincentivize would-be competitors for years to come. This idea is almost certainly too outre for Adobe’s CEO to even consider it now – but maybe in a year or so when the skilled Photoshoppers pipeline runs low…

  • Craig Wall — 11:00 PM on May 11, 2013

    Adobe’s blundering and bloated decision to rent/coerce is going to raise up an army of evangelists..who will work *against* the company they once loved.

    Quark and Pixelmator and The Foundry are going to feast on this. And an army of former Adobe customers will tell friends and associates and blog, tweet and rage Adobe into an early grave.

    Talk about going viral!!!

    Adobe’s policy is nothing less than a declaration of war against it’s customers.

    This will not stand. I taught Photoshop. I taught After Effects and Premiere. I’ve invested many thousands of dollars in Adobe tools. But this will only turn me one of your favorite most loyal sons against you.

    We the People…will go out of the way to make these blood-sucking business practices die…and if you persist with them…we’ll fight to make Adobe die as well.

    • Scott Valentine — 7:54 AM on May 13, 2013

      So much venom, Craig. Why try to bring down the company actively? If you simply choose another tool, and tell them why you’re leaving, why should you seek revenge? Presuming enough people agree with you, Adobe will fail. But if enough disagree with you, they’ll continue and you’ll have found a tool more suited to your needs.

  • James Conner — 11:04 PM on May 11, 2013

    Alan Ralph’s suggestion has merit and should be given serious consideration.

    Incidentally, it is not clear to me whether the PSD format in Photoshop CC differs from the PSD format in Photoshop CS6. If there is a new format, a fix allowing CS6 to read CC seems in order if technically possible.

    • Andrew Rodney — 8:43 AM on May 12, 2013

      >>Incidentally, it is not clear to me whether the PSD format in Photoshop CC differs from the PSD format in Photoshop CS6.

      I’m not an engineer in my wildest dreams but I suspect something changes so Photoshop remains smart about dealing with files. I suspect every new version, perhaps during dot releases, there are changes made. So what? If you make a Rounded Rectangle in CC, save as TIFF or PSD and go back, Photoshop is smart enough to handle this although you may not like the choices presented thanks to your own movement back a version.

      I find it interesting that now that CC subscription has arrived, long time Adobe customers are questioning EULA’s, format changes, backward’s version movement when none of this is new. So all those questing the EULA’s and who have every right to do so, DID accepted Adobe’s terms in the past? Without reading them? All water under the bridge (for decades in one way or another!).

      The pricing and inflexibility to buy into a perceptual license is the issue.

      • Claudius — 10:54 AM on May 12, 2013

        PSD is a great file format when it comes to backwards compatibility. This is hard to achieve and Adobe Engineers deserve respect for that one.

        Other formats (a lot of formats in the creative suite actually) aren’t so well designed, regarding this topic. So there may be more problems.

        Still: Even if the switch back to CS6 (as a safe-haven from subscription licensing) works fine today, this will only get worse. So going back to CS6 five years from now will probably be much more painful. By then, photoshop will have a lot of new features, that are just not available in CS6. It will not be able to read all of those features from the file. It will probably still be able to decipher “most” of the content.

        If you have access to it, please open a recent Photoshop file with the original Photoshop 6 (not CS6). It will be able to show you most things, but it just can’t handle adjustment layers or smart objects.

        This is the same situation we’ll be in a few years from now. Also: people using flash or inDesign will hit a similar roadblock much earlier, as those formats (as far as my experience with them goes) weren’t designed so well in regard of backwards compatibility.

        • Eric Carlisle — 12:54 PM on May 12, 2013

          Agreed about PSD being a great file format. I say the same of Fireworks PNG, based on an open standard.

          [Well, yes and no: The composite of a Fireworks file is standard, but the layers have nothing to do with the PNG standard. It's like when Photoshop saves a layered TIFF or saves its layers in a PDF: it just bolts a huge proprietary blob onto standard data. --J.]

      • Claudius — 11:05 AM on May 12, 2013

        > I find it interesting that now that CC subscription has arrived, long time Adobe customers are questioning EULA’s, format changes, backward’s version movement when none of this is new.

        Photoshop CS6 ran forever, once i bought and activated it (possibly over the phone).

        Photoshop CC will only run for a while (i seem to remember 180 days without online connection, but this may be off by some time). Also, the working of that program is tied to a regular payment.

        The reason we question backwards movement, is because CS6 is the last version that runs forever(tm). IF we decided to sign up for CC AND created files with it, AND at some point would stop to pay, CS6 would be our last chance at ever opening our files again (without taking up regular payments again).

        So this is, why this one is more interesting than usual. If I upgraded from CS5 to CS6, the step back didn’t seem so important. But right now, for CS6 to CC, it does (for me, at least).

  • Eric Carlisle — 6:33 AM on May 12, 2013

    Amen, sir!!!

  • Peter K Burian — 6:54 AM on May 12, 2013

    PSD files created in Photoshop CC work find in CS6, for the most part. There are several earlier posts by Andrew Rodney for example .. indicating that a PSD file created in Photoshop CC will work fine in CS6 ….. except for layers created with features that are unique to Photoshop CC.

    Andrew Rodney has been using CC and wrote this: What would make them read only? Let’s say you do have CS6. All the layers you outlined above would be accessible in both CS6 and CC. Now if you build a layer in CC that uses technology not in CS6, you simply can’t edit that data in CS6. Any more than Photoshop 2 can open or deal with layers built in Photoshop 3. BEFORE moving backwards (which isn’t a great idea), you’ll have to understand what is and isn’t accessible in an old build. And fix that issue.

    Or just not move backwards, your call.

    Let’s not forget that YOU decided to upgrade to CC and YOU decided to use newer functionality not found in CS6 and YOU decided to move back a version. So YOU have to fix the layer that has newer functionality (flatten). OR just stick with CC.

    >>I want to edit my old files.
    So do I. And no, the current situation isn’t ideal. But if you’re going to jump on new technology, then go backwards, you better plan this move!

    The idea however that you will move from say CS6 to CC and you can’t go back isn’t correct. There ARE situations where you will not be able to move back, but not too many. I’ve opened CC generated doc’s in CS6, no problem. But you have to do it ‘correctly’. And moving backwards in version’s of software isn’t a good idea if not handled correctly.

  • Andrew Rodney — 1:13 PM on May 12, 2013

    >>IF we decided to sign up for CC AND created files with it, AND at some point would stop to pay, CS6 would be our last chance at ever opening our files again

    Opening where and how? You can open them in Apple’s Preview if you wanted to. Or GraphicConverter, or MS Word, or any number of products. Save as TIFF.

    What you are saying is you can’t go backwards and have full editing functionality of CS6 minus any new CC technology, yes. Save as a layered TIFF. Make sure you have a machine that can run CS6 and probably don’t update that OS.

    In the above to cases, the files were able to be opened. In the case of a TIFF and a 3rd party product, I’d expect future software to support that format at least in my lifetime. And you know who own’s TIFF right?

    • Claudius — 1:36 PM on May 12, 2013

      Yup, that’s exactly what i’m saying.

      If you’d now please go on to read the rest of my comment, you’d probably find a posting reflecting on the current gap between CC and CS6, and what i believe to be the future of this gap.

      • Andrew Rodney — 2:56 PM on May 12, 2013

        >>Yup, that’s exactly what i’m saying.

        Exactly what you said was: IF we decided to sign up for CC AND created files with it, AND at some point would stop to pay, CS6 would be our last chance at ever opening our files again. That’s wrong. So it isn’t exactly what you said.

        >>If you’d now please go on to read the rest of my comment, you’d probably find a posting reflecting on the current gap between CC and CS6, and what i believe to be the future of this gap.

        I don’t see anything else in that comment you refer to. What am I missing?

        • Andrew Rodney — 2:59 PM on May 12, 2013

          >>>>Yup, that’s exactly what i’m saying.

          >>Exactly what you said was: IF we decided to sign up for CC AND created files with it, AND at some point would stop to pay, CS6 would be our last chance at ever opening our files again.

          That should THEN read:

          That’s wrong. So it isn’t exactly what you’re saying.

        • Claudius — 3:00 PM on May 12, 2013

          Whoops, i confused two comments.

          I thought your quote was extracted from the posts at 10:54 AM on May 12, 2013 (and the one directly after that).

  • Dacki — 2:07 PM on May 12, 2013

    I read about cloud after i bought Cs6 last weak.
    Also planed to buy After Efect Cs6 for my future 3d projects with Maya Zbrush everything fits well.
    But paying for a Software on and on without ever having the feeling you got it its absolutly yours.
    I lost my inspiration working with Cs6 completly.
    Makes no sense buying AE anymore without having the chance to update porperly how it should be.

  • jlua — 1:46 AM on May 13, 2013

    In case someone is interested in signing this petition just created by Corey Edwards to the White House, to denounce Adobe´s monopoly practices:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ask-doj-investigate-adobe-systems-inc-recent-announcement-change-its-software-license-subscription/TfWzqjHQ

    • Scott Valentine — 7:48 AM on May 13, 2013

      Really? He’s demanding the DOJ investigate Adobe based on his complete misunderstanding of the legal definition of monopoly and of Adobe’s business actions.

      His letter does have a good proposal to set the individual application price at $10/app, a la carte. But most everything else he writes is based on misunderstanding or outright wrong information.

  • Eric Steiner — 6:35 AM on May 13, 2013

    I’ve read that one of the reasons Adobe is doing this is that it will allow for faster release cycles. The thing I don’t get is this… what exactly is the difference between creating an app for perpetual license and creating one for CC? Aren’t they both ultimately desktop applications? Maybe there’s not one big pretty monolithic installer anymore, but that’s not a big deal. Just offer the CC applications as they are and let the software check in once a month to determine if I own it, or if I’m renting it. Seems pretty simple to me.

    • Rick Boden — 7:36 AM on May 13, 2013

      Adobe has to save up the features for their 18 month or so paid upgrades as an incentive for you to buy or upgrade to a new version. If you are paying monthly they can release new features at any time.

  • Jim — 7:27 AM on May 13, 2013

    Adobe could mitigate much of the PSD concerns (note that you can easily open most PSDs in other non Adobe apps) if the released an app similar to Acrobat Reader that could read all of Adobe’s formats such as PSDs AEPs and the rest in an app that gave you access to layers and such and allow you to export them to standard non proprietary formats such as jpg, TIFF, TGA, AVI, and MOV files (etc etc/ et-al ) and even print, share etc.

    I have been a CC subscriber for about 6 months now (and I am a 12 year professional in the VFX industry, been using PS since the early-mid 90s),I think it’s a good start with the service, however people’s concerns should never be ignored. There is much room to grow, one of my biggest issues is that of Network administration, and multi-license handling across networks, and also point out that in offices where work machines are unable to access the internet for security reasons there is no way to maintain adobe software. No one will break security procedures just to use Adobe apps, they will use something else.

  • John Lehet — 8:15 AM on May 13, 2013

    I really like the idea posted above, essentially:

    Freeze the feature set of CS6. Sell us a perpetual license. Maintain that code, and sell us upgrades based on that maintenance.

    I think it’s completely fair to pay Adobe for the work done in creating and maintaining these applications. However, I will not participate in the new Creative Cloud model of perpetual rent with no control over future monthly costs.

  • Miles Linklater — 8:30 AM on May 13, 2013

    Naturally Adobe has every right to change its software distribution system and charge whatever it wants.

    No one is forced to update to creative cloud and I, for one, have no intention of doing so… I believe I can work quite well with my current CS6 software (as long as my clients don’t upgrade, in which case what choice will I have?).

    It would seem to me the time is ripe for another software platform to come along… Perhaps as InDesign surpassed Quark, it’s time for another software company to come forward with a viable alternative to Creative Suite to which we will not be habitually shackled to incessant upgrade costs.

  • jsprat — 11:53 AM on May 13, 2013

    I have used adobe products since AI 88. I will never rent my software.

  • Greg Henry — 12:01 PM on May 13, 2013

    Suggestion:

    I’m going to speak about Photoshop since this is the program that many are talking about and the one I am concerned with myself. Adobe can keep the subscription model for those who it works for best (and it does work for some). However, you could still SELL Photoshop CS as a program via download and DVD, raise the upgrade price slightly from $199 to say, $229, and then charge people for the updates they want as they come out, similar to plug-ins.

    For instance, let’s say someone wants to grade from CS5. They would pay $229 to upgrade to CS6. When the movement correction feature comes out, offer it for $29.00. Smarter sharpen? $29.00. Camera RAW updates could be charged but a list of new cameras supported would be published first, so people could decide if they want to pay for a particular update or not, etc. You get the idea.

    The problem isn’t necessarily that subscriptions are being offered – or for some, though the price is steep per-program, it’s not necessarily that. It’s the “You’re doing this now, or else”, feeling with no options that are causing the issue, and those feelings are not going away. So I hope Adobe can be sensible enough to offer what they want, along WITH other options as well… for as they say, “The migration is about to begin”, if not.

    Thank you.

  • Olivier H — 1:09 PM on May 13, 2013

    Hi John
    I am very happy that you ask and I will try to give my point on this question only.
    In short, i won’t discuss the price or the model : Adobe rules this game, clearly, and they show it the worse way they could that they are ruling. But they rule so i won’t discuss. I am allready a “happy” CS6 subsciber. So there were no need to force me to subscribe…

    BUT now with the ending of standart model the I fear for the future of my files if i can’t subscribe anymore or adobe one day terminate its business… in this case now I can’t access my files anymore …. I won’t own any solution to open them just from one day to the other… That’s crazy !!!

    And yes I would be very very happy to be able to open, export, print AND VIEW/export the STRUCTURE (like layers and masks also) any files WITHOUT any subscription with the demo version.
    That would really the minimum to calm down my fears in the future.

    So what about a version with only the save as/print and SELECT ALL/COPY and the ability to see the layer and mask without editing them. Because I think that Mask and layers settings are also part of my creation i would be able to keep. Please take that in consideration too.

    Again I am very happy that Adobe is concerned with this issue wich is the most important to me

    [Got it; thanks for the feedback. --J.]

  • Olivier H — 1:16 PM on May 13, 2013

    Ah and just three more questions that I haven’t found answers to:
    What if you are not in the restricted CC subscriber country possible list ?
    What about site education license : i teach in a school with hundreds of computers that have a per users license scheme (not computer) … will that be possible now ?
    What if you are in a compagny/organization that does not allow unrestricted internet access, we have adult student that come to learn photoshop and work in such compagny?

    • Mike Chambers — 2:50 PM on May 13, 2013

      Oliver,

      All 3 of your questions are covered in the Creative Cloud FAQ:

      http://www.adobe.com/go/cc_faq

      See the following questions / sections:

      Creative Cloud for teams isn’t available in my country. When will it be available? (not sure why this is in teams section, but it applies to individual also).

      If I work in an enterprise or government agency that restricts access to the Internet, can I use Creative Cloud?

      Creative Cloud desktop apps for education Section

      Hope that helps…

      mike chambers

      mesh@adobe.com

      • Peter K Burian — 8:09 AM on May 14, 2013

        Yes, the FAQ is very useful. It seems there are still a lot of misconceptions out there.

        Bottom Line for me: Since I own CS6, the cost for Photoshop CC will be $10 per month for the first year. I can definitely afford that and will sign up as a Cloud member, for one app only, Photoshop CC. (I want the extra features that CC will provide.)

        After the first year, the price per month will increase. I will then need to decide how to proceed…… I will still own CS6 and I will be able to use that on files created with Photoshop CC, except for layers made with features unique to CC. And I can live with that.

        Whether I agree with the Subscription concept for Photoshop is academic, since it’s now a fact of life. (In fact, I would prefer to pay an upgrade fee for Photoshop CS7, if that were possible. But that won’t be available; so the past is history and on to the Cloud concept.)

  • Kim Aston — 2:36 PM on May 13, 2013

    I have been an Adobe customer since the dawn of time (Photoshop 4 I believe). I owned the Marcomedia products before Adobe took them over. I don’t want to think about the money I have spent staying current with these programs, and honestly I never did, nor did I regret the sum, until this new pricing model which has just blind-sided me last week. Even last year when I upgraded to CS6 Premium, I believed there would always be an option for the a box set and perpetual license.
    Now with my only option to stay current being to sign on to monthly payments forever….I DO find myself thinking about every dime I gave Adobe in the past, and it has not left a good taste in my mouth. The fact that a week has gone by and there is still this much brouhaha about this, should speak volumes.
    I actually understand that your future vision is for extreme cloud based processes that can only be possible with massive code generating servers in the sky, but what actual percentage of your client base will have the capabilities to benefit from that….5%, 10%, 25%? What about the vast majority of people who want something much greater than PSE but less than CC on steroids… ?
    I am one of those people! I would very much like to try to stay current, but I cannot and will not, sign into a contract with a never-ending payment plan, to do so. Please help maintain my relationship with Adobe, continue to provide regularly scheduled update options so I can both stay current, and make the dignified decision to end my multi-decade relationship with you while retaining use to the most up-to-date software, when the finances dictate that I must.
    Thank you.

  • Paul — 4:20 PM on May 13, 2013

    The real kicker is that if you cancel your subscription you loose access to your documents, which Adobe are essentially holding hostage: “If you want to see your digital ‘babies’ again, keep paying the subscription sucker!” Adobe just don’t seem to have thought this through – such a smart company once upon a time.

    • Andrew Rodney — 7:40 AM on May 14, 2013

      >>The real kicker is that if you cancel your subscription you loose access to your documents…

      Absolutely untrue, incorrect, false! What gave you that idea?

      • Rick McCleary — 8:04 AM on May 14, 2013

        >>>>The real kicker is that if you cancel your subscription you loose access to your documents…

        >>Absolutely untrue, incorrect, false! What gave you that idea?

        Well, he’s may have the specifics wrong, but his fear is well-founded. With this change to subscription-only, any documents he creates in a CC app using CC-only features will only be accessible by a CC app. The only way to get access to a CC app is by maintaining the subscription.

