Let's hear it for the 'Creative Clod'
The file-syncing part of Adobe's new Creative Cloud family of technologies has been intermittently broken for a week, taking the "cloud" part out of Adobe's "Creative Cloud" redesign of its products. Now Adobe is suspending it "for the next couple of weeks" to make updates. The sync feature, which means files being fiddled …
Actually it holds true. You just have to find Creative ways to sync your files !
Users will have to get by using DropBox's sync client on the Adobe directories in My Documents until this is fixed.
Er, why are they paying for the cloud version by the way?
Adobe should never have touched or developed products for any areas other than photo editing. Everything else they came up with is pretty much rubbish, quite frankly. Or insecure. Or broken. Or even all of that.
Adobe have put out some lemons, and woefully mismanaged various sw acquisitions, notably the macromedia stuff, but you surely must admit that Postscript (which predates photoshop, and helped launch the company into the big time) is pretty solid tech.
I moved from Freehand to Illustrator and found it much better.
I moved from Xpress to InDesign and also found it much better.
However, Adobe's move to the cloud is not a good idea on their part, and is just an excuse to milk users and reduce or eradicate illicit usage - or piracy, if you want to use the vernacular.
Creative Suite components are, IMHO, good solid products - but the marketing/financial "genius" who came up with cloud subscription should be forced to move in with Simon Cowell for a month!
"""However, Adobe's move to the cloud is not a good idea on their part, and is just an excuse to milk users and reduce or eradicate illicit usage - or piracy, if you want to use the vernacular."""
Nope, all this is is an attempt to milk their paying customers better.
The pirates will either keep pirating (The apps run in your computer, they'll be cracked like before sooner or later) or move to other products.
Me I wish people who can not afford to pay the monthly fee would move to cheaper products, or open-source solutions. Why? So we have a healthy software market for that type of applications.
The only 'credible' open source alternative to Photoshop that I can think of is GIMP.
Professionals want, need and require professional products, not terrible atrocities passing themselves off as free professional alternatives.
Psssst. Sick of Adobe? Give Corel Draw a punt, you can even try it out for free for 30 days IIRC.
Mentioned it on the forums last time this brouhaha reared its head. Does what Photoshop and Illustrator does, only cheaper.
Its major advantage over the GIMP is that it is not GIMP (i.e. the UI makes some kind of sense).
"So, Adobe: can it justify shifting its Creative Suite to a contentious new licensing model?"
They'll do it anyway, and good luck getting email support.
Somewhere in the sprawl of XML and excrement, a purpose wanders helpless as a little bitty sheep.
or could they have just provided some simple connectors for the existing debugged(ish) offerings from Google, MS, Apple, Amazon, etc? i.e. collaborate to solve customers' needs rather than offering a steel wool reach-around...
To most people on the user end of things, Cloud means easy access / sync.
It has been previously discussed at length on here, what the benefits to the cloud rent model for software is to the vendor, but now without sync is there *ANY* other user benefits over the installed boxed version.
You could call me a techie, but my files from Photoshop and my other work / important files are synced with the cloud by at least 2 other vendors on my machine; SugarSync and Dropbox....
So in summary, i currently have a boxed installed version of Photoshop with immediate cloud sync fully working and redundant.... can i be the boss of Adobe now?
as if Adobe has bought out Electronic Arts while nobody was looking...
Adobe do not have expertise in Cloud technologies.
What would have made more sense is integration into existing Cloud hosting services such as Dropbox, Skydrive and the like. That way the users can use the services they already use at the click of a button, and Adobe would not have ongoing costs having to maintain their own infrastructure as an entrant to the market.
"""What would have made more sense is integration into existing Cloud hosting services"""
But this is not about customer's convenience, it is about Adobe increasing their revenue size and predictability, or as the Americans say: "Better milking the customer".
Any likeness of improve service/new features useful to the paying customer is mere coincidence.
Reason #1,057 as to why I hate these so-called cloud services.
I think it's reason number 2:
1) It's horrifically insecure and you might lose all your stuff.
2) It's flaky and you might lose all your stuff.
I don't need 1057 reasons not to go cloud. Those two are good enough for me. If you really want, here's reason number 3:
3) You are paying a monthly fee for something you can normally do with a hard drive and a USB stick.
The first being last week's announcement that they are ending perpetual licences.
Bye-bye Adobe. Greedy idiots.
So no silver lining on this cloud then
I agree that as a "rentier" I should be compensated for loss of service! That's what respectable services do. Anyway, i tend to use Google Drive r/t Adobe Connect for syncing between laptop and desktop.
But I'm not sure if subscribing to the cloud with all those apps I don't use and don't need is economical. I'd like to see "pick 3 apps", "pick 6 apps"... pricing.
The 'Pick one app' price is an absolute joke: £17.58 for one app vs. £46.88 for 'most' of their 'most popular applications'. The 'all-you-can-eat' price..? I guess they're still working up the courage to announce that one.
