Does Adobe's new subscription only affect you?

[Draconian Guppy]

Well, i've been a photoshop user since around 2005ish, lightroom user since 2008, my pickle is, you need a new version for adobe ACR every time a new camera comes out, now granted I don't upgrade my dSLRS ever year, but still, i won't shell out $50 a month for the latest and greatest adobes CC. I initially got photoshop as a free from a pre-built computer that included a basic software suite/kit, so i've been trickle upgrading whenever I could, Now I think i'll be stuck on CS 6 forever until I buy a new camera that requires me to find an alternative.

The only workaround I've found, is just not shoot raw, but that kinda defeats the purpose for me...

[_neutrino Veteran]

Here where I work we already used the subscription model as it worked out better for us.

[Growled Member]

I fear the subscription model is going to work great for the companies with multiple users, but gonna suck for us small guys. I haven't tried the new model yet but it looks like I'm going to have to whether I want to or not.

[_neutrino Veteran]

I fear the subscription model is going to work great for the companies with multiple users, but gonna suck for us small guys. I haven't tried the new model yet but it looks like I'm going to have to whether I want to or not.

I will agree that it does in fact suck for the small guy and small company, however, Adobe has made it clear several times in the past that they generally just care about the larger customers rather than the smaller ones.

[Draconian Guppy]

I fear the subscription model is going to work great for the companies with multiple users, but gonna suck for us small guys. I haven't tried the new model yet but it looks like I'm going to have to whether I want to or not.

I will agree that it does in fact suck for the small guy and small company, however, Adobe has made it clear several times in the past that they generally just care about the larger customers rather than the smaller ones.

Yeah, but a bunch of little guys make up something big in the end eg "there are no small customers", but there's no going back it seems, my only hope is that there revenue falls like crazy the first year or two, that way they will be forced to return to the previous model.

[Timan Veteran]

Worked out great for me. If anyone uses it for "work" its a great deal. Now for regular users who only use photoshop to edit their own photos for personal use and small things like that, then its not worth it at all.

[Draconian Guppy]

Worked out great for me. If anyone uses it for "work" its a great deal. Now for regular users who only use photoshop to edit their own photos for personal use and small things like that, then its not worth it at all.

Yeah, I don't live off photography/design, so I fall in that group :/

[Ambroos]

Since I only use Lightroom it hardly affects me. As long as they don't do it for Lightroom I guess I'll be fine with it. Or well, if the price in the end turns out to be the same as just buying new releases whenever they get released I probably will subscribe.

[Draconian Guppy]

Since I only use Lightroom it hardly affects me. As long as they don't do it for Lightroom I guess I'll be fine with it. Or well, if the price in the end turns out to be the same as just buying new releases whenever they get released I probably will subscribe.

Lightroom depends from camera raw ( ACR), so when you buy a new camera, if you shoot raw, you're going to be screwed, because you will only be able to update if you subscribe.

[Ambroos]

Lightroom depends from camera raw ( ACR), so when you buy a new camera, if you shoot raw, you're going to be screwed, because you will only be able to update if you subscribe.

True, though Lightroom isn't too expensive. If you shoot RAW and can get yourself a new camera you can probably afford Lightroom too. It's probably just as important as the camera itself in making sure your photos look good.

[Draconian Guppy]

True, though Lightroom isn't too expensive. If you shoot RAW and can get yourself a new camera you can probably afford Lightroom too. It's probably just as important as the camera itself in making sure your photos look good.

you misunderstood, lightroom will keep working, but to get the ACR plugin that makes it "recognize" the new cameras raw file, comes in CS6... heck adobe themselves stated they don't know what they're going to do with this particular situation.

[greenwizard88]

It doesn't effect me at all (now). I just bought CS6 a year ago to replace a questionably acquired copy of CS2. Given that I can't even be bothered to upgrade my "trial" copy, I doubt I'll be looking at upgrading from CS6 for ~ 7 years.

Of course, come 2020, I'll be ****ed. I'm already thinking about buying Pixelmator for a fallback.

[Draconian Guppy]

It doesn't effect me at all (now). I just bought CS6 a year ago to replace a questionably acquired copy of CS2. Given that I can't even be bothered to upgrade my "trial" copy, I doubt I'll be looking at upgrading from CS6 for ~ 7 years.

Of course, come 2020, I'll be ****ed. I'm already thinking about buying Pixelmator for a fallback.

Wow long vision into 2020 :p

[Ambroos]

you misunderstood, lightroom will keep working, but to get the ACR plugin that makes it "recognize" the new cameras raw file, comes in CS6... heck adobe themselves stated they don't know what they're going to do with this particular situation.

That's what I meant. If you can afford a fancy new camera you can afford a Lightroom upgrade too if you really need it (because it's not really the most expensive software, especially not if you take into account what you can do with it).

[ZakO]

Worked out great for me. If anyone uses it for "work" its a great deal. Now for regular users who only use photoshop to edit their own photos for personal use and small things like that, then its not worth it at all.

+1. Works out well for me too, I earn a living from Adobe software (Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign) and usually always upgraded to the latest "design premium" collection which was about ?700 every 16 months, creative cloud gives me the latest version of the entire adobe suite for the same cost. This is also excluding the fact that if you own Mac/Windows systems you can use the same creative cloud subscription on both operating systems giving you higher savings.

I don't really see the problem, if you're only using Photoshop as a hobby either:

1. Stick with the version you've got
   
2. Pay $200 / year ('single app' creative cloud subscription) for the latest version which still makes it cheaper than most hobbies
   
3. Switch to something else
   

I'm not surprised Adobe are making this move, presumably in an attempt to reduce piracy, the amount of people using pirated adobe software is ridiculous.