        So, it doesn’t matter where his documents reside (…Adobe’s Cloud storage or his own hard drive…), his CC-created files are only accessible using CC apps. The problem is probably minor at this point when the CC apps are not radically different than CS6; he’ll only be missing out on a few features. But as time passes and the CC apps evolve, the problem will become major.

        If someone from Adobe would like to address this problem (…or correct me if I’m wrong…), I’m sure the world would love to listen.

        Adobe corporate needs to get their communication skills cleaned up. They’re handling this issue with the finesse of a bulldozer.

        • Andrew Rodney — 8:10 AM on May 14, 2013

          >>With this change to subscription-only, any documents he creates in a CC app using CC-only features will only be accessible by a CC app

          Wrong. I’ve moved from CC back to CS6 and if you and he would read some of the facts presented here (and elsewhere), you’d know your statements are simply incorrect. IF you move back a software version by your own doing, and you expect 100% full functionality you had with the new product, you’re foolish as this has never been possible since Photoshop and thousands of other application’s first shipped.

          >>his CC-created files are only accessible using CC apps.

          No matter how many times you tell yourself this, it’s factually incorrect.

          • Rick McCleary — 8:31 AM on May 14, 2013

            Please take a step back and look at the situation with a wider lens.

            A scenario:
            The year is 2023. A loyal CC subscriber has been happily creating art with CC tools and decides to retire. How does he continue to open his files?
            Ten years hence, in 2033, he passes away. His heirs wish to access those files. How do they open his files?
            What happens if, by then, Adobe has pulled a Kodak and is no longer in existence?

          • Andrew Rodney — 8:41 AM on May 14, 2013

            >>The year is 2023. A loyal CC subscriber has been happily creating art with CC tools and decides to retire. How does he continue to open his files?

            In this future you’ve created, is there software that can open a JPEG or TIFF? If so, there’s your answer.

            He’s retired but wants to continue editing? Does CS6 run on any old hardware in the future you are making up? He’s retired but wants to continue editing? He continues to pay to use CC version 2023.

          • Rick McCleary — 10:54 AM on May 14, 2013

            >>He’s retired but wants to continue editing? He continues to pay to use CC version 2023.

            Eggs-zactly.

        • Mike Chambers — 10:45 AM on May 14, 2013


          If someone from Adobe would like to address this problem (…or correct me if I’m wrong…), I’m sure the world would love to listen.

          That is what the entire point of the this blog post is about.

          mike chambers

          mesh@adobe.com

          • Eric Carlisle — 5:29 PM on May 14, 2013

            Got nothin’ but love and respect for Mr. Chambers. I too would lilke to hear Adobe’s response!

  • Marek — 8:24 PM on May 13, 2013

    Adobe does not get it.
    We do not need a Reader, we need CHOICE.
    Choice between Clouds and boxed software.
    We do not want to be FORCED to go one way street.
    If Clouds are so great, customers will go there, but they will go on their own decision. Adobe task is to convince people not but cutting options, but by making one option better then other. At this moment “box” is much better then “cloud” for majority of people. And Adobe knows that, that is why they opened only one door for entrance and one window to exit( it is located on 11th floor)

  • Carl Matthews — 6:35 AM on May 14, 2013

    I have been a vocal supporter of Adobe for a long time…and pushed for my company to cease using Quark in favour of InDesign CS, which they eventually did.

    I personally purchased CS6 last year when the big cutoff from CS4 was announced. I will continue to use this suite for as long as physically possible, maybe even to the point of ceasing OS upgrades on my computer when it stops support for that too.

    I doubt Adobe will reconsider this change in direction, but if they do I am sure there are lots of interested designers out there who would be happy to buy their software as they always have done and have it “activated” on a monthly basis to stop piracy.

    In the meantime, if a realistic alternative becomes available, I will look at them seriously.

  • Durk Pearson — 9:46 AM on May 14, 2013

    Regarding Andrew Rodney’s response to Paul:
    ” in response to Paul:

    The real kicker is that if you cancel your subscription you loose access to your documents, which Adobe are essentially holding hostage: “If you want to see your digital ‘babies’ again, keep paying the subscription sucker!” Adobe just don’t seem to have thought this through – such a smart company once upon a time.

    >>The real kicker is that if you cancel your subscription you loose access to your documents…

    Absolutely untrue, incorrect, false! What gave you that idea?”

    I think that the miscommunication is that you and Paul mean different things by the term “documents”.

    By documents, it appears to me that Andrew means the input data/images, the output data/images, and for Photoshop, layers that are frozen if they are of a new type. (If one refrains from using Adobe’s additional Cloud innovations, there is no problem with frozen layers, but then there isn’t much of a reason for subscribing to Adobe’s Cloud, either).

    Paul’s view of “document” includes all the work that went into doing things with all those layers, including the ability to revisit them and do further work on them (such as for a repurposed image).

    With the non-Photoshop Cloud applications, there may be no way (especially after a few years) of revisiting and modifying them at all, except by maintaining a Cloud subscription.

    Andrew, please keep that in mind when you read these oft heated comments.

    Other high end software companies have subscriptions, but they differ in one gigantic respect from Adobe’s cloud: When you subscribe to Autodesk software, you receive continuous support and updates, but you can also receive a perpetual license to the software as it was when you ceased to subscribe. This leaves the ex-subscriber free to revisit and modify their work for the rest of their life. Adobe’s lock-in and pay forever business plan is great for Adobe but stinks for many customers, particularly enthusiast and fine art photographers.

    Adobe has the right to market their software in any way it wishes, and your customers have the right to continue to run their perpetual license software on legacy machines with legacy OSs or via VMs – and to look for alternatives. As someone who has been on the Photoshop upgrade train from Photoshop 5 through CS6, I’m disappointed (like many other prior Adobe customers) that Adobe isn’t interested in my continued business. I’ll just have to keep my Photoshop CS6 running for the 5 years or so that it will take for a comparable image editor to be developed by the competition.

    If you want to understand your customers’ dissatisfaction and even ire, you will need to at least try to look at things from their points of view.

  • JImD — 11:37 AM on May 14, 2013

    Andrew’s vociferous defense of Adobe is based on his own self interest. He offer Photoshop training along with other services. His energetic presence here may be influenced by that

    • Andrew Rodney — 1:05 PM on May 14, 2013

      >>Andrew’s vociferous defense of Adobe is based on his own self interest.

      I haven’t defended them a lick! I have provided facts and corrections.

    • Rick McCleary — 3:13 PM on May 14, 2013

      >>Andrew’s vociferous defense of Adobe is based on his own self interest. He offer Photoshop training along with other services.

      Your comment is unknowing, unnecessary, and unhelpful. Let’s keep the discussion about the topic at hand.

  • Marek — 11:49 AM on May 14, 2013

    Is there any other program, that I can export PSD files to and edit them ?

    • Andrew Rodney — 11:56 AM on May 14, 2013

      >>Is there any other program, that I can export PSD files to and edit them ?

      Edit them as you did in Photoshop? No. That’s proprietary. Export as TIFF (or perhaps PSD) and open in another product and edit using their unique processing, yes? Lots.

      • Marek — 12:05 PM on May 14, 2013

        Thanks for quick answer.
        Well…I do not understand the purpose of new Reader. If I can export PSD files but without freedom of edit them like in PS, then does not make sense to save them in this format. I have to save them in TIFF or JPEG or something else.
        In this case I do not need Adobe Reader. I can open these files directly in other programs.

        • Andrew Rodney — 12:22 PM on May 14, 2013

          >>I do not understand the purpose of new Reader.

          Neither do I.

    • Mike Chambers — 12:36 PM on May 14, 2013

      It depends on what you need to do, but there are programs that can export and open PSD files (AutoDesk SketchBook Pro being oen off the top of my head).

      mike chambers

      mesh@adobe.com

  • Andrew Rodney — 12:29 PM on May 14, 2013

    >>I do not understand the purpose of new Reader.

    >>Neither do I.

    Upon reading the blog post, neither does the person making the suggestion (and it isn’t John). He just passed this along and probably regrets it. We don’t need an Adobe reader. We need to deal with legacy documents or insure they are not legacy by keeping around hardware and operating systems to run that data. But this has been true since the desktop computing began.

  • Olivier H — 12:49 PM on May 14, 2013

    Another point of practical concern :
    I have my CC install on my main computer and on my laptop wich stand on the shell except when I travel ! (it’s a travel computer only , not a day to day computer – don’t you have one ?)

    Then before taking the plane I grab it and fly to a place without internet ( it happens more than you think !)

    How could I be sure I will be able to work with CC?

    Even if i take the time to launch a CC app before leaving (wich is a new contrain to me) there is nothing that shows me EXPLICITLY that my licence has been renew for 30 days and that i can leave without fear !!

    Can you make the license expiration/validation timing more explicit to the end user.

    The other day my main computer say ” Hi ! Be carefull only 4 days left before expiration of CC!! you have to connect to the internet” and it was offline only for a weekend or so , so it looks that the validation doesn’t take every day when online but on a period basis.

    So when I grab my laptop even if you say you can have a grace period of 30 days without internet, in the actual state i don’t know if i am at the 1st day or the 29th day when i get in the plane.

    Just make the timing / validation process more explicit. (HOW MUCH TIME do i have left/can i reset counter MANUALLY just before leaving?)
    It will be a pain in my a… to have to validate manually every program on my laptop that have adopted your subscriber model (who know home many editor will follow) in future but i prefer that than having my license cut in the middle on my trip without notice … and then if every editor adopt a subscription model i will have to “validate” all the program on my laptop every time i leave, just after finishing packing my suitcase !!WOW !! ). lot’s of new unexpected ( wanted ) worries ….

    • Scott Valentine — 1:30 PM on May 14, 2013

      The license server is checked every 30 days, but the software continues to operate for 90 days or until the end of your subscription, whichever comes first.

      • Olivier H — 1:15 PM on May 15, 2013

        it seems not to work like that … sorry
        as i said photoshop claims to have only 4 day left without any other reference or information and i was ofline only for a weekend …
        Then when i connected all was ok
        what if i couldn’t connect within 4 days ..

        I subscribed annually… and it’s not the end

        Sorry it’s really not clear to me if i can be away from internet and how long and when !

        just make it appears clealry like : “X days left” on the about screen or something like that and a way to validate manually when online for a few minute on a cyber cafe or something

        • Scott Valentine — 9:17 PM on May 15, 2013

          That’s information directly from Adobe. You should have let it expire in a non-critical situation to see what would happen.

          • Olivier H — 12:00 PM on May 16, 2013

            The message was clear : if you fail to connect within 4 days software will stop running

            again adobe say 30 days but not when those days begin … , i looks that the counter doesn’t restart every day you are connected but every 30 days if you are connected !! so you could be at the 25 days when you get your laptop and leave to the plane, then get this 4 days message on the 26 days … then be F…. after 4 days

            Again a visible count of the days left of my licence would be better and their would be no fear fear of the unknown !

          • Scott Valentine — 2:08 PM on May 16, 2013

            Right from the top of the FAQ:

            “You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you’ll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you’ll be able to use products for 3 months (99 days) even if you’re offline.”

            http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html

            Seriously – rtfm. If you thought it was going to stop working, you should waited to see if it would ACTUALLY FAIL then contacted support if necessary. But now you’ve given in to your assumptions rather than be informed.

  • Olivier H — 1:24 PM on May 14, 2013

    a few century before adobe would have told leonardo di vinci

    “when you stop renting your brush and paint we will also take the access to your painting, and hide how you made them, just take some photos of them if you want memories”

    I really don’t want to live that !!

    and a “flatten tif” is not a solution : mask and layers and creative process is also part of my creation.

    dark days are coming for the “creative artists”
    I was a never ending admirer of what photoshop allowed me to create.
    I turn in one day in a pessistic fear of what will become of my creation in the future…
    Not only adobe’s fault,but they made me conscience how fragile and cloud bussiness depended all that we computercreate has become…

    I really ask what will stay for the future of all this computer created art.
    We never created so much in man’s history and i fear that it would never be so less left as a legacy to the future… what is the cloud compared to the ancient pyramids… what will stay of all those tera of tera bits of 1 and 0 that compose todays art ?

    Due to it’s place in the bussiness, Adobe I think has part of responsability in this and may they could get involve in some project to ensure the concervation and transmission to the future generation of contempory computer created art …

    “ADOBE FOUNDATION FOR PROMOTION AND CONSERVATION OF COMPUTER ART …”

    Totally admit this is quite of topics but it’s a good place like another to launch the idea!!

    • Andrew Rodney — 2:26 PM on May 14, 2013

      >>and a “flatten tif” is not a solution : mask and layers and creative process is also part of my creation.

      Then continue to pay Adobe to use the proprietary processing you yourself began, OR keep using CS6. Simple as that.

      • Olivier H — 1:07 PM on May 15, 2013

        LOL !
        Rimes with troll !!
        ;-)

      • Claudius — 2:35 PM on May 15, 2013

        Oliver
        >> and a “flatten tif” is not a solution : mask and layers and creative process is also part of my creation.

        Andrew
        > Then continue to pay Adobe to use the proprietary processing you yourself began, OR keep using CS6. Simple as that.

        OR you could try to convince a company to do “the right thing”™. I fail to understand why this is a concept you refuse so vehemently.

        Also: Most of the people posting here, announced to do just that: keep using CS6 for the time being.

        This Comment-Thread saw a lot of good suggestions, mostly boiling down to
        – Read-only-Application
        – Buyout
        – Other companies’ licenses (Alias or that sound company)
        – Dual-License (choice of perpetual or subscription)
        – Package CC version every few years as perpetual
        – Putting (very) old software in Public Domain

        Or, of course, you can just go with CC-as-is or stick with CS6-as-was, as if there’s nothing we can do. That’s hardly what i’d call “creative”.

        • jlua — 1:07 AM on May 16, 2013

          Claudius: And don´t forget the “maintenance” model, which I mentioned on another message here, and which I am partially transcribing here:

          “most professional-grade software companies use the “maintenance model”, under which while you pay an annual -hefty- “maintenance” fee, you get technical support and all upgrades. If you stop paying, all that happens is that you stop getting those two benefits, but you get to continue using what you have until that moment.”

    • Durk Pearson — 5:43 PM on May 14, 2013

      Oliver H. said,
      “a few century before adobe would have told leonardo di vinci

      “when you stop renting your brush and paint we will also take the access to your painting, and hide how you made them, just take some photos of them if you want memories”

      I really don’t want to live that !!

      and a “flatten tif” is not a solution : mask and layers and creative process is also part of my creation.

      dark days are coming for the “creative artists”
      I was a never ending admirer of what photoshop allowed me to create.
      I turn in one day in a pessistic fear of what will become of my creation in the future…
      Not only adobe’s fault,but they made me conscience how fragile and cloud bussiness depended all that we computercreate has become…

      I really ask what will stay for the future of all this computer created art.
      We never created so much in man’s history and i fear that it would never be so less left as a legacy to the future… what is the cloud compared to the ancient pyramids… what will stay of all those tera of tera bits of 1 and 0 that compose todays art ?

      Due to it’s place in the bussiness, Adobe I think has part of responsability in this and may they could get involve in some project to ensure the concervation and transmission to the future generation of contempory computer created art …

      “ADOBE FOUNDATION FOR PROMOTION AND CONSERVATION OF COMPUTER ART …”

      Totally admit this is quite of topics but it’s a good place like another to launch the idea!!”

      This is a very foresighted point! Adobe might consider offering its software to the public without charge – after a 10 or 15 year delay. This would not deter sales of its software for commercial use. To insure against a potential future Kodak moment, the software could be put into escrow with a trusted public institution such as the Smithsonian Institute or the Library Of Congress.

      Note to Adobe: Ask your tax accountants about the substantial charitable tax deduction that would accrue every year when you deposited your latest software into escrow. This sounds win/win to me, and at this point, Adobe could sure use some positive PR…

      • Olivier H — 1:22 PM on May 15, 2013

        LOVE the idea of public release of very old version !!
        Really ! Even if not really public what they did with CS2 was very very encouraging.

        but it also has to be protected somewhere , on some computer with old operating software as well by some organisation that could ensure for the future!

        • Durk Pearson — 9:29 PM on May 15, 2013

          Dear Oliver H,

          If Adobe provided the Library Of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution a copy of the CC Suite every year with the written agreement that they could release it to the public after 8 or 10 or 15 years, neither institution would have to maintain a legacy computer system or be capable of running the software.

          To the institutions, it would simply be a few GB of 1s and 0s that they keep on a RAID array somewhere in the basement. When the public release date rolls around, they put it on a publicly accessible server for free downloads.

          There will be plenty of private parties with old computers who will be interested. I can run any MS/DOS program within 1 minute after I get it. Ditto Windows 95, 98, and XP. Ditto Mac OS9 or OS x 10.4 or 10.5 on an IBM PowerPC system. I have an IBM PowerPC Mac Mini with my legitimate copy of Photoshop CS1 hooked up to my KVM switch, and can have it up and running within about one minute.

          So many of these desktop systems were made that there will be survivors for a long long time to come. (On the other hand, there many ancient mainframes, such as SAGE, that are gone for good – but that isn’t a problem for Adobe’s software.)

          Why might Adobe bother?

          1) Good PR – they be helping to save a significant part of the artistic legacy of the 21st century instead of locking it up.

          2) $$$$$ That annual donation of the escrowed software to the LoC and the Smithsonian constitutes a perfectly legitimate tax deductible charitable donation! Moreover, the shorter the escrow period before public release, the more the donation would be worth.

          3) Starving art students can learn a lot about how to use Adobe’s software even using a free version that is several years old – which means more Adobe trained workers for the years to come, which means more Adobe rental income in the years to come.

          I’m sure that Adobe’s effective release of self-activated the entire CS2 suite (including Photoshop CS2) and Acrobat 7 on January of 2013 hasn’t hurt their current software sales, and CS2 came out in 2005! That’s only an 8 year delay. True, Adobe said that this release was only for previous legitimate owners, but they aren’t unaware that they have actually made it available to everyone. Adobe could enrich themselves a bit by putting CS2 and Acrobat 7 on an educational foundation server and offering it free to all artists – and receive a deserved tax deduction. Win/win instead of win/lose.

          You have a very fine idea, Oliver H! But does Adobe have enough imagination? We shall see.