There's no mid-point either. It now jumps from a single app to the whole master collection. Previously there were suites such as "Production" aimed at different markets that cost less. This avoided people like video editors ending up paying for Dreamweaver which would never be touched.
Now you pay for the lot if you like it or not. It's rather like doing your shopping and then the supermarket forcing you to also buy 10 tins of cat food when you don't have a cat. Then they claim you are saving money.
Don't they remind you of Satellite/Cable TV companies? Where you get yo choose your "a la carte" channel pack not from cherry picking what you like and are willing to pay for, or are willing to watch, but from what pre-made channel pack the TV company makes more money of.
"We asked Adobe whether they would compensate users for the downtime, exactly why the technology has failed, and why they didn't test the updates in a sandboxed environment while still giving paying punters access to the sync feature. At the time of writing they had not responded to any of these questions. "
Does anyone think there are answers? Other than the sound effect of a till ringing?
I'm amazed, actually shocked, that with all the complaints against big businessabout products and security, people actually trust and use them for storage.
As with all things, if you don't want anyone else to see it, then why on earth put it in a "cloud"?
And keep in mind, the technology used to create these "clouds" is built by someone else, and that someone else would love to get their hands on others work to incorporate into their own. It's already been shown that certain companies can create backdoors into hardware they sell for "security reasons" which, as we've seen in the past, is exploitable.
And, like all things, companies are always looking to save a penny. It takes nothing for joe smoe in an office somewhere to convince his some VP that he can save the company millions of dollars over X time if it used brand Z product to build a cloud instead of the current brand Y. He gets a nice bonus while data is now less secure and subject to more downtime.
Or worse, the "cloud" you are using is based on some storage server or a "backup server" in a less than trustworthy location. every corp has some jackass that wouldn't give a second thought to getting a cheap "cloud" service just to put money in his/her pocket no matter what the name or location is.
No one has any idea what happens to their data once it's transmitted, where it goes, who sees what. And to sit somewhere for periods of time........
I'm amazed by the sheeple.
I got the impression that they don't actually store all your stuff for you, but just allow your portable device to work on the files that you have on your fixed device? I assume that the local app has a server component that connects to an Adobe C&C server to receive commands to upload your files so you can use them on your mobile device?
That doesn't necessarily stop someone from getting the C&C to upload all your work though.
That is the phrase/mantra that should be recited to every CEO by the remaining IT staff after their data gets stolen or there is a complete work stoppage due to any number of reasons that they can't access their cloud-based applications or storage.
There is always someone saying "We could save a lot of money by outsourcing our IT staff and using cloud-based apps, and they're usually some "Lean Six Sigma Blackbelt" douchbag.
The first question anyone should ask is "Why is no one else doing it?" Remember that just because you don't know the reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Adobe can join MS in a huge software debacle. This play is not going to work. My guess is that they will roll back their nebulous ambition -- at least for a while. Adobe claim they won't add features to their boxed sets from now on. It's the cloud or nuttin'. I think a lot of creative people will start looking elsewhere. And especially after this confidence-crushing FAIL during the roll out of an already risky play.
Wark my mords....Reds will hole.
Adobe know nothing about running a cloud. The idea that they're going to suddenly get rid of boxed product and move to the cloud and they're going to run it is nothing short of insanity. What is the biggest piece of insecurity on any modern system today? It's a tie: Flash and Java.
Adobe knows nothing about security or running a cloud service. (Just like Apple.) Nothing. The fact that they're out the door and immediately have two weeks of downtime says it all. They have no clue as to what they're doing. They should focus on what they know how to do: Creative. They should port their apps to Azure PaaS and focus on building the apps not running the infrastructure.
You don't really buy it, you rent it...
At least you enjoy using it, and you only select the beer you wanted, and pay for the beer you wanted, as opposed to having bundles of shit beer you didn't want added to your basket because it had to be part of the deal..
I'd suggest it's a bit like buying a beer, looking forward to drinking it; half way through it suddenly disappears, and you exclaim
"But I paid for that, I want to enjoy it"and the barman saying
"no you only paid for 2 minutes; if you want to continue enjoying it, pay again"
So this is the future: your app suddenly stops working because of some poorly-tested update.
I think you've just summed up practically every project I've had the misfortune to work on!
This desktop syncing was a preview function only! We had the official release (1.0) and a test, beta, preview release (1.05) that allowed desktop syncing. So, read again: preview...beta... Test...
It will only be official from June 17th. So nothing really going on here exept a lot of people that do not read what it says on the Creative Cloud site nor read the specifications when installing test software...
So tell me again, what is the point of a software service that uses "Cloud" in it's name (that isn't from the Met Office) that doesn't provide some way of syncing your files to the "Cloud"?
systemd'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017