Creative types who prefer to buy Adobe software in boxed format rather than renting it as-a-service will from this month start to miss out on bumper "compelling" features in Creative Cloud, according to a global partner exec. The problem is, so hot are these new add-ons to the web-based suite that Stephen Snyder, veep of global …
Yesterday Adobe asked me to fill out a survey regarding CS6 and Creative Cloud. I told them I had no intention of buying, installing, or recommending Creative Cloud because their software isn't compelling enough to warrant taking out a subscription. For most of the people I deal with, Gimp and Scribus are sufficient for their needs. You don't need Photoshop if all you're going to do is crop a photo.
"Yes, that is hard to do now, isn't it," Snyder told us, "When you skip versions you end up with a mixed work environment and at some point you've got to clean all that up. You can't have some of your workforce on 3, and some on 4 and some on 6."
Christ, the shite that salespeople come out with sometimes.
We've skipped every other version of Photoshop for 10 years and everyone is miraculously on the same version, and always has been. What kind of dipshits does he take his customers for?
It must be terrible
Saying the same rubbish things to people day after day when you know they aren't true, and the only reason to do it this way is purely to make more money.
There was a time when the only application I wanted running under Linux was Photoshop, and yet this was actively discouraged by Adobe.
The whole cloud "fashion" is an excuse to keep users tethered to corporations...
"There are "super traditionalists" he added, but people's buying habits were shifting when it comes to consumer software, as evidenced by iTunes, Facebook and Salesforce.com."
Bullshit. I might buy apps through iTunes, but I don't have to keep paying every month for the honor of using said app. What aholes.
...and not only is facebook free it isn't even software.
You are spot on its a complete BS argument.
There's an anti-blur function in the cloud version? Maybe someone should tell Adobe there's this thing on cameras called auto focus, which doesn't require a subscription. They are in deep sh** if they are targeting the cloud version at people too stupid to work auto focus...
The big problem I guess is camera shake in low light / long exposure photos rather than people not using autofocus.
Being forced to purchase monthly Adobe's continued development because you can't do any work or access any old work otherwise compared with buying a perpetual license is seen as a bad deal only by 'super traditionalists'?
I would call people who refuse to drop their pants and bend over super smart not super traditional.
Presumably this is the filter known elsewhere as unsharp mask, available in pretty much every graphics application (except paint)...
No -- apparently they've added a "Camera Shake reduction" feature that looks for blur caused by camera motion, as opposed to unsharp mask (or one of the other often-better layer-based sharpening techniques, especially when used with masking layers to only sharpen part of the image) which are just for generic sharpening. There's apparently yet another new "Smart Sharpen" feature but it's not clear if this is useful or not.
Of course, none of this masks the inconvenient detail for Adobe that most edits can be done in programs like Lightroom nowadays (including good sharpening), which means I can't be the only person who now only uses Photoshop a handful of times per year, at least for anything other than merge-to-panorama. And this means that upgrading and the full subscription price of $240/year with no option to skip versions is a pretty bad deal. Even if Adobe is sneakily trying to get people to sign up to a 1-year promotion for $120 for the first year, you're then locked in to $240 for every subsequent year. :(
"apparently they've added a "Camera Shake reduction" feature that looks for blur caused by camera motion...There's apparently yet another new "Smart Sharpen" feature"
The new feature does exactly the same thing as the existing "Motion Blur" option from smart sharpen - the only difference is it automatically calculates the direction of the motion its correcting, whereas in non-cloud CS6 you have to select that manually under the smart sharpen dialog.
Its a minor tweak at best, and if that's the best reason they can come up with to subscribe I'm not surprised less than 8% of their userbase has signed up. Adobe must be worried about that, unless that percentage changes massively they'll have to get more than 10x the revenue out of each user over the upgrade cycle just to break even...
Glad I bought boxed CS6 when I did.
Adobe? Does they still exist?