  • jlua — 2:24 AM on May 15, 2013

    I have worked din IT for decades, and I know for a fact that most professional-grade software companies use the “maintenance model”, under which while you pay an annual -hefty- “maintenance” fee, you get technical support and all upgrades. If you stop paying, all that happens is that you stop getting those two benefits, but you get to continue using what you have until that moment. Why in the World has Adobe chosen to use the “subscription” model instead? Can some of the Adobe folks here explain? Bad. Very bad.

    • Kim Aston — 7:51 AM on May 15, 2013

      I am not sure why we are hearing nothing from Adobe either, given the amount of negativity regarding the ‘subscription model’. The only remarks I can find seem to reiterate that it was ‘brutal’ maintaining two systems so they made the decision to move full on with the CC. I may be naive, but for a corporation to have net earnings of over 1 billion last year, I certainly wouldn’t expect it to come easily.
      For those who maintain that we still have a choice, join CC or stick with CS6, they must have a different definition of the word ‘choice’ than I do. A choice is a decision to be made between two or more viable options. For the person who has years of proprietary Adobe files faced with joining a ‘pay for life’ subscription model or get neutered and staying with CS6 – effectively cobbling your ability to move forward affecting your livelihood…that is not a choice, it is coercion.
      It is not the customers fault that that they have proprietary files. There was no indication that there would be any change to the way we could attain the software until last week. Up to that point we were lead to believe that there would always be the option to purchase the perpetual license. We acted in good faith. The longer Adobe is remaining silent, the clearer it is becoming that they did not.

      • Andrew Rodney — 8:20 AM on May 15, 2013

        >> A choice is a decision to be made between two or more viable options. For the person who has years of proprietary Adobe files faced with joining a ‘pay for life’ subscription model or get neutered and staying with CS6 – effectively cobbling your ability to move forward affecting your livelihood…

        Neutered and effectively cobbling is language anyone can agree or disagree with. If your livelihood depends on using this tool, you have to pay.

        >>There was no indication that there would be any change to the way we could attain the software until last week. Up to that point we were lead to believe that there would always be the option to purchase the perpetual license.

        Can you find any Adobe EULA from the last 5 years that states this? What agreement with Adobe lead you to believe there would always be the option to purchase the perpetual license. If so, I’m on your side 100%.

        • Charles Badland — 9:28 AM on May 15, 2013

          “If your livelihood depends on using this tool, you have to pay.”

          Tools can be purchased. When a tool can no longer be purchased, it becomes a service. That’s what Photoshop will be from now on, a Service.

          • Bill — 11:45 AM on May 15, 2013

            In the pro audio software space, there is a company called Waves, who make pro audio software processors. They use a subscription model where you pay $x per year, get access to all updates and upgrades in your package, and so on. Sounds like Adobe, right?

            Well there is one HUGE difference. The Waves license is perpetual, meaning if I stop my subscription, my Waves tools continue to work at whatever version my subscription lapsed. If I want further updates and tech support, I have to renew, then I’m on the update train again. But either way, they don’t leave me stranded! So their model works.

            I do not understand why Adobe can’t seem to grasp this idea.

          • RHernandez — 11:46 AM on May 15, 2013

            Like – Agree.

        • Kim Aston — 9:39 AM on May 15, 2013

          I am well aware there is nothing in the EULA which states continued perpetual license, but there was a reasonable expectation that it would continue to be an option. The standard response that yourself and others have continually repeated….”if you want to use it you have to pay”…is to imply that I either haven’t been paying in the past, or expecting something for free in the future. I would happily join the CC if I could retain use of the software when the day comes that I have to stop paying. I fail to understand why this is an unreasonable expectation. I don’t know about anyone else…but that is question I need Adobe to answer.

          • mike chambers — 9:44 AM on May 15, 2013

            So, something like after some minimum time (2 – 3 years?) as a Creative Cloud member you would have the option to buy out the current version when you end your membership?

            Is that what you are thinking?

            mike chambers

            mesh@adobe.com

          • RHernandez — 10:18 AM on May 15, 2013

            Yes Mike, I think there needs to be a “way out” of having to pay Adobe forever for us to be able to access the work within the files we’ve created with your software. The previous perpetual licensing gave us that option, the new CC model does not. Many have referenced AutoCAD as a subscription model. Alias Design Studio also had a similar “maintenance” option where you could buy the software or subscribe and receive updates and upgrades during your subscription. Once your subscription ends, you are able to keep using whatever version you have.

            While I realize Adobe would need to have a user on for 2 or 3 years of subscription before they could either keep what they have or a “buy-out”, I think that is not unreasonable. What I think is unreasonable is the idea I would have to pay Adobe until the day I die to be able to open and use any file I ever created using anything beyond CS6.

            I have used your apps since 1990 and I have usually enjoyed them and have always preordered the next upgrade. I preordered InDesign 1 and implemented it in our design department as soon as it came out – I even made several printers in the LA area get it in order to support the jobs I was going to be sending them. What I am trying to say (as many others have expressed here) is we want to keep using Adobe products, but until there is some other option beside CC subscriptions, we will not be moving forward with Adobe, rather keeping what we have now – CS6 – and waiting for the next software company to make a compelling alternative. (Heck, I’ve even visited Quark’s website last week)

          • Andrew Rodney — 10:21 AM on May 15, 2013

            >>While I realize Adobe would need to have a user on for 2 or 3 years of subscription before they could either keep what they have or a “buy-out”, I think that is not unreasonable.

            I too think this is the best option for both parties. The question then becomes what’s the cost of the buy out. No matter what, some will not be happy. But just having such an option would go a long way towards fixing the major issue CC introduces.

          • RHernandez — 10:30 AM on May 15, 2013

            Agree.

          • Andrew Rodney — 9:45 AM on May 15, 2013

            >>I am well aware there is nothing in the EULA which states continued perpetual license, but there was a reasonable expectation that it would continue to be an option.

            What reasonable expectation? Sounds more like a naive assumption. If it isn’t in the EULA, what other agreement with Adobe would lead anyone to believe otherwise?

            >>I would happily join the CC if I could retain use of the software when the day comes that I have to stop paying.

            I know you would. So would I. But that’s not how these things work. I’d like to pay less for cell phone service. I’d like it if I rent two movies on Comcast, I get the 3rd free. I’d like the price of gas to go down and have free green stamps when I fill my tank.

          • RHernandez — 9:53 AM on May 15, 2013

            This is the announcement that gave people the impression of what Adobe’s CS strategy was:
            http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201104/041111AdobeCreativeSuite5.5.html?PID=2159997

          • Andrew Rodney — 9:59 AM on May 15, 2013

            >>This is the announcement that gave people the impression of what Adobe’s CS strategy was:

            I don’t see anything there that should give them that idea (what am I missing?) and certainly no agreement between either party.

            CS6 let along CS5 you reference there has a perceptual license. As yet, Adobe hasn’t challenged that agreement they made with all their current customers. If they try, let’s talk.

          • RHernandez — 10:30 AM on May 15, 2013

            Andrew,
            Here’s how I see it: Every company has the ability to change direction, that’s their prerogative. In 2011 when they announced the ability to subscribe to apps, they also announced the CS release schedule that I referenced. Many, including myself viewed the addition of subscriptions, as a good addition to their business model. While not suitable to some, it offered choice.

            Last year, they branded and modified their subscription model to be called Creative Cloud. They made no reference to changing the CS release schedule announced the previous year. While there is no implicit agreement, usually a press release by a public company carries some weight behind it as to what a company is going to do. If a company is constantly changing those directions, customers and investors will loose trust in that company. With Adobe’s recent actions, I find it hard to believe in them for the long haul. That’s why I want there to be an option for a “way out” in the future. Otherwise, my relationship with them will be stuck at CS6.

          • Kim Aston — 10:11 AM on May 15, 2013

            So, something like after some minimum time (2 – 3 years?) as a Creative Cloud member you would have the option to buy out the current version when you end your membership?

            Is that what you are thinking?

            Mike….YES!YES!YES! That is exactly what I am thinking. If the minimum required term of membership was reasonable and relatively equivalent monetarily to the old upgrade price, I would gladly join CC…it would be a no-brainer.

          • RHernandez — 10:18 AM on May 15, 2013

            Agree.

          • Eric Carlisle — 5:11 AM on May 16, 2013

            Me as well. Suggested this a week ago.

          • FrediW — 10:06 PM on May 22, 2013

            I don’t know about you all, but when I started using Adobe as a professional designer 3 decades ago, the idea of the apps not being perpetual usage was not a consideration in anyone’s wildest fantasy. As I said in another post, Adobe turned on a dime with this reversed product protocol and pulled the rug out from under everyone, who were invested for decades in Adobe, reliant on them for our incomes and businesses, and paying generous users fees for the privilege.This reversal is a betrayal of the longstanding relationship that millions had and have with Adobe.

          • RHernandez — 10:19 PM on May 22, 2013

            And the “good will” they want to reward us with is a 1 year discount? Really?

            I will never forget how this company under Mr Narayen has treated their customers. Anyone see the video of him in Australia refusing to address a reporter’s question? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ) So long as he is there, I will never have trust in Adobe. Nuff said.

        • FrediW — 12:17 AM on May 23, 2013

          >>Andrew Rodney — 8:20 AM on May 15, 2013 Reply

          >> A choice is a decision to be made between two or more viable options. For the person who has years of proprietary Adobe files faced with joining a ‘pay for life’ subscription model or get neutered and staying with CS6 – effectively cobbling your ability to move forward affecting your livelihood…

          >>Neutered and effectively cobbling is language anyone can agree or disagree with. If your livelihood depends on using this tool, you have to pay.

          What makes you think we are not paying if we pay to own the versions we make the decision we want to work in without being dictated to.

          >>There was no indication that there would be any change to the way we could attain the software until last week. Up to that point we were lead to believe that there would always be the option to purchase the perpetual license.

          >>Can you find any Adobe EULA from the last 5 years that states this? What agreement with Adobe lead you to believe there would always be the option to purchase the perpetual license. If so, I’m on your side 100%.

          Never in 3 decades did Adobe ever give any indication that they were considering even as a fantasy, Internet access, never mind a Cloud only subscription model. Never until 2011. As I said in another post, Adobe turned on a dime with this reversed product protocol and pulled the rug out from under everyone, who was invested for decades in Adobe, reliant on them and growing with the “owning the App protocol” for our incomes and businesses, and paying generous users fees for the privilege. This reversal is a betrayal of the longstanding relationship that millions had and have with Adobe.

  • Art Swalell — 4:58 AM on May 15, 2013

    I don’t see the big deal. Save your work as a dng and it won’t be long before someone comes along and provides a software that will read it and allow editing. In the mean time, the pirates will be at work and you’ll be able to download the latest version within a month or two.

    That’s why I think Adobe is making a mistake. Someone will come along and corner the market on their best stuff and leave Adobe with just the high end shops that can afford a premium for the very latest tools.

    • Eric Carlisle — 7:43 AM on May 15, 2013

      Art,
      I’ve been wondering about the whole piracy-prevention argument as a basis of the CC subscription model.

      From X on Y:

      “While service options that connect to our servers are inherently less prone to piracy, once a user downloads software to their computer the piracy threat is the same as for our perpetual products. The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. The last 12 months of development was brutal. And there were results we were not happy with. We have decided to focus on the CC products.”

      So, there you go. Besides, piracy can be temporarily discouraged by technological innovation, but it just delays the inevitable. For high-demand products, the effort to protect will always be eventually surpassed by the effort to circumvent that protection. The goal should be to make the sale of a software product compelling for those who have not resigned to software piracy. I think that while CC may discourage piracy for a while, the cost of doing so (e.g. potentially losing lots of customers) could be more damaging than the actual piracy.

      Note: I have to metrics to prove that speculation. However, I hope that Adobe has taken that into deep consideration if piracy was actually a deciding factor for the CC licensing model.

    • Eric Carlisle — 7:44 AM on May 15, 2013

      Art,
      I’ve been wondering about the whole piracy-prevention argument as a basis of the CC subscription model.

      From Winston Hendrickson on http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/05/08/Adobe-photoshop-cc

      “While service options that connect to our servers are inherently less prone to piracy, once a user downloads software to their computer the piracy threat is the same as for our perpetual products. The reason behind the subscription-only move is the logistics of supporting two sets of software. The last 12 months of development was brutal. And there were results we were not happy with. We have decided to focus on the CC products.”

      So, there you go. Besides, piracy can be temporarily discouraged by technological innovation, but it just delays the inevitable. For high-demand products, the effort to protect will always be eventually surpassed by the effort to circumvent that protection. The goal should be to make the sale of a software product compelling for those who have not resigned to software piracy. I think that while CC may discourage piracy for a while, the cost of doing so (e.g. potentially losing lots of customers) could be more damaging than the actual piracy.

      Note: I have to metrics to prove that speculation. However, I hope that Adobe has taken that into deep consideration if piracy was actually a deciding factor for the CC licensing model.

      • Eric Carlisle — 7:45 AM on May 15, 2013

        BTW, sorry for the double-post. Had to refetch the info for the quote.

  • Sean — 7:24 AM on May 15, 2013

    So why does everyone who is suppose to be unbiased do the math with only the Master collection. I only had design premium, $1000 less than the master collection. When you do the math that way, well let s say it doesn’t work out so well for the consumer.

    I used to get the design premium to dabble in video and Illustrator but no more of that now.

    And the idea that people are saying use PSE, ya right I have spent years and thousand learning and creating my fine art workflow in Photoshop and now you are saying do it in 8bit with our basic software. No thanks. CS6 for ever i guess.

    Thanks goodness I have been learning CaptureOne for the last year or so, I use it mostly for tethering but will now look at it a lot more for raw conversion.

    • Kim Aston — 5:28 AM on May 16, 2013

      Agreed. I would like to see an offering that resembled the program grouping equivalent to CS premium. I certainly do not need the full set of programs and would like the a reduced price for the “half package”.

  • Charles Badland — 9:55 AM on May 15, 2013

    Every 3 years Adobe releases a perpetual Photoshop that is comparable to most recent Photoshop CC. Free to Cloud subscribers, nominal fee ($150?) to non-subscribers. This version can open AND EDIT all proprietary PSD docs. BUT can only save edited documents as a flat (JPG, flat TIFF, etc) So it cannot create new proprietary PSD docs or layered TIFFs. I believe this would address a lot of concerns.

  • Tom P — 12:00 PM on May 15, 2013

    There is so much to know about the CC. Reading through and understanding the terms of service could take me years. Over at the “MacPerformanceGuide” they picked out a few clauses of particular interest. From that it looks to me that CC is mostly intended for hobbyists.

    One example: Section 8.2 seems to assert Adobe’s right to control the content published and I suppose to terminate publishers without recourse for attempting to publish anything Adobe finds “objectionable.” So, for example, I surmise that the best selling (and absolutely “vulgar, “obscene,” and “objectionable”) “50 Shades…” series could not be published by anyone using CC.

    So no not only must we face losing access in the future to our past work, but we also must worry about losing our work in progress as Adobe asserts the right to pre-publication censorship.

    Are you okay with that? Do you think that anyone in the business of publishing would be okay with that? Do you think the folks who work at Random House would be willing to give up their big bonuses to not offend Adobe?

    • Olivier H — 1:42 PM on May 15, 2013

      Interesting way of reading the word “publish” in the term of service but i think that they mean “publish in the cloud drive” not using cc to publish a book …

      They are responsible of what you put on their server not what you create with the software !

      Anyway i find this “misunderstanding” quite interesting as finally it could be read like that by a lawyer and that opens a lot of possibility !!!

      The point is that they just hold your bussiness totally in their hand and could just decide to terminated their “service” whenever they like without any reason … and that is written this way in the terms of service!!

      “19.3 Termination or Suspension of Services. Adobe may also terminate or suspend all or a portion of your account and/or access to the Services for any reason ”

      What does that mean to a pro to be remove from it’s production tools for “ANY REASON” !!! remember that when signing!
      Don’t be too harsh with them here ! It’s becoming risky if you depend on their tools for your living !!

      :-p

      Love the world we’re living in

  • Landon — 4:25 PM on May 15, 2013

    John, the short answer is that if you allow off-subscription versions of CC to open, print, and export to different formats it will make this more palatable because it means there is still access to our own work in a fully compatible program since no non-Adobe software seems to open everything correctly.

    So there lies idea. Something that acts as a viewer/converter would be a very welcome for many. Quite frankly, it seems that functionality would be appropriate for a stand-alone program like Bridge (god I hate Bridge) that people could use freely to view/export/print all of their Adobe files and handle it in batches. It certainly would live up to the name of the program. Use it as a Swiss Army Knife. And if you don’t make it free for anyone to use (say you issue an actual perpetual license for a nominal fee), at least offer it free for anyone with a past Adobe purchase of software–I think that appropriate given the situation. Sell it to the marketing guys at adobe by saying its also a launchpad with a big-ass button at the top of the screen that says “Subscribe to Photoshop CC” or whatever program file-type that Bridge is opening. Call it Bridge Plus, Switchboard… whatever.

    I’m still fundamentally against the rental model as you know, but you asked a question and there’s the answer. While this will go a long way (I think) in helping people from feeling completely screwed and abandoned when their subscription is up, some issues (trust, rights, ownership, budgetary issues as its now operating expense) I’m not sure can be fully addressed with the older customers due to the one-sided nature and handling of this change.

  • Landon — 7:35 AM on May 16, 2013

    Everyone has been discussing the breakdowns of CC pricing, and I realized I haven’t heard much about the CS6 pricing going forward. It’s tangentially related to your post John since a lot of offices run multiple seats of software out there at various stages of update (I myself have several collections, Design Std, Design Premium & Master Collection suites, and individual boxes). Certainly those people would like some confidence they’ll have access to CS6 for a while and would like to know the specifics on your plans. Assuming that I’m not unique, in the future you’re going to see offices maybe running a CC subscription just for compatibility and a number of legacy CS6 packages.