[Draconian Guppy]

I'm not surprised Adobe are making this move, presumably in an attempt to reduce piracy, the amount of people using pirated adobe software is ridiculous.

Yeah I'm not so sure... :/

[Ambroos]

I think the problem with Adobe and piracy is that the people who pirate it don't do it because they don't use all of the functionality, but just because they don't use Adobe software all the time, just on those few days when it really comes in handy. Aside Lightroom I don't really use any paid Adobe software a lot, but I always have a Photoshop trial installed. I usually format my PC every three months and the 30-day trial pretty much always covers the days when Photoshop comes in handy. I've tried alternatives (I probably have all free stuff installed on my pc), and while it's nice for most things you just can't do proper things with it once you need a bit more advanced functionality...

[Auditor]

People who think this will reduce piracy are totally delusional. The program will still be running locally which means you install it on your local computer and will check activation every month. What you need to do is to patch the binary which does the activation check and then you are again back in the gain. I don't see any big change than currently what we have adobe activation method. The only way it will be hard to circumvent the protection is if the whole program runs on a server. This is pure greed from adobe's part to milk their existing customer or professionals who have no other better alternative.

[Growled Member]

People who think this will reduce piracy are totally delusional.

I think it will reduce it. Somewhat anyway. Of course people who pirate will do so regardless.

[xirtam]

I was under the empression that updates would continue to be provided.

I think this seems to suggest so?

"Because Adobe is still selling Photoshop CS6, those customers will continue to receive updated camera raw file format compatibility via Adobe Camera Raw 8. When we update ACR8 with new camera support, Photoshop CS6 customers can work with the new version of the Camera Raw plug-in." Source

[crazzy88ss]

This change really makes me mad. I was finally considering buying it for the first time next year (since I don't use it very much and always had other ways of getting a copy; not necessarily downloading it), but now that's not going to happen. I always chose not to buy it because, as Ambroos pointed out, I don't use it enough to actually buy it. A friend's old copy always worked well enough for me. So from me, it's not like Adobe was actually losing out on any money. Now there's no way I'm going to spend $50 a month to edit 50-100 photos a month.

I guess I'll keep my CS6 installation, which I just got to replace my CS4 install, as long as I can and then go from there.

More importantly to me, I was thinking of ditching Aperture for Lightroom, but now I'm afraid of what they'll do with LR... so those plans are out the window. I use Aperture every day, so that's something important to me. Either way, I wouldn't pay $50 a month for Aperture or LR.

[ZakO]

People who think this will reduce piracy are totally delusional. The program will still be running locally which means you install it on your local computer and will check activation every month. What you need to do is to patch the binary which does the activation check and then you are again back in the gain. I don't see any big change than currently what we have adobe activation method. The only way it will be hard to circumvent the protection is if the whole program runs on a server. This is pure greed from adobe's part to milk their existing customer or professionals who have no other better alternative.

Obviously it will still be cracked, but I disagree that it won't reduce piracy. At the moment there is quite a high percentage of freelancers who, even though they earn a living using the software (photographers, designers, etc.) and $50 / month is nothing to them, use pirated versions of the Adobe suite because it's so easy. Once every 18 months download the trial for the latest adobe suite, stick in a serial number and you're set for the next 16 months, you can even get stability updates directly from Adobe using the updater, no differences to a legit copy, no unknown/modified executables.

The cloud copies don't have distinct versions anymore (well, won't soon), it solely relies on incremental updates to each of the applications and with a cracked cloud version you're not going to be able to get automatic updates because the updater will require authentication. This means every month when Adobe releases stability updates / feature updates you're going to need to, assuming the release groups even bother, manually find/download/install updates and hope there isn't any 'additional' files hidden in the patches.

IMO it's enough of a hassle/deterrent to convert a small percentage, even 2% would give Adobe an extra $10 million/month based on the pirated numbers.

So from me, it's not like Adobe was actually losing out on any money. Now there's no way I'm going to spend $50 a month to edit 50-100 photos a month.

It's $20/month for a single app if you only need Photoshop. If you still can't justify spending that, then use something else? Photoshop is a luxury, not a right.

[game_over]

I think it will reduce it. Somewhat anyway. Of course people who pirate will do so regardless.

It will DEFINITELY reduce piracy, i've pirated photoshop for years but jumped on CC the moment it became available, i've been a happy paying customer for a year now, i'm against the new monthly sub option route every company appears to be taking these days but for CC i can make an exception because it's worth every penny...

If i was to make one suggestion i'd love different payment plans either quarterly or yearly.

Only concern is not owning the physical software, the moment we can't pay or decide to stop paying if work dries up or illness or retirement or whatever then your lifes work is gone because you can't run software to open your files anymore.

[crazzy88ss]

It's $20/month for a single app if you only need Photoshop. If you still can't justify spending that, then use something else? Photoshop is a luxury, not a right.

Get off your high horse. Basically everything computer related is a luxury, not a right. I'm not going to pay a service fee when most of the features I use are in other applications. So yea, I won't be using photoshop for much longer.

[sundayx Veteran]

Being in the creative industry it's hard to avoid Adobe... there will be requirements somewhere or someone else will send though a CS file. On one hand I think Adobe will lose a lot of customers because they'll just stick with the last boxed version being CS6, but in the long run, given the pretty approachable monthly subscription price (arguable, but I think so anyways), eventually most people will be on board.