Oh, well, who cares.
38 million vs 1
"The problem is, so hot are these new add-ons to the web-based suite that Stephen Snyder, veep of global channel sales worldwide was unable to name more than, er ...one of them off the top of his head."
I can think of 38 million reasons why web-based is not better...
Data loss OK? No!
If I take a subscription, do you guarantee security of my data. 'Course you didn't. You just lost millions. I will not use your cloud.
It's not web based
Adobe really dropped a bollock here.
CC isn't based in a cloud. All of it downloads to your computer and all your data stays there. CC just phones home once in a while to make sure you're still paying - and it will go (I think) 180 days without a network connection - so that isn't an issue for most people either.
Oh, and the camera shake reduction is really clever. Nothing like unsharp mask.
No, I don't work for or get paid by them.
Re: It's not web based
"Oh, and the camera shake reduction is really clever."
So is the CS6 motion blur option in smart sharpen. I tested both on the same image and the results at 1:1 are identical to my eyes.
Of course both of them absolutely pale in comparison to a properly taken photograph. No matter how clever photoshop is it can't recreate all the fine details that no longer exist in the image file. And with VR appearing in virtually every decent camera/lens these days its hardly a must-have feature for the type of photographers who are used to spending hundreds of dollars on photoshop.
Adobe are going to need something a LOT more compelling than that to get photographers to pay them for the rest of their lives...
Not inhaling here
Adobe really haven't thought this through for educational use. I am already sick of having to change all my teaching resources every time Adobe decide to change the UI or add features. With CC I am not even sure if something has changed until I reopen the software. There are many very useful products in the cloud software, but I will not use it .
When I can buy a key which allows me to install on 2 computers through my employers Work @ Home licence, and next year students will be able to download CS6 for free on their BYOD why upgrade ?
Things Creative Cloud can do that CS6 cannot
Things Creative Cloud can do that CS6 cannot:
1- Have your password stolen by hackers
2 - Lock you out of your software with no notice because although you updated Adobe with your new credit card details, they decided to continue to use the expired card instead. You are on site over a thousand miles from home working on a live shoot with a fast turnaround which makes reactivating the account "tricky". FCP-X saves the day. (this is what happened to a friend of mine)
It's the end
For me at least. As a hobbyist user of Photoshop I've been an Adobe customer since for ever and, to save money, bought only every other release these last few.
Doubtless this behaviour is what riles Adobe. But the subscription model is far more expensive than I can justify for a hobby. My guess is that the same is going to be true for many, perhaps the majority, of private users. So Adobe rather than make more money out of me you've lost a little.
However what will make the difference will be the take-up by corporate customers. That I cannot guess about. So far it doesn't look good but corps. are notoriously slow so maybe Adobe will keep them as CS6 becomes too old to use.
I actually like CC
I'm a guy who needs to use a fair amount of the big Adobe tools like PS, Premiere, After Effects, Audition, and Illustrator. Before CC, I had debated buying either the package or the individual components I needed, but had always balked at the $3,000+ purchase price and then the extra money to stay current (assuming I wanted to stay current).
For my $49 per month, I get everything I need. The crossover point between me being ahead of the game financially is 61 months (3,000/49), meaning that I'm ahead of the game for five years. For me, this is a better deal than having to put out three grand to get what I need.
My analysis would be different if I had already owned any of these admittedly expensive tools. But in my case, Adobe's CC brought them a new customer that they probably wouldn't have had before.
Us "super traditionalists" use MSPaint frankly.
- One HUNDRED FAMOUS LADIES exposed NUDE online
- Twitter: La la la, we have not heard of any NUDE JLaw, Upton SELFIES
- China: You, Microsoft. Office-Windows 'compatibility'. You have 20 days to explain
- Apple to devs: NO slurping users' HEALTH for sale to Dark Powers
- Is that a 64-bit ARM Warrior in your pocket? No, it's MIPS64