    So my questions are:

    1. How long does adobe plan on actually selling CS6? “Indefinitely” just means there isn’t a defined end yet. Doesn’t mean forever, and it means it can be defined quickly if the adoption of CC isn’t going fast enough–I can just see the press release “After 6 months CC so popular among 18% of our users we’re pulling CS6 immediately!”. Though various quotes have Adobe promising that CS6 will be kept compatible with the next PC and Mac OS release (later this year), that doesn’t mean Adobe won’t pull the product from the shelves before then.

    2. Does Adobe plan on “indefinitely” selling full seats (new licenses) of CS6, or only the upgrades for previous owners?

    3. Does Adobe plan on selling CS6 packages and upgrades to individual products AND suites for the “indefinite” time period?

    4. Does Adobe plan on selling CS6 packages on physical media or only through online download? I can only assume by the end it will be download-only.

    5. At what price does Adobe plan on selling CS6 packages/upgrades?

    6. A stupid question since it wouldn’t make sense for Adobe to discount since they want to encourage transition to CC or get as much money from angry customers not use, but… I’m assuming the upgrade price for CS6 going forward, even years from now (presuming it isn’t pulled) when it is an outdated old version, will always be the full price it is now. Is that correct?

    7. When Adobe gets tired of keeping their activation/license servers running, can we expect our CS software to continue working when it tries to “phone home” or activate. Years ago I had nightmares with Macromedia’s MX suite locking me out and requiring activation on every launch (something the engineers figured out was a rare combination of hardware and had to give me unlimited activations for) and would like some sort of assurance that I won’t be locked out of my Adobe software. And I mean all of my Adobe activation-required software going back to CS1, not just the later versions. I might not use those old CS1 versions anymore, but they’re still mine and I should have access. When Adobe is tired of supporting that activation mess in its entirety you’ll be offering a solution, right? (yes I saw the CS2 download bit)

    • Landon — 1:23 PM on May 20, 2013

      Answers to most of those questions I found here:
      http://www.adobe.com/products/cs6/faq.html

      Unless they’re describing the current process for pre-CS6 users, this little bit makes me cringe, since we already do enough with serial numbers, product activation, and registering it to our Adobe ID. :
      “To help customers more easily access their serial numbers, and to confirm they are installing genuine Adobe software, Adobe is implementing new installation requirements for CS6 perpetual products.” I have to believe they’re going to have the same registration/activation process for CS6 that they do with CC so they don’t have to mess with legacy activation servers (ala CS2).

      Anyway, to sum up the FAQs… Boxes are out, downloads are in. Any version earlier than CS5 will not be eligible for upgrade pricing. Upgrades and new licenses available for an “indefinite” time period–and your guess is as good as mine if that means ‘forever’ or ‘when we need to rip off the bandaid’. Adobe does not offer a discount if you want to move from an individual Creative Suite product to a suite edition. No more CS6 trial version, only CC.

      No word of course on if pricing will remain it’s full current price going forward, but if I recall Streamline and the rest were full price until finally yanked from the store after years of no update.

  • Paul — 9:39 AM on May 16, 2013

    The lack of access and the price gouging arguments, at least for the photographer who has no use for the rest of the Creative Suite, are so clear that they scarcely need repeating. It’s also obvious that Adobe will not listen to this presumably small segment of their customer base. What is interesting however is that the stock price for Adobe has dropped almost every day since the CC announcement was made, possibly at least partially due to the huge number of complaints made on this and every other photography website. Keep the complaints coming; perhaps the stock price will continue to drop, and Adobe will decide to listen to their shareholders if not their customers.

  • Marek — 9:50 AM on May 16, 2013

    Message from Adobe site:
    Some customers are unable to sync files through the Creative Cloud Connection app. We’re working to restore service as soon as possible.

    http://helpx.adobe.com/support.html?promoid=JZEFP

    Now is more then 24 hrs !

  • Cbadland — 7:51 PM on May 16, 2013

    John,
    Why was my post censored? It was a valid question: are the posts in the Adobe Cloud Forum now regarding CC files being erased on a subscribers hard drive during this current Cloud Synch glitch true? I find it hard to believe that could actually happen.
    CB

  • Cbadland — 7:54 PM on May 16, 2013

    Hmm. ok now I see my previous post . Sorry about saying it was removed.

    [Sorry, I'm not sure what's going on. Your messages were flagged as spam, but I have no idea why. I've now approved them. As a rule I only remove the most insane, profane-filled posts. --J.]

  • Dan Tong — 10:21 PM on May 16, 2013

    I’m so upset with the RENT ONLY future for Photoshop that I am looking for an alternative. If
    Adobe fails to respect and listen to it’s Customers than it should not complain if the customers lose respect for the Adobe. No matter how smart, and clever the technology, you MUST listen to your customers -they pay your salaries.

  • Sjaani — 2:15 AM on May 19, 2013

    I have to say, I love the subscription model. It makes the program/s affordable. It gives me access to programs I’d never consider paying for, training and therefore opens up opportunities I’d never considered, though I’d like to see Captivate in the CC at some stage. Like many though, the idea of not being able to access my psd, ai, indd etc. files in the future is of major concern. I would like to see Adobe offer ‘as is’ versions to those who stay with the cloud for extended periods. Obviously people who jump on the cloud for a month to access the software then cancel subscriptions shouldn’t get this benefit but long term users do deserve this option as a way out if they face financial hardship, scale down business or just want to use the programs for hobby purposes in the future.

    I noted in a FAQ that they will have archived “as is’ versions available for download, but on questioning this FAQ have been informed you’d still need to be subscribed to use the older archived version. This to me is the perfect opportunity to give people an out if costs are too hard to maintain. Download an archived version, use it while unsubscribed… but also prevent anyone who chooses to unsubscribe from resubscribing every time there’s a big upgrade of software then unsubscribing again in a short period of time.

  • Daniel — 6:38 PM on May 19, 2013

    Adobe better be prepared for a full scale legal battle IF I am unable to open and fully access my media (Intellectual Property) even after I quit subscription. Figure it out Adobe, or you will be in court. Adobe has no right to cut me off from the media work I have worked hard to create. This is why purchased software with perpetual access to your own Intellectual Property works and why renting software, or software as a service won’t work legally.

    • Landon — 6:25 AM on May 20, 2013

      …while I get the anger, and find the rental-model-or-nothing offensive, there is nothing “illegal” about what they are doing. Bad for a lot of users and a lot of arm-twisting and face-slapping, yes, illegal no. If you’re the 18% that signed on as a CC user you already knowingly signed on to their terms of service and knew the score. If you’re a CS user, all of your current CS6 or lower works will continue to work in CS6 in the usual manner, so they haven’t changed any terms of service there. They’re just no longer offering a perpetual license to new versions going forward. So, legally I don’t really see how you would have any case whatsoever. You would simply be spending money on a lawyer you could use to switch or get a VM to run CS6 for as long as possible, or donate to some charity or something. Anything but slimy lawyers (my apologies to any slimy lawyers reading this).

      That said, the spin on being able to save CC back to CS6 is indeed weak sauce at best, and gets weaker the farther in to CC we go. They’ll do a great job with Photoshop being backward compatible; the others I’m not convinced will be all that useful or compatible. That could just be the cynic in me talking though, staring at all those InDesign files on my HDD and thinking how cruddy it would be trying to take them from CS6 to 1.0 (that’s a lot of hoops to jump through). And of course… you would need to be a CC subscriber to downsave to CS6 anyway–so if someone send you a CC file, you’ll have to beg for a probably-incomplete and not-fully-editable/compatible conversion to work with them. Which will make you look like a scrub. So, we’re screwed anyway unless you get on the perpetual payment program.

      • Daniel — 8:30 AM on May 20, 2013

        Landon with all due respect you don’t understand how Intellectual Property works. Adobe, for example, owns the code (their IP) used to create the Flash software. I license the Flash software from Adobe as a “license of use”. So far so good. Ok, but now I use Flash to create my own Actionscript code (my own software) contained within a source file called an fla. At this point the code I created is MY Intellectual Property not Adobe’s. Within the CC model I have to pay Adobe to access my own fla source file from now until the end of time. That’s not me owning my own code or IP, that’s Adobe owning my code and IP. I’m now paying Adobe for a perpetual license to view and access my own Intellectual Property. Even in Adobe’s very own terms and conditions they acknowledge I have a right of ownership to my generated IP content!

        • jlua — 12:00 PM on May 20, 2013

          Daniel: Very good point, and using a good analogy. Plus consider that European Union [anti-monopoly] competition laws are very stringent, and can be applied mercilessly, more so than anti-trust laws in the US (think Microsoft, for example). So, it wouldn´t be unreasonable to expect some potentially very serious problems in the future for Adobe in Europe, if they barreled along with their current plans, unchanged.

          In fact, and to very a little more precise, Article 102 of the Treaty talks about “Abuse of a dominant position”. Sounds familiar?

      • Vincent Ferri — 7:37 PM on May 22, 2013

        Well, after discussing this with the principals of a law firm that I work with and a paralegal with experience in Federal Anti-Trust litigation. I have decided to take the first step in identifying a class of aggrieved parties.

        My initial research indicates to me that there exist several causes of action relative to standing anti-trust law.

        CREATIVE CLOUD VAPORWARE,
        a product of TECHNO-TERRORISM BY ADOBE!

        JOIN THE EFFORT TO BRING THEM TO JUSTICE;
        IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF THE AGGRIEVED CLASS.

        adobeclassaction@wallkillwideawake.org

        • jlua — 7:25 AM on May 23, 2013

          Vincent, I personally think that there could be grounds indeed to initiate “anti-trust” (called “anti-competitive” in Europe) litigation in this matter. However, I would suggest that it would be better to use more restrained language and rhetoric. I find that using terms like “techno-terrorism” are too emotional and do not help, in my modest opinion. Having said that, I encourage you to pursue your initiative, because I repeat that I believe there could be grounds to do so.

  • Daniel — 7:16 PM on May 19, 2013

    All of the suppositions of moving files from CC back to CS6 are ridiculous, because after a few future iterations of CC2, CC3, etc. at some point it will become impossible to move your files all the way back to the aging CS6. So again it still brings you right back to the point of Adobe owning your Intellectual Property (layers, effects, edits, actionscript code) etc. based on a never ending fee to access your own media and code property. What Adobe is attempting to do with their subscription plan by disregarding a user’s rights to their own IP is absolutely illegal.

    • Landon — 9:52 AM on May 20, 2013

      I am definitely not a lawyer, and I don’t know IP law. But I know Adobe well enough to know they didn’t become the second largest software company in the world by being slouches in knowing the law. Lots of money, lots of high-powered lawyers, lots of experience dealing with Apple, Microsoft, the former Macromedia and the like. That’s a very litigious bunch they hang out with, and they know how to cover their bases.

      I think Adobe’s take on this is that you have the right to your content (files), just not to access it using their latest tools without perpetual payment.

      Again, I think the rental-or-nothing-model is reprehensible given how most people use the software, but I think you’re going to lose your butt in court. Granted, IANAL and is just IMHO.

      The bigger, scarier thing I see from this whole deal is I see Adobe taking the whole software package to the cloud and turning it entirely into a web service in the cloud. Offload the work to servers so you can run from a dumb terminal with an internet connection. That’s the vibe I’m picking up from public statements, and it’s an Orwellian wet dream that would explain their not wanting to maintain 2 architectures (when its currently run off your HDD on CC anyway). But I am not an engineer in the same way I’m not a lawyer.

      • Daniel — 11:33 AM on May 20, 2013

        Well Landon, let’s put the numbers like this. There are already over 21,000+ people from Change.org who are not happy with what Adobe is trying to do and that strongly includes ownership of their Intellectual Property and being cutoff from accessing it. Read those concerned comments. Many people are saying the same thing I am.
        https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

        • Durk Pearson — 12:23 PM on May 20, 2013

          Daniel, I, too, am very unhappy with Adobe’s new policies, but anyone who agrees to those policies by signing up for their Rent-A-Cloud-Trap has legally agreed to those policies. It’s not as if Adobe was keeping them a secret!

          I, too, wish that Adobe would continue to sell updated improved perpetual license boxed software, but that would defeat their CEO’s new Rent-A-Cloud-Forever-Trap business model, and Adobe has no legal requirement to do so. I didn’t like it when Ford discontinued the Crown Victoria, but my only viable alternative is to keep the old car/software going until a competitor sells something that I like better.

          If Adobe stopped activating their perpetual license software they would indeed be in legal class action hell, but they aren’t going to do that. When their CS2 activation server died, they did the right thing, both morally and legally:
          http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html

          You can’t legally force Adobe to sell us stuff that they don’t want to sell us, and all the lawyering up in the world won’t change that.

          What can change this sad situation is if an insufficient number of customers sign up for their Rent-A-Cloud-Forever-Trap to pay Adobe’s CEO’s bonuses. If his new business model brings in more dough, these new policies will stay and likely spread. If Adobe’s revenues substantially fall and haven’t recovered within a year or so, the shareholders will fire him, and Adobe will adopt more customer-centric policies, such as those resembling Autocad’s.

          • Landon — 12:59 PM on May 20, 2013

            I agree with Durk. And petitions are great, but unless those who signed are Adobe-paying customers of CS products I’m afraid it’s just a lot of sound and fury that Adobe can easily ignore. Looking at it from their standpoint, Adobe can lose a good number of their users that skip updates by signing up half their number on a perpetual payment plan. I’m sure they’d love us all, but they certainly don’t need us all to match or do better than they are now financially and they’ve bet the company on it.

          • Daniel — 9:09 PM on May 20, 2013

            Re: “has legally agreed to those policies” Durk first off companies make legal mistakes all of the time, and it does not matter what Adobe has me sign or agree to, because Adobe is never going to change the rights afforded to me by the 1976 Copyright Act or what the United States Constitution says about Intellectual Property rights for US citizens. If you want to know and understand IP law then please read the 1976 Copyright Act and refer to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, also known as the Copyright Clause which covers Intellectual Property. My IP rights as a creative artist and programmer are fully covered and solidly maintained by the 1976 Copyright Act and Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution, so whatever Adobe has me agree to is completely null and void if it violates my Intellectual Property rights covered in the 1976 Copyright Act that protects my work. Adobe cannot legally control, administer, withhold, or perpetually charge me to access my own Intellectual Property.

          • Durk Pearson — 10:44 PM on May 20, 2013

            People frequently contractually waive or sell their legal rights under copyright law.

            For example, much work done by creative professionals is done under a contract that makes it a “work for hire” wherein the copyright is owned by the hiring party rather the creator. This is common in both software writing done by corporate employees or contractors and by photography done by a contractor or employee for an ad agency.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire

            In these cases, if you want the job, you have to accept the terms. You do not, of course, have to accept the job and the terms that accompany it.

            That also applies to Adobe’s horrible new software rental model. You are free not to rent their software, but you are constrained to accept their terms if you choose to do so.

            I don’t think that Adobe will succeed in imposing this new model, though not because of any lack of legality. It Autocad, Microsoft, Apple, and other industry giants thought that they could successfully screw us this way, I’m sure that they would have done so. To the best of my knowledge, this business model hasn’t been a success.

            You have the right to say “no”. You and I and a lot of other people will be doing exactly that. Be prepared to run your perpetual license software for however long it takes for either Adobe to change their rent-forever-only policy or for worthy competing products to arise.

            Don’t count on renting and subsequently suing to get a court order requiring Adobe to give you a permanent license to the software that you rented.

      • Vincent Ferri — 7:50 PM on May 22, 2013

        This most certainly is NOT about IP Law; it IS clearly about Federal Anti-Trust Law.

        And, what is worse, is that in the Vaporware model of techno-terrorism being foisted on users, every single person who subscribes becomes a party to Adobe’s predatory monopolistic marketing practices.

        The fact is that when corporations become as predatory as Adobe the become a prime example of corporate fascism similar to the enviro-terriorism of Monsanto and Dupont.

        There is no reason why the Adobe products cannot continued to be offered as purchased licenses; most purchased licenses are currently being downloaded as digital installation file anyway, and I’m sure the cost and overhead to do that is far less that the VAPORWARE versions.

        Well, at least the hacking community will have some fun with this. I can just envision the challenge of bringing down the Adobe servers or reverse engineering their software. I can see a lot of angry people when the servers crash.

        CREATIVE CLOUD VAPORWARE,
        a product of TECHNO-TERRORISM BY ADOBE!

        JOIN THE EFFORT TO BRING THEM TO JUSTICE;
        IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF THE AGGRIEVED CLASS.

        adobeclassaction@wallkillwideawake.org

        • Daniel — 4:13 AM on May 23, 2013

          Dead wrong. It has everything to do with retaining ownership of Intellectual Property and very little about Antitrust law. Antitrust law centers primarily around maintaining reasonable prices. I know a lot of people are upset about a forced $50 per month, but that price is not unreasonable in any way for getting the entire Master Collection and more. So $600 per year for the Master Collection in nowhere close to an unreasonable price, when the original MC is $2,599. The problem is that not everyone NEEDS the entire Master Collection so why be forced to pay for it all. Antitrust based on price, no. Does Adobe need an optional pick-any-three programs for $20 per month, yes. The problem that a lot of people have issues with, when you read the Change.org comments, is one of access; being cutoff from being able to access their own work. Not being able to open the source files they worked hard to make. Being cutoff form your own creative work is a direct violation of your IP rights plain and simple.

        • Landon — 6:50 AM on May 23, 2013

          CC isn’t vaporware. Vaporware is software that is announced but never actually materializes. CC is very much real.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

  • John Lehet — 10:05 AM on May 20, 2013

    I doubt they are planning to run these applications in the cloud, at least if the extent of code will be anything like what it is for the current applications. The latency would kill us.

    I got an SSD mostly for my Adobe apps, because they took too long to launch from an HD. A local HD is a whole lot less latency than any distant web server.

    I think you can rest your mind on that nightmare, anyway, and worry about the rest of the nightmares.

    • Landon — 10:54 AM on May 20, 2013

      LOL, I hope you’re right! I can’t imagine how my cranky DSL connection would handle it.

  • Bill Hirr — 9:12 AM on May 22, 2013

    IT sounds liKe if i PainTed iN Acrylics and the Paint Company wouLd maKe my PiCs go invisibLe if i didn’T Pay them eVery Month
    i can’T imagine any Company so Greedy and grasping….ThiS whoLe Subscription fiasco iS uN-American..ThiS iS noT ethical….TheY own youR worK..iT’ amountS to Extortion oR BlacKmail.. ThiS changes the whoLe dynamics of ownership…SoMethinG feeLs EViL abouT the whoLe scheme…excepT for Adobe who will rake in the $$$$$
    (post script) i have always bought my copy and upgraded ever other release…….

    • Vincent Ferri — 8:15 PM on May 22, 2013

      CREATIVE CLOUD VAPORWARE,
      a product of TECHNO-TERRORISM BY ADOBE!

      JOIN THE EFFORT TO BRING THEM TO JUSTICE;
      IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF THE AGGRIEVED CLASS.

      adobeclassaction@wallkillwideawake.org

  • FrediW — 6:16 PM on May 22, 2013

    So to follow your theory about Adobe the Monopoly, being compared to National Geo.not taking your images away, but unable to get more issues…Adobe cuts off your app, and if you don’t have CS6 you are left with no way to open files, and with no alternatives to substitute those apps with others that may or may not work from somewhere else, and I am not just talking about PS. FACT: There are no others. Compare it to buying a car. I chose a Nissan Maxima. I buy gas at Mobile. I chose mobile because I like their quality and pricing (free market). When I run out of gas, my car won’t run. BUT I still have my car and I still have the option to use other gas that may or may not run my car as well, but I can still use it for the purpose I need it. ADOBE IS A MONOPOLY, the only game in town. They roped us in as users for decades with a certain product protocol for full user access as long as you have a computer the Apps work on. Now they have changed the game midstream, after millions of users are committed to their software, and cannot possibly go any where else to get like kind functionality. This is entrapment. A form of Antitrust that has crushed the competition, and made themselves the only choice for millions. They could still upgrade as effectively under the old protocol, and allow “ownership”. If you chose to upgrade you should be able to own these upgrades as well even if at a higher price if you want post subscription capability as we have had. If you stop the subscription you should own what you have paid for to date. They could easily do this with Cloud based downloads. They have chosen to screw their loyal professional customers and make them pay through the nose forever. There is talk of an anti-trust lawsuit being filed against Adobe at; NO; ADOBE, NO! “We’re mad as hell, and we are not going to take it any more! ”

    The Class Action Federal Anti-Trust email address is ready, NOW!

    ADOBECLASSACTION@WALLKILLWIDEAWAKE.ORG

    Anyone wishing to participate should email their full contact information and their understanding of the damages they would be subject to under the Adobe CC marketing scheme. Think broadly about this issue; the impacts will be felt in many ways by many different people, businesses, educational institutions, not-for-profits, etc.

    The information sent will ONLY be used to develop the aggrieved class for the purpose of litigation against Adobe.

  • FrediW — 9:15 PM on May 22, 2013

    One more reason to beware the CLOUD-“Gosh that sounds so etherial and harmless….” Your “Intellectual Property Copyright!”-(From Adobes Terms of Use)-
    (a) For Your Shared Material that’s Shared in a public forum (such as discussion boards or public galleries that may be browsed by anyone with an internet connection, etc.), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to adapt, display, distribute, modify, perform, publish, reproduce, translate, and use Your Shared Material for the purpose of operating and improving the Services and enabling your use of the Services. You may revoke the license and terminate Adobe’s rights at any time by making it no longer Shared.

    (b) For Your Shared Material that’s Shared in a public forum or shared privately with other Users of your choosing, you grant other Users a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferrable, and sublicensable license to display, distribute, perform, and reproduce Your Material, subject to Section 10 of these Terms. If you join or participate in a group that allows for sharing of Your Material within the group (such as a “group album” or shared workspace), then you also grant the Users within the group a license to adapt and modify Your Material that you have decided to share with such group. If you do not want to grant other Users these rights, then don’t Share Your Material with other Users.

    (a) For Your Shared Material that’s Shared in a public forum (such as discussion boards or public galleries that may be browsed by anyone with an internet connection, etc.), you grant Adobe a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to adapt, display, distribute, modify, perform, publish, reproduce, translate, and use Your Shared Material for the purpose of operating and improving the Services and enabling your use of the Services. You may revoke the license and terminate Adobe’s rights at any time by making it no longer Shared.

    (b) For Your Shared Material that’s Shared in a public forum or shared privately with other Users of your choosing, you grant other Users a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, transferrable, and sublicensable license to display, distribute, perform, and reproduce Your Material, subject to Section 10 of these Terms. If you join or participate in a group that allows for sharing of Your Material within the group (such as a “group album” or shared workspace), then you also grant the Users within the group a license to adapt and modify Your Material that you have decided to share with such group. If you do not want to grant other Users these rights, then don’t Share Your Material with other Users.

    • Durk Pearson — 9:58 PM on May 22, 2013

      What the heck? This CC contract term appears to state that if one subscribes to Adobe’s CC that Adobe has the right to determine the conditions under which you share your work if you chose to share it at all. Is there some other plausible meaning to this contractual term?

      I can understand Adobe wanting to lock users into a rent-a cloud-forever-at-whatever-price-we-want-or-else contract, but what can Adobe possibly gain by this, other than to further wantonly antagonize its customers?

      • FrediW — 10:23 PM on May 22, 2013

        That is what it says loud and clear!!!

      • Landon — 6:45 AM on May 23, 2013

        Sounds like overly-broad cover-your-ass from lawyers. My guess is that it’s meant to keep people from suing Adobe if their work is pinched while on an Abobe forum. Though it seems to go way further than that. IANAL of course. I think Adobe needs some plain-language explanations of all that.

        Given that Adobe can modify their rental agreement at their whim on CC (likely at the end of any pre-paid rental term to make it easier legally), it seems to me CC users are very vulnerable to changes not in the user’s favor. Hope you have everything saved back to a CS6 version if you find the terms no longer palatable.

  • FrediW — 10:21 PM on May 22, 2013

    As As an independent small design studio, all my clients are well aware that I hold the copyright to all the PSD and working files used in the creation of any project I develop for them. If they want the working files I attach a separate fee to my invoice to give them the user rights to the files. Many clients today have someone capable of edits and revisions once a project is designed and completed. This poses another problem. Many of these clients, not being design studios are not going to have the motivation to go tho the subscription model after buying the Suites just to be able to edit their files. This is another thorn in the side of designers agencies and Photographers, who now have to notify clients (which happened to me) that they likely won’t be able to open their files if what I am subscribing to is updated on a regular basis. Indesign is a perfect example. I started woking in a version compatible with theirs, by the time I was into the job Adobe had upgraded the app on the cloud and my client could no longer open the upgraded version from their older version. Not a happy client. I had no recourse..I could not go back.

    • Landon — 7:04 AM on May 23, 2013

      I run into that a lot, but sometimes there are some workarounds. In InDesign you could always save back at least 1 version by going to FILE > EXPORT then change the format to InDesign Markup Language IDML; then drop that into your packaged INDD folder. That INDD file will open in the previous version of InDesign, and can be resaved as an INDD when operned there. Older versions of InDesign exported to INDD and not IDML, but work the same way. I found doing those exports to be a handy way of getting glitchy/damaged INDD files back to stable, or at least it was in the earlier versions. I haven’t had many file corruption issues for quite a while.

      What really sucks in InDesign is having to go back multiple versions–in which case you have to export to IDML (say CS5), open that in CS4 and export again, then open that in CS3… etc., going down a version each time. Which you can do if you keep all of your old versions on your computer, but if you don’t its a nightmare. Users really need a version-stepping tool. Especially now with the CC/CS mess.

      • FrediW — 2:27 PM on May 24, 2013

        I have gone the IDML route, but it is not fully functional.

        • Landon — 6:13 PM on May 24, 2013

          Sorry, that sucks. I figured it was worth the suggestion though. Just out of curiosity, what parts didn’t function and what versions were you trying to move between? I haven’t had to deal with a lot of incompatibility it since my clients went CS4 and CS5. I do mostly brochures and such though with InDesign–not much on long book layouts and I don’t use ID for web/interactive.

          • FrediW — 8:21 PM on May 25, 2013

            Clients Version was CS5 So I just tried to open one of their files as an.idml that I created from the CLOUD furnished app…and it not only locked up my computer the first 2 times around, so I could not even force quit, had to pull the plug. Finally got it opened the third time and was not able to select any text boxes or image..the page was locked up. The 4th time I tried to open the page it finally opened with what seemed like functionality. Latest system software and plenty of ram. Can’t imagine what issues later upgrades might bring to the party.

  • FrediW — 10:39 PM on May 22, 2013

    Please Sign This Petition.
    Adobe Software, the ONLY graphics design software game in town is forcing all users to pay monthly subscription fees to use their apps. This policy must be stopped and we must be allowed to own what we pay for.
    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-cloud-stop-the-monopolistic-methods-of-adobe-allow-users-to-own-what-they-pay-for

    • Daniel — 4:54 AM on May 23, 2013

      I think you have a typo in your petition. You say Apple users now have no choice. Not everyone is an Apple user. For usage share of Operating systems OS X is only 6.9%, while Windows is 91.6%.

      • FrediW — 2:27 PM on May 24, 2013

        Thanks for the edit.

  • Sjaani — 1:04 AM on May 23, 2013

    You have a quote on your door

    “When Alexander the Great visited Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for the famed teacher, Diogenes replied, “Only stand out of my light.” Perhaps some day we shall know how to heighten creativity. Until then, one of the best things we can do for creative men and women is to stand out of their light.”

    Well lets just say Adobe isn’t standing in our light, they’ve turned the light off and smashed the globe this time!

    As a student I decided to check the cloud version out, so I now have files I won’t be able to use unless I stay with the cloud. Very disappointing. Don’t get me wrong, I like the cloud, I like the idea of more frequent updates which don’t have to come every 18 months. Potential loss of any type of access to my source files, that’s an insult to all of us.

    • Daniel — 4:32 AM on May 23, 2013

      Sjaani, thousands feel the same way you do. Legally your apprehensiveness about being cutoff from accessing your own source files is Adobe attempting to ransom off your Intellectual Property rights. Adobe’s attempt to take away your rights to IP is wrong and illegal, and what your apprehensiveness and instincts are telling you is correct.

  • Jamie — 4:02 AM on May 23, 2013

    If there was a better way out I’d sign up tomorrow. However, my thoughts on CC as it stands are that as a small business owner I don’t think it would be responsible for me to subscribe without there being some kind of exit strategy that leaves me with a working copy of the software. If this means I have to subscribe for a set amount of time, or pay exit fee then so be it, but just being able to open files (more Illustrator and inDesign than Photoshop) would not be enough. I hope this can be worked out, until then I guess I’ll just stick where I am.

  • Maureen Lilla — 8:41 AM on May 23, 2013

    Am I really understanding this correctly — that I won’t be able to access Adobe software or work on related projects without access to the Internet? I write and design for a non-profit organization. We use Adobe CS that we purchase through the group that distributes software for non-profits, Tech Soup. We do important research and conservation work for the environment, but very often, we do that work out in remote areas where there’s no Internet access. Our field office is an RV, so Adobe in a cloud would often be unusable for us. Not to mention that we can’t afford to replace our software each year, even at non-profit prices. What will we do? We’re working, for example, on a large manual that will be used as a guide for other non-profits throughout a large area. And we create materials through which we seek our funding and communciate with funders. This decision not to allow individuals and small organizations to own software independent from the cloud sounds like a disaster for us. With no access to the “cloud,” we have no option but to leave Adobe — and to retrain our people at significant cost and investment of time that we don’t have. And what happens when, because it works for Adobe, every other software manufacturer does the same thing? And for anyone, what happens if, during a crucial time, the Internet goes down? What solution do you recommend for us?

    • Andrew Rodney — 9:19 AM on May 23, 2013

      >>Am I really understanding this correctly — that I won’t be able to access Adobe software or work on related projects without access to the Internet?

      You ARE misunderstanding this YES. All CC software is downloaded and installed on your computer like always.

      • Maureen Lilla — 9:21 AM on May 23, 2013

        Thanks, that’s a relief. Then what…it vanishes if I don’t renew it every year?

        • Andrew Rodney — 9:32 AM on May 23, 2013

          >>Then what…it vanishes if I don’t renew it every year?

          Like ANY subscription, if you stop paying, you stop having access to software in this case. You either keep paying or move to another product to access that data. And that said (as said before here), once you leave Adobe’s proprietary processing you can’t use that process any longer AND you lock yourself into another companies proprietary processing. Photoshop Layers are proprietary among many other processes. You can’t take them along elsewhere. Just like moving from MS Word to another word processor can and often does provide unique processing or features that are unique to that product. You stop using that product, you by your own doing have put an end to the unique processing that at one time was the reason you purchased that product.

          • Claudius — 1:03 PM on May 24, 2013

            > like ANY subscription

            Oh come on. You’ve read the numerous examples of other software vendors and their models in this thread as well as i have.

            This is not a magazine subscription. So please stop comparing it to one. It most certainly isn’t the only viable option available to adobe. You don’t need to defend it for them.

          • Andrew Rodney — 1:23 PM on May 24, 2013

            >>Oh come on. You’ve read the numerous examples of other software vendors and their models in this thread as well as i have.

            >>This is not a magazine subscription. So please stop comparing it to one.

            First off, I’m not defending it, I’m simply writing facts about HOW it works. 2nd, if you read the posts above, you’ll see numerous posters comparing CC to a magazine subscription: it’s not my idea. Some are suggesting that WITH a magazine subscription, when it runs out, you get to keep the old magazines. I don’t believe this any relevance here! You subscribe to HBO, Netflix, Verizion etc, what happens once you stop paying them? Their service stops. That’s just like CC. I’m no more defending Adobe as I am any of the other companies, I’m simply trying to point out how a subscription model CAN work. How CC works. Do other software companies do this differently? Some might. Which again has nothing to do with what Adobe has planned nor is it egregious to do this even if we customers don’t like it. You have a choice: Pay or move on.

            >>You don’t need to defend it for them.
            That would be where?

          • Claudius — 1:38 PM on May 24, 2013

            >>>>You don’t need to defend it for them.
            >>That would be where?

            You’re explaining adobe’s model in terms
            a) as if there’s no way to change the rules (pay up or move on).
            b) with examples that have no place in a world of software (magazines, cable), but make the subscription model *seem* normal.

            To me, it reads a lot like defending.

    • RHernandez — 9:22 AM on May 23, 2013

      No, internet access is just required once every 30-99 days to validate your subscription. And yes, if you stop your subscription, you will not be able to do anything (easily) with documents that have been saved in Adobe’s proprietary formats. This is nothing new except that under the old perpetual model, Adobe never killed your software the way they will under the subscription model. Your luck opening newer files with the older CS6 or earlier version will vary, but will ultimately be a pain the a__ Just stick with CS6 and don’t give in to their scheme. If we all hold out they will fire this incompetent CEO and will have to answer their customers by giving us what we want.

      • Maureen Lilla — 9:29 AM on May 23, 2013

        This sounds like a terrible way to do business. I see that it may be good for the CEO and the stockholders — if people go along with it– but it’s not good for me, forcing me to upgrade whether I want to or not, making me check in on the Internet to prove that I have a subscription. I don’t subscribe to many things because it’s perpetual indebtedness. Maybe there will be other good software that will take advantage of the situation to gain new customers. Thanks for the info. I’ll start shopping.

  • Andrew Rodney — 2:08 PM on May 24, 2013

    >>You’re explaining adobe’s model in terms
    a) as if there’s no way to change the rules (pay up or move on).

    Is that untrue? Is that factually incorrect? IF so, please tell me the facts? AS of today, there is NO WAY to change the rules.

    >b) with examples that have no place in a world of software (magazines, cable), but make the subscription model *seem* normal.

    How are these examples abnormal? Is it untrue that once you stop paying these other companies, your subscription stops and you lose access? Or you stop paying and you get all the benefits of paying? The later isn’t available with the examples provided on the planet I live on.

    >>To me, it reads a lot like defending.

    I see. In your mind, someone providing facts among the FUD is therefor defending a company?
    Read all the posts I’ve provided here and tell me specifically the language I used to defend this new mode! See if you can find posts where I actually state I’m not happy with the new model. I’m sorry fact based text appears to you as a biased opinion. Would English be your 2nd language?

    Look, if you want to get into a heated debate based only on opinions, or religion or politics, I’m not your guy. If you want to look at facts and suggest those providing them are therefore biased, you’re talking to the wrong guy. If you want to discuss what’s the reality of this situation, this guy has provided such text and if that isn’t correct, point out the errors, I’ll be happy to stand corrected. But stick to the facts!

    • Durk Pearson — 5:07 PM on May 24, 2013

      If I stop subscribing to “Science”, I don’t lose the ability to re-open my extant copies of the magazine and to fully re-edit my marginal notes on the papers therein.

      • Andrew Rodney — 5:12 PM on May 24, 2013

        >>If I stop subscribing to “Science”, I don’t lose the ability to re-open my extant copies of the magazine and to fully re-edit my marginal notes on the papers therein.

        And if you stop your subscription to CC, you don’t lose the ability to re-open your images. Nor edit them either. But I pointed this fact out a very long time ago way up towards the top of these posts. I’ve moved from CC back to CS6 and CS5, no problem. But one has to do this properly! Knowing that you’re moving back a version means you have to know what you’re doing such you CAN re-edit the data.

        • Durk Pearson — 8:51 PM on May 24, 2013

          ” Andrew Rodney commented on You should never lose access to your work, period..

          in response to Durk Pearson:

          If I stop subscribing to “Science”, I don’t lose the ability to re-open my extant copies of the magazine and to fully re-edit my marginal notes on the papers therein.

          >>If I stop subscribing to “Science”, I don’t lose the ability to re-open my extant copies of the magazine and to fully re-edit my marginal notes on the papers therein.

          And if you stop your subscription to CC, you don’t lose the ability to re-open your images. Nor edit them either. But I pointed this fact out a very long time ago way up towards the top of these posts. I’ve moved from CC back to CS6 and CS5, no problem. But one has to do this properly! Knowing that you’re moving back a version means you have to know what you’re doing such you CAN re-edit the data.”

          As of the moment with Photoshop, this appears to be true – but Adobe makes no promises that this will continue to be true. That lack of promises is understandable – but so is the consequential ever increasing risk to anyone who becomes a CC subscriber.

          At present, the least bad alternative for for me is to keep my PSCS6 running indefinitely on what will eventually be a legacy machine/OS; fortunately KVM switches cost very little and are very easy to use.

          • FrediW — 10:52 AM on May 29, 2013

            What about new users who never purchased the box CS. They will have no app to work backward with. This is the oe big issue that people just don’t seem to be discussing.

          • RHernandez — 11:00 AM on May 29, 2013

            Fred, people are discussing it. It is THE main point that sucks about CC. The few who have come on here to say “CC is great” seem to miss this fact. It’s this failure of Adobe management to foresee in which I call out their incompetence. That and the fact that the CEO fails to answer a simple question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ

          • Landon — 11:17 AM on May 29, 2013

            Sure they are FrediW! (warning, post contains sarcasm and satire not directed at you Fedi)

            1. Users just need to buy the full perpetual licensed version of an outdated and not-fully-compatible and indefinitely-available CS6 Master Collection, and rush to save all of their files into a kind-of CS6 friendly format before their subscription ends. What could be easier and more obvious? It’s a great feature of the CC plan, and we’ll make sure that CS6 is available to you for a long time or not… we haven’t decided.

            2. Adobe’s Photoshop format (but not all Adobe formats) are fully documented online! All you need to do is go back to school, get your software engineering degree, start an open source project or your own commercial company, and then implement your own program that can read most of the features you want! It’s so easy a child could do it!

            3. *mesmerizing voice* You never want to leave subscription… you never want to leave subscription…

            4. Maybe it can be made easier to ensure your subscription never has to end! With a convenient automatic payment plan wired straight from your bank account you never have to worry about missing a payment again, and you’ll enjoy the latest updates as they happen! (No, not really offered. Just how marketing spin would go.)

            5. Wha?? No… there is no problem there, pshaw, it’s like… um… look something shiny! [runs from room]

            6. As a valued customer, you have your choice of dozens of inconsequential competitors with very little widespread industry support and little compatibility. We’re sure one of them will be the wrong choice for you. Enjoy! And please come back when you are ready to accept our terms.

          • RHernandez — 11:38 AM on May 29, 2013

            Too funny! But maybe this IS how upper management at Adobe works. Seems plausable after viewing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ

            Look, something shiny… hilarious!

          • Landon — 11:50 AM on May 29, 2013

            Wow, he didn’t even remotely answer the question on the video. LOL. I think the answer he was looking for was “because we can”. Are there tariffs on non-boxed software?

          • FrediW — 6:53 PM on May 29, 2013

            Did you dig the body language on the video and the brainless repetition that “they believe” that the cloud is the future, like they don’t really believe it themselves….but if you say it long enough and loud enough the idiots will follow wherever you lead them. They don’t care if this is popular or not, they have carved it in stone. They are in their own bubble and are trying to believe every word they spew.

          • Durk Pearson — 11:56 AM on May 29, 2013

            Landon,
            Brilliant exposition!
            You deserve the Jonathan Swift award for outstanding satire and for your modest solution.

          • Durk Pearson — 12:18 PM on May 29, 2013

            Swift’s “Modest Proposal”
            http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

          • FrediW — 7:29 PM on May 29, 2013

            R.Hernandez: There is just such a thinly veiled arrogance exuding from this ADOBE CEO Shantanu Narayen in this video. They have created their programmed responses, and who better to develop a program of canned responses to run not so silently, that loops and continues to loop without change.

          • RHernandez — 9:11 AM on May 30, 2013

            Our best hope is they fire his highness. I believe this is ALL his idea and he seems like the kind that would NEVER give in – they could lose 90% of their customers, be laying off thousands, closing the doors at Adobe and he would still insist that CC is the future.

          • FrediW — 9:20 AM on May 30, 2013

            We are at the core of the problem.

  • FrediW — 5:30 PM on May 24, 2013

    Hey Guys…the rub here is that yes in PS you can work backwards in the app. I still use PS CS2 from CS5 without thinking…they are both still on my hard drive…Yes you lose certain pluin functions but it still works. However you have lost sight in your Photoshop debate that it is not the only App in the Cloud…InDesign has not worked backwards with the same functionality, Dreamweaver has many different capabilities that are lost once you go to 5.5. or 6 and want to work backwards. And my bet is that this situation will only get worse overtime. PS is great but there are many other issues that are not being discussed and so many people seem to ignore. Can’t speak for all the iApps, but I bet there are many issues preventing backward workflow.

  • Andrew Rodney — 7:20 PM on May 24, 2013

    >>InDesign has not worked backwards with the same functionality,

    According to Landon (post above):

    “InDesign you could always save back at least 1 version by going to FILE > EXPORT then change the format to InDesign Markup Language IDML; then drop that into your packaged INDD folder. That INDD file will open in the previous version of InDesign, and can be resaved as an INDD when operned there.”

    I believe this is correct as I once and to go back a version for a client using the above technique and it seems to have worked.

    >>I bet there are many issues preventing backward workflow.

    Correct! It’s not brain dead, you have to play accordingly. But as I stated, going back to CS6 from CC is mostly possible if you play your cards right. Now going back from CC version 3 (or whatever they will call it) to CS6 might be more difficult! The more new proprietary features Adobe ads, the harder going backwards with nearly full editing functionality exists. It’s real, real hard to go from Photoshop 6 using layers to Photoshop 2 which doesn’t understand layers. Nothing new here. Moving backwards is not as far as I know, a workflow many advise you follow.

    • FrediW — 8:14 PM on May 24, 2013

      Backward work flow is kinda the issue. Who wants to be locked into having to work like that.If I run my studio that way I would be out of business. My clients and yours and most others don’t want to know about the saga. And the more inconvenient it is for us the better it will be for Adobe, ’cause they sure as heck get that we all cannot work that way for long. There is no motivation on their part for them to accommodate any of us unless we all become a force. Sign this if you want to at least try to make a difference. http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-cloud-stop-the-monopolistic-methods-of-adobe-allow-users-to-own-what-they-pay-for

  • Sjaani — 7:48 PM on May 24, 2013

    In connection to the initial post
    Quote:
    “Adobe should change their software so that when it’s used outside of a subscription, it will only allow opening, printing and exporting to other formats. That would ensure that you could still access your documents and make use of them. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Would that address your concerns?”

    Yes, this would address my concerns, but I’d like a bit more functionality and editing to be allowed.

  • Mike — 5:33 PM on May 25, 2013

    Allowing basic functionality (exporting, viewing and printing) from software that was no longer subscribed to would be a huge relief. Basically the equivalent of Adobe Reader for the other major formats. But I also would like to see a written and scheduled import/export schedule; that is, how long will you support opening the oldest files, and how long will the current format be valid?

  • Eric — 10:02 AM on May 29, 2013

    Being able to open/export files after the subscription has ended would be a nice safety net. I’d rather see a free “viewer” program (like Microsoft does with Office files) that allows saving as .tiff or .jpeg files. Do something similar for the other propriety formats where they get turned into an open format. The real difficult part I see is with Premiere/After Effects. You’d almost have to have a render engine to re-generate your file.

    • FrediW — 10:19 AM on May 29, 2013

      That is why I am pursuing an option to buy, not with all the rightd to upgrade access..but with the ability to retain the functionality for a price, afyer you have subscribed for a given period of time say a year. At that timehave to ability to opt out of the cloud and “pay to own” the working version of the app at that point, with no option to access upgrades, which you would have to resubscribe to access. There should be no problem since the files are residing on your hard drive according to some who seem to know that for a fact. I can’t swear to this. This way, people who are newer to Adobe, who have never owned CS, will not be bared from opening their intellectual property if they stop subscribing, unlike those of us who own back versions of CS. We would lose new upgraded functions, but hopefully not total useability.

    • RHernandez — 10:19 AM on May 29, 2013

      Eric, I think most have moved beyond a “viewer” app and prefer the scheme that Autodesk offers which is at the end of your contract/subscription, you keep the apps as is, no more support or updates. Anything less than THAT is unacceptable to me and many others. Enough with the compromises to Adobe, CC is more expensive than perpetual licenses and thus deserves more than JUST a viewer to access our files (yes John, I’m using the word access again to mean getting into our documents).

      • Landon — 11:01 AM on May 29, 2013

        I just find it incredulous that this conversation is happening now, instead of before such a sea change was unilaterally decided. Adobe’s own financial/engineering woes aside, this feels more like users begging or being bullied to come up with solutions to a problem Adobe is creating for us. And the solution was already in place with the option of subscription or perpetual license. Keep your CC delivery system–it all resides on our HDD anyhow–just disable any web-based services for CS users.

        And RHernandez is correct that the Autodesk model is a much better one.

        • RHernandez — 11:08 AM on May 29, 2013

          I agree Landon, this IS a problem they “created”. They claim “accounting” can’t let them add features to apps and that’s why they had to create CC? I call bull – Apple’s added features to FCPX since it’s launched.

          There were plenty of people that, while they felt like 2nd class customers with CS6 vs. CC, we were fine with having a perpetual license and waiting for CS7 for the updates CC got since CS6. Adobe changed the game, they will suffer the consequences of their actions.

        • Bill — 11:56 AM on May 29, 2013

          What Adobe needs to do is listen to what customers want, and clearly there are *many* of us who want Creative Suite, not some half-baked “reader” garbage or this forced subscription model.

        • bababonga — 5:55 AM on May 31, 2013

          And, how would you call someone, who will not stop to tell a community that something is good for them, even if he is aware that nearly 95% don´t want that?
          I call Adobe in the future.

      • bababonga — 5:51 AM on May 31, 2013

        Sure. Anything else than a real Buy-Out would have been unacceptable (as my decision is done).
        Adobe did that decision in a clear view about, what a harm they are doing to their long-time users. They can´t tell me anything else. Never will believe, that they don´t thought about that, before they put that Sh.t into our feeding bowls.
        With that – from May 6th Adobe isn´Adobe for me any longer.
        (I was so surprised of this announcement, that I first could not believe my ears & eyes)
        My trust is away for ever. If I go on with them any longer, I would live in fear of what comes up next from these (now) pirates.
        Their image changed 180 degrees – Absolutely not longer a serious partner, whom you can trust.
        That´s it. And as I could not hear any real, acceptable reaction in the last 3 weeks, my point behind Adobe is made.
        Already investing in alternative workflows.

  • bababonga — 4:04 PM on May 30, 2013

    And here is the new overwhelming great solution from MS: Winidoofs most creative cloud.

    Nothing changed, but you´ll get 1 gb of online store and a few other useless gimmicks (….and we can name it “cloud” that way).

    And all that for a little monthly fee of $50!!!

    No longer great barrier to use winidoofs and your PC!

    Always get automatic updates like Pissta or winidoofs 8 (without the possibility to aware!)

    It´s so absolutely great. So sugar glossy (BS)!

    The small print:

    Winidoofs will connect to your bank account and when there is enough money it will start up. Else not.

    Yes, we have access to all your cloud files and can do what we like with them. Even we can cut the access. But we will not do… may be… trust us…

    You will never lose full editable access to your files (as long as you pay)

    No, there are not so many Apps (in most cases none) that can read and FULLY edit your creations. We tried to not tell you this. Xuse, that we don´t pointed out better.

    No, we are not longer motivated to do updates (we never were a lot), as you will have to pay anyway.

    And yes, we will not longer sell other packaged OS, as we indirectly promised a few month ago when we said, that our latest OS will be the last upgradeable.

    Yes, you will always have to upgrade your hardware if we decide, it´s necessary. Elswise you can use our provided old version (we will not give our non subscribing long time users) but you have to pay for the latest. Sorry for that.
    Ehm, and, yes, you are a kind of Beta-Tester in future. Ehm, and we don´t give any warranty for anything. Ehm, good luck (May be our new updates – if they ever come to table – will not break any workflow like in the past. And if: Now you can be sure it hurts all users not only that, who installed first).

    No, YOU don´t have to decide if it´s good for you or not. So it´s not an option any longer. It´s a must you must like.

    Yes, it´s right, we bought also the competitor with the hooked fruit and all the others, so we are a monopolist right now. But you have enough choices to go to. So take it or not.

    No, we are not listening to any concerns.

    And we even don´t care about you.

  • ScottS — 4:41 PM on May 30, 2013

    I’ve been lurking and following the conversation with a lot of interest. One idea which I haven’t seen discussed is what if you are not a member of creative cloud anymore, the apps keep working, but you just cant save changes? You could export and edit, but you cant save those changes in the native app format such as PSD for photoshop.

    That seems like it would address people worried about file access.

    • RHernandez — 10:45 PM on May 30, 2013

      Sorry Scott, those terms would be unacceptable. I will NEVER subscribe under terms that leave me with anything less than full working software. I understand that to have a scheme that leaves me a full working copy would need to have requirements , i.e. two year subscription, and I’m fine with that. I just won’t pay Adobe every month for the next 25 years just to access/use my files.

    • Landon — 7:07 AM on May 31, 2013

      More importantly, Adobe would never allow anything like that. Being able to EDIT documents off subscription and then EXPORT (just stressing, not yelling) would remove the threat of being shut off from using CC programs–thus removing the incentive to keep subscribing. More importantly it would be close to full functionality for many people, and Adobe really can’t have that. For example, if it exported in a format that allowed for continued editability–say InDesign saving as an IDML–then there would be little to no difference in usability between being off-subscription and subscription. A user could reopen a layered IDML file and just keep working like normal.

      Put simply, it’s not an option being discussed because If Adobe is to keep up the arm-twist on the subscription, they definitely can’t allow editing. Even export (don’t look for many new format options there I’d guess) is a tricky proposition for them. Because as much as they insist you absolutely have rights to your files, they’re counting on the largely suite-wide incompatibility and lack of a drop-in replacement in the marketplace to ensure the inability to use those files elsewhere to push users to subscription. Yes, Photoshop is one of the more compatible of the bunch, but they wouldn’t be attempting this kind of switch, in this kind of ham-fisted way, with such high user disapproval, if they didn’t have users effectively in a corner.

      • bababonga — 7:11 AM on May 31, 2013

        Tht´s it. And nothing else. I take every bet – they don´t change anything.

      • mike chambers — 7:33 AM on May 31, 2013

        The entire point of the blog post is to explore ideas, so before you write it off it would be interesting to hear peoples thoughts on this (and other ideas) as a solution.

        • bababonga — 7:49 AM on May 31, 2013

          OK. Xcuse. I will wait.
          But I´m also watching the big response everywhere on the web regarding to Adobes move.
          It´s three weeks ago now, and I can not see any reaction to the main facts of the concern.

          I for myself, WAS using Adobe for more than 22 years. Spend many ten thousands of Euros to them threw the last decades. Always paid. Always UptoDate with my MasterCollection.

          I am responsible for many thousands of clients files. I have to guarantee my industrial clients three years of access to their jobs. That means not: Having a look on it. They need the fair-trailer of llast year with a new text layer or an part of an old catalog or…
          I nearly have no day where I don´t have to open a file between ond and three years old.
          In case of a change of subscribtion that means: Paying a min. of three years to have full access to my files.
          Unacceptable (and I think Adobe wouldn´t buy such a solution itself).
          Else I have to save my files always twice: One in useless non editable format and one in Adobe-format. As I create 1,5 TB as a single person for my clients thats a little bit stupid (not multiplicated with my employees).
          If I did not, I have to convert 4,5 TB of data to useless formats if I only want to keep them in case of quitting subscribtion.
          Never.
          I made my decision already. Investing time and money into new workflows.
          And I think, Adobe did it´s move in exact knowledge, which harm they are doing to people like me.
          Price was and is never the point. Also quality not (thanks to all your programmers for making my brushes over the last years). But leader ship?
          Adobe has to understand our concerns as we also have to accept their move.
          And again: If I could bet…

        • RHernandez — 7:56 AM on May 31, 2013

          Mike, with all due respect, it’s very transparent that the way CC is positioned is to benefit Adobe without consideration to the customer. How else do you explain the facts regarding increased cost over time AND essentially killing access* to files if the programs cease to work if a subscription is cancelled. It is either very deliberate or complete incompetence that these facts were overlooked. If it was incompetence, then I think the board should consider new management. If it was deliberate, then Adobe will reap what they sow.

          *access, meaning being able to open and get to the work stored in various proprietary formats.

          • Mike Chambers — 8:47 AM on May 31, 2013


            *access, meaning being able to open and get to the work stored in various proprietary formats.

            It sounds like the suggestion from scott addresses this concern. i.e. you could open, edit, export your work.

            The entire thread is about exploring solutions to issues around file access. Lets explore them (Adobe is).

            mike chambers

            mesh@adobe.com

          • Landon — 11:48 AM on May 31, 2013

            Mike, I understand it would be nicer for you to get direct answers and discussions tightly confined to the single issue of file access on this post. I get that, and would indeed like to discuss that. But…

            First, understand that Adobe started this conversation with what amounts to a slap in the face and an ultimatum. Every one of your customers is faced now with a gut-wrenching decision that Adobe created — namely, they take CC and lose most or all control in their relationship with Adobe and Adobe products, or they leave Adobe and lose money/time/effort in retraining and workflow processes if they can find a solution at all. It hurts. A lot.

            Second, the very idea that Adobe is only now considering file access issues for customers on the eve of CC being released shows one or more of the following:
            (a) There was utter hubris at work
            (b) A fundamental misunderstanding of what your users want and will accept
            (c) lack of forethought and planning in implementing this mess
            (d) simply spin to implement a pre-planned set of concessions should users go nuts. Then you say, here’s a great solution and we’re listening.
            I want to believe it is (B) because I can understand how sometimes you can’t see the forrest through the trees, and the rest of the choices are pretty damning. The cynic in me sees all of the careful planning you did in putting the CS6 ‘indefinite’ option together as a failsafe, which shows you were indeed thinking about what would happen, and says D. Which means we aren’t really having a conversation at all, and this is PR. That would really piss me off. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with (B) and think you just got caught with your pants down and didn’t expect the huge negative response.

            Third, any solution we come up with will not be the perpetual license that we have now. No matter what is done, you’ve taken control away from the user and those who can’t or won’t rent are simply going to be told to get bent. So this doesn’t make everything better, and doesn’t fix our relationship. You’re asking us to design a more acceptable cage. You should have had this conversation with us earlier.

            –so back on point–

            The open/view/export/print option was talked about at length. It’s the EDIT thing that’s new. Adobe won’t go for full edit and export capability–it’s basically the same as a perpetual license for a lot of people at that point. Open a blank file, edit at it whim, export your new document in some editable format. Obviously Adobe isn’t going to do that. People would find it more acceptable than the mess you have going on now though.

            So lets put this in some sort of context and see how Adobe can smooth out the wrinkles a hair. This is admittedly extreme, but it’s a good place to start because extremes tend to create great contrast. Say I’m a freelancer on CC and I get in a car accident that lays me up for a time. Bills mount, I’m declaring bankruptcy, my subscription ends. I have a pile of files and I’m a CC user with no CS6 to fall back on. What now? Lets look below…

            I need to work. If I work for myself I need software. If I can borrow as little as $75 I can get a CC subscription for a month (CS6 users would have been fine, thanks) and hope I can do some quick turn jobs that pay in less than net-30 so I can keep using my software and start to pay bills. Or I can use the trial CC version provided one has never been used on my computer; I’m assuming Adobe buries some cookie-esque product on your computer to prevent continual trial activation/use. So… what would help there?
            (—-ANSWER—-) How about an emergency grace period of 2-3 months for long-standing users in case of such events–something they can request from Adobe after deactivation. That way a user could have full access and get their lives together again so Adobe gets their happy little subscriber back, and our happy subscriber feels all warm and fuzzy that Adobe gave a crap.
            (—-ANSWER—-) Allow previous users to activate a trial version of CC if they’ve been off subscription for a period of time.
            (—-ANSWER—-) Fund a conversion tool for all Adobe formats so they can be opened by open source projects/editors/programs without a whole helluva lotta mess and broken things.

            Okay… next. Lets say that car accident landed a Buick through my livingroom wall, so I need to go work for someone else while my house is being infested with rabbid squirrels and I can’t get the insurance to pay out. Ain’t that just the way of things. First off I need to build a resume and a portfolio. Well crap, with CC disabled (dang CS6 woulda been nice) I’m pretty screwed and I can’t open any of my awesome work correctly in any other program–because I used Adobe software to its fullest and didn’t output to and other generic formats. Okay, what would I need to do? I need to be able to look at all of my files regardless of file type, create a portfolio online or printed, and prey my broken body can show up for an interview. So what would help here?
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            I read that CC was going to be great about creating portfolios with built-in hosting. How about once you set up an Adobe account, your portfolio (or at least a limited-size emergency version) stays live online indefinitely with the ability to toggle the thing on and off from your user account–regardless of your subscription status.
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            Each adobe program allows OPEN/EXPORT/PRINT functionality even when off subscription. That won’t help create a resume or any customized layout, but would give us options.
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            Allow previous users to activate a trial version of CC if they’ve been off subscription for a period of time.
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            Adobe Bridge (god I hate Bridge) becomes the free or perpetually licensed swiss army knife reader of Adobe formats. It allows me to view/print/export and perform basic actions like make a portfolio from files. Importantly it allows me to BATCH CONVERT to the latest non-Adobe formats, and basically keep everything accessible no matter how far down the rabbit hole Adobe goes.

            Lovely. Next up, lets say I’m retired now. I used CC for my final 10 years on the job and my subscription is up. My grandkids have to do a school report on what I did with my utterly unimpressive life, and I can’t open crap to show them. So I crank on the old beater computer and can’t open any of my files. Now, I’m a pensioner and subscription for Adobe Brain Cloud XVII is now $1500 per month, so I’d rather eat instead of show my kids my life’s work. What would help?
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            Limited functionality to programs like AE, FL, PR, PS, AI when off subscription that let me do some very basic things to put together utterly simple projects that a home user would do. Think Photoshop Reduced Mode–allowing all the functionality of Photoshop 5 or somthing. You guys used to have Photoshop Lite, that’s pretty much what I’m talking about here.
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            Expand Photoshop/Premiere Elements or Bridge (god I hate Bridge) to handle more media types and actions so they can open work from the Pro side of things without issues, just not as may tools available.
            (—-ANSWER—-)
            All the other answers from above

            BEST ANSWER: PERPETUAL LICENSED SOFTWARE

            There are some ideas to chew on and tear apart. Some good, some bad, just a conversation starter.

          • ButchM — 11:27 AM on May 31, 2013

            One has to wonder why Adobe is only now “exploring” solutions … one would think that a multi-billion dollar corporation who rewards their CEO with several hundred thousands of shares of stock to sell for profit … would have had the wherewithal, resources and capabilities to have researched the market more closely so all these concerns would be a non issue.

            Don’t get me wrong, I don’t expect pure perfection from anyone … but the folks earning the big bucks should have the foresight to plan in better detail and do their “exploring” BEFORE they make such a sweeping decision.

          • Durk Pearson — 11:58 AM on May 31, 2013

            I think it unlikely that Adobe failed to do its market research and was taken by surprise by its customers’ very adverse reactions.

            I think it much more likely that they plan to discard half their customers, lock in the remainder to their no-exit Cloud plan, during the next couple of years make enough changes so that many of the then current Cloud applications write files that are effectively incompatible with CS6, and subsequently triple their rental prices. (These numbers are only examples, of course.) If that plan works, they would have half the support costs and 50% more income. Ca-ching! $$$

            If this hypothesis is correct, Adobe will never offer an exit (such as rent-to-own-the-current-version) – though they will continue to “listen” but never commit to any specific Cloud customer viable exit plan.

            If this hypothesis is correct, there will be a bifurcation of users into the Cloud crowd and the long term CS6 users. Adobe would do their best to make these two groups incompatible in order to enforce continuing no-exit increased Cloud rental payments.

            This policy would have the inevitable result of making CS6 a long term stable industry standard, much as Windows XP’s decade plus life. Note that Microsoft has included an XP compatibility mode in both Windows 7 and 8.

            Photoshop CS6 users will not be without upgrades! As Landon has wisely pointed out, this is a golden opportunity for third party plugin developers!

      • Bill — 11:15 AM on May 31, 2013

        Anything short of reinstating a perpetual license option is unacceptable to me. I do not want to be in the position of messing with file exports, which is always a dodgy proposition in the best of times, and is a terrible choice when one is being held hostage.

        If that is the choice, then it is better to start moving your archives now and find alternatives tools The move away from Adobe is inevitable at this point as it does not seem likely this CEO is going to admit his decision to go to CC only has been soundly rejected by the customer base.

  • Matthew — 9:30 PM on May 30, 2013

    I agree with the person who said that he would own CS6 for as long as it remains useful and relevant, and then look for other options. It’s unconscionable that Adobe would extort $50/month from loyal users for a product the users will never own, always beholden to the Great God Adobe for their software.

    Steve Jobs, in talking about music, said that people want to own, not rent, their music. They don’t want all the music to vanish if they decide they no longer want to rent, all that money they paid gone along with their music. I realize that the files will not be gone if a person decides to end his or her subscription, but, for many of the same reasons that Jobs cited regarding music, people want to own their software. For Adobe not to offer the option to own their software is, ummm, capitalism at it’s “finest”…

  • Matthew — 9:52 PM on May 30, 2013

    John Nack:

    Can you honestly, unreservedly say to us that you think Creative Cloud is a good idea, and—more importantly—in the best interest of Adobe’s customers?!

    Matthew

    • bababonga — 5:33 AM on May 31, 2013

      I´m also interested in the answer!?

      • jlua — 6:14 AM on May 31, 2013

        Certainly, the users have spoken. See this:

        http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57586530-92/survey-creative-suite-users-loathe-adobes-subscriptions/

      • Landon — 7:54 AM on May 31, 2013

        His answer has to be yes, but you’re asking the wrong question. CC itself is not a bad idea. In fact it’s perfectly lovely as an option to perpetual license. No, it’s the subscription-or-get-bent model that brings all of the problems of control, budget, ownership, etc.

        The right question is, do you think the subscription-only model is in the best interest of Adobe’s customers?

        and also…

        Do you think Adobe’s handling of the conversion to a subscription-only model was appropriate?

        You know John, had Adobe asked all of their paying customers about subscriptions and told them that Adobe would like to smooth their revenue their revenue stream, I probably would have told them this:

        Use your new CC infrastructure with subscription as-is, Great–lovely for people willing to accept that. Keep CS6 as the gold-standard-frozen in time package if you want. But still offer perpetual licenses with a buy-in at the current CC version. Adobe says it doesn’t want to maintain multiple infrastructures, well great, according to Adobe, CC has it all the CS-specific apps installed on users’ hard drives anyway, so switch to that delivery method (god how I hate downloading GBs over slow ass-DSL and rate caps) just keep your cloud bits to yourself for perpetual license users and make a CS license a flat rate. You buy a perpetual license, you get the current state of all of the apps, frozen in time. That way you’re not worrying about a release schedule every X months and pressing new masters for DVD distro. Then offer a third choice. Give perpetual license users like me, an update subscription to their software–essentially we paid the full price to get in the door, so we’re just paying for the same software updates the CC users get, with the exception that we own a perpetual license for everything we pay for and won’t get shut off. Seems fair to me. You smooth out your revenue stream by getting CC users, a large contingent of your one-time faithful could have signed on for the incremental upgrades so they are paying on par with CC users, and seldom-update users would still be able to jump in at any time to buy a full version of the software in it’s current CC state. All managed on your nifty new CC update delivery system that you say is already set up to allow users to allow/deny updates as they come–so version control shouldn’t be a problem for your system. Yeah, I know it’s not that easy engineering-wise, but that’s what I would have suggested. And I think most people would have agreed to it, and gladly upgraded to a perpetual license plus updates model.

        • bababonga — 8:02 AM on May 31, 2013

          Why do they have to build an second infrastructure?
          Didn´t they tell, that they will do that for their cloud-subscribers by always holding the old versions available for them?
          Isn´t that already an second infrastructure?
          BtW.: It would never had been the matter of prices. Good Tools – good price. Never had any trouble with that in case of Adobe.
          But losing (full, editable) file-access is not acceptable.
          So I made my point.
          But my concern is still big enough to follow all this.
          I feel ripped and if I´m asked, if this should be allowed, the answer is clearly: No. They changed the product I once bought.

          • Landon — 8:27 AM on May 31, 2013

            They already built the infrastructure and tested it with subscriptions over the last year. CC is the new infrastructure.
            I honestly don’t fully understand what they mean by that–probably has to do with the way your software gets updated, delivered, and integrated with the additional cloud services they want to push now and in the future. That’s one of the reasons they’re using to defend a move to a subscription-only model. They’re saying it’s too costly to maintain both infrastructures.

            So I’m just tossing it back at them, since they’re also saying that all the CS-common apps are run off your hard drive in CC like they were in CS, they should be able to deliver the same CS experience like normal. Either its in the cloud or not. They’re saying not. So where is the added cost to them to just NOT shut off the software (the fact it can be remotely disabled at all pisses me off from a control standpoint) and call it a perpetual license?

        • FrediW — 8:27 AM on May 31, 2013

          Agree!!!!

  • Andrew Rodney — 12:05 PM on May 31, 2013

    >>I think it unlikely that Adobe failed to do its market research and was taken by surprise by its customers’ very adverse reactions.

    Agreed. Ca-ching! $$$ is spot on. Making the same money with less end users could be a boon to Adobe.

    >>As Landon has wisely pointed out, this is a golden opportunity for third party plugin developers!

    Indeed but it doesn’t help any of us who hope to continue working with Adobe proprietary processing. We still have to deal with the possibility of not having full editing support for all the old Adobe processing technology we have depended on. Part of the “punishment” for jumping ship. No 3rd party solution will fix this I’m afraid.

    See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78554.0

    Specifically about a product called Photoline and it’s ‘understanding’ and access to Photoshop layers.

    • Durk Pearson — 12:25 PM on May 31, 2013

      Thank you, Andrew, for your link to Photoline:
      http://www.pl32.com/

      As a Mac Photoshop CS6 user, this hopeful as an eventual alternative; unlike Corel’s Paintshop Pro, it is available for the Mac.

      Unfortunately, I am afraid that you are all too correct about the lack of alternatives for most of the other Adobe products.

      Thank goodness I’m only a photographer and not an all function graphics designer/producer. They have the Hobson’s choice of sticking with CS6 for many years until competitors develop a viable replacement or becoming Cloud slaves.

      Prediction: Adobe will continue to “listen” – but never commit to a viable exit strategy because that would be the antithesis of their new business plan.

    • ButchM — 12:26 PM on May 31, 2013

      While I agree that any transition away from Adobe products will bring with it some degree of pain and frustration … but I am willing to take that route … primarily, I am now of the mindset that putting all my eggs in one software brand basket, simply was not a sound business move on my part.

      I’ve been a professional photographer/designer for 38 years. I never once went to a job with only one camera, one lens, one flash and one memory card (or one roll of film).

      It seems to me that any “professional” who places so much value on using only a singular source of software does so at their own peril. What has transpired over the past several weeks is testament to that.

      Sure, using a suite of options from the same developer makes life easier and a more streamlined workflow … but what of a disaster like a equipment failure at a wedding or other once in a lifetime event? You need backup alternatives that can save the day … Adobe’s arbitrary and monopolistic attitude is proof positive that a disaster can and does happen. Fortunately, it didn’t happen in such a way as to leave us high and dry … at least we have time to seek out other options … I for one, think it will be a positive move to do so. Regardless of the obstacles we may incur.

  • Wayne Cole — 4:40 PM on June 01, 2013

    Adobe Creative Cloud has nothing to do with cloud computing.
    Cloud computing’s prime architectural characteristics are:
    1. Services (applications) and data are distributed across a large number of physical resources (servers and storage).
    2. Data access and control, and application (service) performance exceed (or at least match) that which can be obtained by using traditional local workstation / storage or client – server architectures.
    3. Access to services and data (subject to access control security policies) can be exercised from any device in any location as long as the device has cloud (network) connectivity capability.
    Adobe Creative Cloud “services” are really re-named Creative Suite applications that must reside on the local machine in order to be useful violating 1. above.
    Because the entire CC “service” must be downloaded to run client-side, 2. above is not met.
    There has been no proof offered yet that Adobe’s CC included storage has been implemented using true cloud architecture. To the contrary, it appears to be nothing more than traditional online-storage which is NOT the same thing. I.e. you can’t interface with the files just as if they were local copies for purposes of access, modification, access control, with complete platform / device independence.
    The CC “services” do not provide device or platform independence, so 3. above is not met. The “touch apps” are just that – PLATFORM & DEVICE DEPENDENT APPS, not cloud services, that only provide minimal Photoshop functionality and access to online storage.
    Bēhance is simply a social networking site for Adobe users. There is nothing cloud related about it, so it too, does not comply with any of the above characteristics of cloud computing.

    Another feature of cloud computing should be noted: it is NOT primarily concerned with reducing IT costs, but rather to increase performance, and accessibility for necessarily collaborative / distributed workflows and workforces. Increased costs to enterprise operations for cloud hosted workflows are somewhat lessened by “per user / seat” averaging, and offset by productivity gains. However, for “single license” individual and small business users with non-monolithic data and workflow requirements, cloud architecture may provide only increased cost with no increased benefit.
    The use of the term, “cloud” by Adobe in “Creative Cloud” is a smoke-screen, apparently designed to confuse the non-IT savvy decision makers into radically increasing their Adobe application licensing costs. It also appears that Adobe now considers themselves an “enterprise solution provider” – witness “Adobe Marketing Cloud”, and not a solution provider for individual media content creators. As such it appears Adobe wants to shed the non-enterprise users from their customer base unless it has succumbed to its own hype that only Adobe provides the individual solutions these “small-fry” users need. The truth is that there are equally capable applications with perpetual licensing schemes that will be less costly in the long run to this market segment.
    What “Creative Cloud” really appears to be is a continuation of Adobe’s quest, started by “Suite” bundling, to transfer more money from existing users into the corporation’s coffers, and to get closer to a full “pay per use/view” sales model. It has, at this point, nothing to offer by way of new, state-of-the-art computing architecture or advantage.

  • Manuel Sterner — 1:02 AM on June 11, 2013

    IDNX is something that has been missing for sometime now. Great looking out, Thies Lindenthal

  • Dave C — 3:24 PM on June 16, 2013

    I have three issues with Creative Cloud:

    1. I need to be able to EDIT my work when I don’t have income. CS 6 and earlier permitted this. Creative Cloud does not, and that’s unacceptable.

    2. We have no assurance that Adobe will not jack up the price with every passing year. They can test the market to charge the absolute max and we all have to keep paying. If Adobe does that, it’s exploitation. Silence on the issue is not reassuring.

    3. I have no interest in storing my work in the cloud, thank you.

  • Charles — 12:11 PM on June 17, 2013

    How about, if you cancel your subscription after an alotted period of time (say, 1 year) you own the software you used up to that point, but are not eligable for any updates. I’m sure they can work out the details on their end. Or perhaps give you a reduced rate buy-out option per program.

    • Wayne Cole — 1:32 PM on June 17, 2013

      What you are suggesting is a return to the “perpetual license” which is exactly what Adobe is trying to kill in order to put users over a barrel and a vacuum cleaner in their wallets.

  • Landon — 4:58 PM on June 17, 2013

    Well, I guess it all starts today with the official launch of CC. This will be one hell of a staring contest between perpetual license users and Adobe (and CC users and Adobe for that matter). I can’t see Adobe ever blinking and backing away from their choice, but even if they do, it would only happen after several years and a lot of pain–Adobe and users alike. With rentals they can make do without as many users, and investors will hold on at least through the once-normal 2-year update cycle (and probably 1 year more) to see if this is going to go well for them.

    Can’t say I know how this is going to shake out, but best of luck with what everybody decides. Unfortunately, I can’t choke CC down and have no plans past CS6. No matter your choice, as an Adobe user you’ve have put a lot of time, effort, and money into learning your software and craft. I truly wish you all success.

    -Landon
    Aldus/Adobe/Macromedia user since 1993

    • RHernandez — 6:13 PM on June 17, 2013

      I was hoping they’d get their act together and release a statement/policy shift by the time CC launched, but then again, this is the guy at the helm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ

      • Durk Pearson — 10:24 PM on June 17, 2013

        That’s their CEO, all right. He sounded like a politician unsuccessfully attempting to bafflegab his way out of an embarrassing pickle. I like Gordon Gekko’s performance better; he successfully conveyed that he believed what he was saying.

        It looks like I’ll be using my perpetual license Photoshop CS6 for a long time to come. I’d be delighted to trade some of my hard earned cash for periodic upgrades, but Adobe simply isn’t interested in selling what I want anymore. I’m disappointed, but I’ll survive with the excellent software that I’ve got now plus new third party plugins.

        I have a lot of sympathy for all the perpetual license CS6 design pros who are wedged much more painfully between the crushing rock of the CC no exit trap and their expected hard place of customers who may someday want them to deal with incompatible files. Although I think that Adobe’s CEO will push as hard as he can on this lever and attempt to bring compliance through pain, I suspect that his alternative is so clearly unacceptable to so many designers that there is going to be a lot of CS6 standard work for many years to come. Remember that Windows XP was the commercial standard for a full decade, and there are a lot more serious deficiencies in XP (such as security) than there are in CS6. With all its many faults, XP is still a big slice of the corporate pie:
        http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9238049/Windows_XP_decline_stalls_as_users_hold_onto_aged_OS_flout_2014_deadline

        Don’t forget that a real reason for Adobe’s new rent-only-no-exit policy is that CS6 is already so good and so mature that it was becoming progressively harder to persuade customers to upgrade every cycle.

        Hang onto your perpetual license CS6 systems; I think that you will be very pleasantly surprised at how readily your customers accommodate to the new long term CS6 standard.

        • Landon — 10:33 PM on June 17, 2013

          I’ll drink to that. Cheers!

  • to — 11:48 PM on June 17, 2013

    I really hate the subscription model for software. I hate it.
    But lets face it its the future and its coming if we want it or not. And it will be coming to all big software packages.

    The only way Adobe could get me to sign up for CC is this model:
    Rent CC for – lets say – three years. If you stop your rental after that three years the software stays unlocked and ready for you to use, but you won’t get updates anymore…

    • Durk Pearson — 1:41 AM on June 18, 2013

      No, the Adobe no-exit rental-only model is unlikely to be the future of software because if other BIG market dominating firms such as Microsoft and Autodesk could have done it, they would have done so years ago. When you “rent” Autodesk software, you actually have a continuous bug fix and update service but you get to keep using your software as it was the moment that you exit their support plan. This assures the user that they can exit if the subscription ceases to be worth the cost. So far as I know, Adobe’s new business plan is a first.

      How many security updates has Adobe’s Flash had during the past couple of years? Will their internet connected cloud have a better security record?

      The perpetual license CS6 software doesn’t have this potential internet connected security problem.

  • to — 11:56 PM on June 17, 2013

    Also i may add that Adobe is hoping to stop or at least reduce piracy.

    I bet Adobe CC will be the most pirated version of any Adobe product ever, in a very short time.

    Everything is crackable and in a very short time there will be running Pirate-Adobe-Servers on more machines then ever before.

    Good luck Adobe!

    • bababonga — 7:50 AM on June 18, 2013

      It´s already done, as I read.
      Also: Good Luck, Adobe Leader Board!

  • Landon — 7:25 AM on June 18, 2013

    This was interesting to see on PhotoRumors.com…

    “Adobe is looking into different Creative Cloud subscription options following the massive online backlash after their announcement that future Photoshop versions will be available only through a monthly subscription. The company recently sent out a survey to a selected users about the Creative Cloud, specifically about a new pricing structure of $9.99 for Photoshop or $29.99 for the entire suite on a 3 years contract which includes a permanent copy of CS6 after 3 years and a promise to continually update CS6 to support future file and camera types.”

    Read more on PhotoRumors.com: http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/#ixzz2WZt8S11x

    • bababonga — 7:48 AM on June 18, 2013

      They still can offer me whatever they want.
      I´m simply not longer interested.
      As Adobe has´t given any answer to users concern during first three weeks after their comming out (beside telling marketing bushwah again and again… Using jokes like some are not ready for the cloud…) I´m still investing time and money in new, alternative workflows. Didn´t even replace Photoshop and Illustrator completely, but web and video is already replaced for new projects.
      CS6 will run for the next years (if necessary 10 – I OWN the right to use these files) to hold my archive and will be used for PS and AI. Let´s see competitors next years.
      And that´s it. Thanks to Adobe programmers / workers / developers for designing my brushes last decades (since 1990) – And to the leader board: Fly away on your pink BS cloud!

  • Robert — 1:08 PM on June 18, 2013

    Without trying to throw more fuel on the flames here, I’ll just say I’m not going the subscription way. For SaaS, I understand it, but for tools like these, it makes no sense to me. I stopped using Fireworks and Photoshop quite awhile ago, because for my graphics needs (including working with psd files) Pixelmator or Acorn are more than adequate at a fraction of the cost.
    As for Dreamweaver, I was never that into WYSIWYG HTML editing anyway, and there are code editors I find far better – the one thing I do still use it for is the superb Find/Replace functionality, but when my CS6 version stops working (some OS upgrade will eventually do that, I’m sure), I’ll learn to live without that too.

  • Durk Pearson — 4:27 PM on June 19, 2013

    Microsoft tried to pull off something similar to Adobe’s new business model (though nowhere near as bad for its customers) with their new X-Box game system. Customers revolted. Microsoft listened. Then Microsoft totally reversed course:
    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/rumor-microsoft-set-to-reverse-controversial-game-licensing-policies/

    Conclusion: Bill Gates is far smarter and much less arrogant than Adobe’s CEO.

  • bababonga — 4:32 PM on June 19, 2013

    Never thought, I would lose a good word about microsoft (and I think it wasn´t b.g. idea)… but it´s right: Even they are a little bit bigger than Adobe, they can answer immediately – Adobe can´t. They only tell bushwah, bushwah and half-truth… THey are working on… They listen… They tell nothing. And they will do nothing. They will milk their old cows as long as we let them.
    ———-
    CC = Cash Cow = Terminating the word “Archive” in digital future = Lifelong dependency = NoGo = Never

    • Durk Pearson — 4:54 PM on June 19, 2013

      Well said. I agree.

      Bill Gates has had a lot of big ideas, some good and some bad. He owns a controlling interest in Microsoft, and he isn’t going to be fired if he has a lousy idea, admits it, and reverses course. If he kept pushing a bad idea, he would lo$e more money than anyone else, so he knows that it is in his interest to promptly dump them. He will have plenty of chances to have more big ideas, some of which will work, and some of which he will quickly dump when the customers say NO!!!

      Adobe’s CEO has had one big idea, and he has apparently bet his career on it. He doesn’t own a controlling interest in Adobe; in fact, when he receives a new batch of Adobe shares, he sells them. (A possible indication of what he really expects for Adobe’s future stock price…) I don’t expect a reversal of policy until Adobe’s board of directors gives him the boot, which is likely to take at least a year or two. Until then, hurray for perpetual use of CS6 perpetual licenses!

      • RHernandez — 5:33 PM on June 19, 2013

        Um, while Bill Gates is the Chairman of the Board of MS, he does very little, if anything at all, on a day-to-day basis. Steve Ballmer runs MS and has for the last 10+ years.

        But I do agree with the idea of the Adobe CEO needing to be replaced, if for nothing more than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78yigV0GYGQ

        • Durk Pearson — 5:54 PM on June 19, 2013

          Very true. Steve Ballmer also owns a huge block of Microsoft stock and hence can afford to reverse a bad decision without risking his job. Indeed, being so heavily invested in Microsoft, he couldn’t afford not to do so.

          I’ve seen that YouTube interview, and the performance of Adobe’s CEO was pathetic. I hope that every Adobe stockholder sees it. Thanks for posting the that link.

  • bababonga — 6:19 PM on June 19, 2013

    So the theme of this threat is/was: “You should never lose access to your work”. I think we have to accept, that it´s only “should”. We have to accept that we lose access to our archives after subscription. Can´t see any horizon given by Adobe, no answer beside their marketing bushwah that they are willing to change anything.

    So: Bye Adobe. Point is made.

  • Jimmy Alexander — 7:58 AM on June 24, 2013

    Dear Mr. Nack,

    I’m sure there is a valid reason to move to the cloud for your company but some people cannot access creative cloud. Here’s why.

    NOT everyone can ACCESS the Adobe Web Store to PAY for the software. I live in a country where I can buy stuff online from HomeDepot, B&H and many other stores but CAN’T even buy the BOXED software from Adobe’s site. I have to use a third party reseller which gives me great Service (B&H Photo Video) but now that your company has switched to this Subscription Service for Creative Cloud I will be UNABLE to access or pay for the subscription because “they DON’T HAVE A STORE for my country”.

    If they remove the paid software option the had BETTER allow all countries (where applicable under US law) to be able to buy software directly from their site or it will be a waste. Not all of us live in the USA, Europe, Australia or South America.

  • stuart — 2:05 AM on June 26, 2013

    the only people who are complaining about “renting” the CC products are clearly the people who downloaded CS6 from a torrent site and now have to pay!

    Nobody buys the whole CS6 master collection for £4000 so paying £40 a month gives you 100 months or 8 years value for same money! much better!

    • Eric Steiner — 10:05 AM on June 26, 2013

      Jimmy:

      I can’t speak to the conversion rate, but I have paid for multiple full Master Suite licenses (If memory serves I believe the cost is about $2,500 US). It’s a cost of doing business for me. That being said, I do not like the subscription model one bit. If my small business were to fall on hard times in the past I wouldn’t have to worry about losing my tools… now I do. Makes it harder to work yourself out of a difficult situation.

    • Bill — 10:33 AM on June 26, 2013

      For the record, I’ve paid for numerous suite licenses. And I know I’m not alone in that regards. I do NOT like the CC model one bit. So take your condescending attitude and stuff it.

      Thanks.

      • Wayne Cole — 12:14 PM on June 26, 2013

        “For the record, I’ve paid for numerous suite licenses. And I know I’m not alone in that regards. I do NOT like the CC model one bit. So take your condescending attitude and stuff it.”

        Ditto x 10!

        … especially since, if I stop paying CC fees, I could no longer utilize .psd files, .ai files, Audition, Premiere or AE project files, etc. etc. etc.

    • RHernandez — 12:04 PM on June 26, 2013

      Stuart, a couple things. This is not about the thieves. They have already cracked CC apps and they are on the torrents. This is a fundamental shift in “purchasing” software from Adobe. I don’t know if you lease or buy your car, but it’s the same idea. There are some people who prefer to buy their car rather than lease. When you buy a car, you may not always have the latest and greatest, but at the end of paying it off, it’s yours to keep using. When you lease, at the end you have nothing.

      Until Adobe corrects this major flaw in their CC scam, I mean scheme, I and countless others won’t be buying.

    • bababonga — 1:48 PM on June 26, 2013

      Short thought.
      Buying CS MC (like me – ever updated) gives me the right to use it lifelong. And it will run the next ten years without any additional costs (I have to keep my archive, so I configured two MACs for that job).
      I will never subscribe into lifelong slavery – so I turned my back to Adobe already.
      And by the way: ONLY in case of Master Collection the CashCow model is only more expensive after 10 years – all other Suites are more expensive after a couple of years and you lose everything after quitting.
      Good luck in pinky cloud BS!

    • Landon — 1:51 PM on June 26, 2013

      [slow clap] Excellent quality troll Stuart. I’d say something funny and a touch condescending as a retort, but I just don’t have it in me today. Go troll on the XBox One forums or something.

    • FrediW — 4:25 PM on June 26, 2013

      Stuart, when all of you Adobephiles run out of arguments in support of what borders on an illegal monopoly, and have come to realize that you are not going to change the minds of those of us demanding alternatives you take the only low road left to the irrational side of this discussion, and start accusing others of theft through torrent. That is actually libelous. You best not name names. Never heard of torrent, until you and others on other discussions mention it in the same accusatory way, only after exhausting what possibilities it offered you, I have no doubt. You really need not go there.

      • anna — 3:04 AM on June 28, 2013

        FreddiW,There ARE alternatives – Quark Express. Until 2000 all publishers worldwide used only Quark. Adobe Pagemaker was a joke. Until Quark pushed their customers over a cliff through greed, just as Adobe is doing now. It was a dramatic switch, with all suppliers, from printers to designers to typesetters to editors having to acquire InDesign, and learn to use it, overnight.
        Quark has been keeping up on the sidelines. Just waiting for Adobe, in turn, to push their customers over the cliff and we will switch back to Quark.
        We DO have alternatives. It is just so heavy to make the switch virtually overnight throughout the industry, but it was done before and will be done again. Thus far, all my publishing clients are still on CS5.5, clearly poised to make the switch.

        • FrediW — 3:46 PM on June 28, 2013

          You don’t have to tell me about alternatives…I have been using Quark since 1994 exclusively..still do. The problem now is so many clients have adapted to the industry and are now using inDesign. That is what forced me to have to go to the “cloud” initially to update my inDesign to be compatible with my clients. Then, Adobe upgraded my cloud version WITHOUT notification, and my version of inDesign was now no longer compatible with my clients “boxed” versions. I had to backward save .idml files…bottom line…clients not pleased. That’s another reason why I want the choice. I have upgrade to CS6 since, but the future bodes no better for independent users.

    • Durk Pearson — 6:42 PM on June 26, 2013

      Stuart,

      I have never used a torrent to download anything.

      I do not steal intellectual property.

      Having coauthored three best selling books (Life Extension, A Practical Scientific Approach sold over 1,000,000 copies in spite of being 858 pages long), coauthored the story for Clint Eastwood’s Dead Pool (and am still receiving residual checks), and having licensed my partner’s and my biotech IP that has sold over $100,000,000 over the past 25 years, please allow me to assure you that money is NOT the problem, either for me or for most of those who are deeply dissatisfied.

      I have been purchasing perpetual licenses to Photoshop since 5.0 (and I don’t mean CS5). The problem is potential loss of access to re-edit and rework my IP embedded in what will inevitably become incompatible layers as the years go by in Adobe’s misnamed Cloud. (It isn’t cloud computing; it is simply a rental with no viable exit software trap.) My perpetual license Photoshop CS6 is exceedingly good. It is so good that I will keep it running on a legacy machine under a legacy OS for a decade or however long it takes for a worthy competitor to arise.

      Stuart, be honest: Have you ever downloaded anything from a torrent? You seem to imply that Adobe’s prices were too much in the past for your budget…

  • FrediW — 6:39 PM on June 26, 2013

    Any one who wants to join a growing number of anti-subscription Adobe users, with a demand that Adobe offer an alternative to the subscription model for a fee…that is fine, Please sign this petition.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-cloud-stop-the-monopolistic-methods-of-adobe-allow-users-to-own-what-they-pay-for

  • Seth — 10:45 PM on July 03, 2013

    The month I stop paying for CC, my software stops working immediately. When I stop upgrading CS, it keeps working for as many years as I’m willing to put up with semi-obsolescence. That’s the big difference. I don’t want read-only access to my files. I want to be able to USE the files, as in edit them. And the problem with CC for me is that my ability to use the files ends suddenly, as soon as I stop paying. You (Adobe) can raise the CC price as much as you want next year or the year after, and I’ll have no choice but to pay. With CS, when a future version gets too expensive, I just stick with the one I’ve got and it still works.

    (And who is this Andrew person and why is he so hostile?)

  • Tracy Valleau — 12:08 PM on July 11, 2013

    I cancelled my CC subscription today, and paid the fee to do so. The longer I thought about paying Adobe a fee to let them hold my own images hostage to their whims, the angrier I got.

    I’ve got a paid-for version of PS CS6 and Lightroom 5. That’s all I need. By the time it quits working, DxO or OnOne will have a solution.

    Since 1992, I’ve purchased 43 licenses from Adobe, probably worth $15,000.

    Now I’m an Ex-Customer.

  • Rob — 1:12 PM on July 11, 2013

    Most other vendors who sell software that I am currently using allow you to purchase it (as in you own it) and every year after you pay a fee to continue your subscription allowing you to download updates after the first year. And you always have a full functioning version after the subscription is up. Adobe should be ashamed as what they are currently doing and should modify their cloud services to offer more then a pay-as-you-go only model. Pretty crappy in it’s current form.

    • RHernandez — 3:44 PM on July 11, 2013

      Our concerns are falling on deaf ears. Unfortunately, John can hear us, it must be the higher-ups he works for.

      • Claudius — 3:53 PM on July 11, 2013

        I don’t believe John has any say in Adobe’s licensing policy. But he might have some pull in convincing those who do.

        The latter will probably take a lot of time. And probably facts and figures as well.

        [And to that end I really do value the time you guys take to provide thoughtful, level-headed feedback, even if it's not what folks here would love to hear. Per another thread here today, my frustration comes from people who don't try to add to the conversation, who just keep coming in & crapping on everything. There's a big difference. --J.]

    • FrediW — 2:24 AM on July 12, 2013

      @Tracy, Rob, Claudius, R Hernandez etal: So many of us feel the same as we do. The only power we haave is by using our voices directly to adobe. Sign my petition please. It needs 19 signatures to go public on Change.org. This will join a few other petitions out there directly to Adobe expressing that we all want the option to pay to own in addition to the subscription policy. One more petition cannot hurt. http://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-cloud-stop-the-monopolistic-methods-of-adobe-allow-users-to-own-what-they-pay-for

  • AndrewW — 9:27 AM on July 24, 2013

    Either Adobe needs to bring CS back, or we need to really soup up the Gimp.

  • Cinema Finder — 8:27 AM on August 19, 2013

    I will pay for it as long as i can afford to pay for it then might have to switch to a freebie version

Copyright © 2014 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy and Cookies (Updated)