Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription-Only

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the pay-up dept.

Cloud 658

First time accepted submitter JDG1980 writes "According to CNET and various other sources, CS6 will be the last version of Adobe's Creative Suite that will be sold in the traditional manner. All future versions will be available by subscription only, through Adobe's so-called 'Creative Cloud' service. This means that before too long, anyone who wants an up-to-date version of Photoshop won't be able to buy it – they will have to pay $50 per month (minimum subscription term: one year). Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?"

cancel ×

658 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I love it... (5, Interesting)

click2005 (921437) | about a year ago | (#43645895)

For this to work Adobe will have to 'break' older versions with patches.

Adobe beat Microsoft to it... Adobe Rent for $50 per month.

Microsoft said they would be doing this years ago (after people found ways to avoid paying MS Tax).
I wonder how much Microsoft Rent will be for Windows & Office.

Re:I love it... (5, Informative)

cdrnet (1582149) | about a year ago | (#43646041)

They are doing this already, e.g. Office 365 for $9.99 per month (includes licenses for up to 5 PCs)

A question for Slashdotters. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646169)

It's no secret that most Slashdot readers are atheists, and it's also no secret that most atheists haven't really thought about why they are atheists to begin with. Why would someone not believe in Jesus when there is so much evidence that he existed and that he did the things the bible described? "There's no evidence," atheists say.

But I have come here not to rile up the atheists, but to present the very evidence that they've been seeking all along. A question to you atheists: If Jesus doesn't exist, then how do you explain the existence of the security cameras that he installed in my undies? He can see what's inside my undies, and he can see what's inside your undies. You now have no reason to not believe in Jesusness.

Re:A question for Slashdotters. (-1, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43646249)

Well, I believe that you're not a very good troll.

Re:A question for Slashdotters. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646359)

Because Thor installed them, duh.

Re:A question for Slashdotters. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646401)

Is this just a bad troll, or is the author going to come by later and desperately try to claim it was a satirical look at bad trolling?

Pirates to the rescue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646061)

I use a dongle key at work to run subscription CAD software. The key gets updated once a year. The software doesn't work without an updated key.

Except at home, where I have the same software with a "patch" that emulates a valid dongle without the need or updates.

How long until someone makes a "patch" that redirects all calls from the software to a local authentication server?

Re:I love it... (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43646139)

Adobe Rent for $50 per month.

Where's the incentive to improve the software on a subscription model? Once they have your money they can just sit around without adding new features, or add features nobody really wants, or...basically whatever they feel like doing. There's no pressure at all to make new versions which are good enough to make people part with more many.

Re:I love it... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year ago | (#43646185)

And where's the money to develop new versions coming from? They have to find ways of forcing people to upgrade to pay for the development cost. This way they don't have to think as much about older versions as they can just render them obsolete knowing that everybody will be updating.

For professional users a subscription makes a lot of sense, I'm just baffled as to why they aren't leaving the amateurs alone here. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily mind paying for a software subscription if I got to keep the most recent version that was released during the term of the contract. For expensive software that could be a win for everybody.

Re:I love it... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646291)

The incentive is to keep that flow of cash coming in. The pressure will be from other companies who feel they can offer a competing product at a more compelling price point, and take away Adobe's business.

Or did you really think once you signed up for a subscription, you were committing to pay $50 a month in perpetuity?

Re:I love it... (1)

foobsr (693224) | about a year ago | (#43646397)

There's no pressure at all to make new versions which are good enough to make people part with more many.

No need to: just increase the fee.

CC.

Re:I love it... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646179)

"We need to make sure all these single women have access to food, shelter, and medical care, and their babies get all day kindergarten." - shit Jefferson said

I tried this... (1, Insightful)

d00m.wizard (1226664) | about a year ago | (#43645907)

and it was annoying. When will companies learn? Not everyone wants to be tethered to the internet to run their apps...

Re:I tried this... (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43645985)

They will have to learn the hard way. In the supply vs. demad sense, their supply of greed is without limits while the demand certainly has limits.

GiMP should be looking more and more attractive to professionals as this sort of thing goes. All the other bits and pieces of creative suite needs replacement too but not being made by the same maker isn't all that bad so long as their formats are standards compliant and readable amongst one another. I've used Inkscape and loved it though Illustrator has some advantages -- But then again, Inkscape is self-determined to use SVG as its native format and as such is limited to the powers of SVG standards... more or less.

I'd say the market is ready to migrate away from proprietary.

Re:I tried this... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | about a year ago | (#43646007)

I think older versions of Adobe (or the last non subscription version of Adobe) will be picked first.

I'm hoping that Gimp and Open/Libreoffice Draw will both continue to improve tho.

Re:I tried this... (4, Insightful)

terjeber (856226) | about a year ago | (#43646243)

GiMP should be looking more and more attractive to professionals as this sort of thing goes

No, not to professionals.

Re:I tried this... (5, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#43646281)

GiMP should be looking more and more attractive to professionals as this sort of thing goes.

GIMP isn't even competitive with Photoshop CS2 (you know, the one Adobe has available for free downloading on their website...) It's a joke. Still no support for 16-bit per channel after all these years. (And before someone says that you can't see the difference, that's not the point at all – you need 16 bpc to avoid getting banding and other artifacts after repeated transforms. The final output can be 8 bpc, but editing/processing needs to be done at a higher depth for solid results. And even a $499 DSLR can shoot 14 bpc these days.)

The worst thing about GIMP is that its existence leads the FOSS community into complacency. People need to realize that there really is no good open-source competitor to Photoshop and start working on one, rather than pretending that GIMP fits the bill and then arguing with creative professionals who repeatedly point out why it doesn't.

Re:I tried this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646005)

I'll trust that you're not lying about trying it, but you don't actually have to be connected to the internet to run the app - other than once a month to verify subscription status. I think that's a relatively light burden for most people to bear.

Re: I tried this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646125)

One of my issues was a perfectly working Internet connection - but nothing to do with adobes registration would connect to the net for four days straight.

Right when I needed it.

Sunday to Wednesday, no cs6 *anything*.

Clients were not amused. I was even less amused.

Re:I tried this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646187)

Obviously you haven't tried it, because I wouldn't call having to be online one a month tethered ... but that's just me.

I actually don't think a lot of people posting about this actually make a living using the products, at least not legally. When I went to CC I compared it to what it would cost me to upgrade, Cloud was cheaper for the year and when the new version comes out, I will continue to have the same expense every month. They offer deeply discounted versions of it for students that equate to about the same for a year as they would have paid for the student edition. Also I think there are some account tricks you can do that make this more desirable, but I don't handle that part of the deal.

I've also found that it lowers the price of entry into the Adobe club, which has been great for some collaborators I worked with and even turned from pirate into paying customers for the "cloud" features.

A quick login lets me use it on my different machines too, which is nice..

Re:I tried this... (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year ago | (#43646225)

With Creative Cloud you do not have to be tethered all the time. Just FYI.

Re:I tried this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646393)

You do not have to be connected. The apps check every 30 days. Details here: http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html

Corporate suicide Microsoft style (5, Informative)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#43645913)

Corporate suicide Microsoft style, only they are not nearly as entrenched.

Re:Corporate suicide Microsoft style (2)

mikael_j (106439) | about a year ago | (#43646031)

I'd say a lot of Adobe CS users are just as locked to Adobe's software as Windows users many times are.

However, this could change quickly if someone decided to put a lot of effort (and money) into developing a viable alternative to Adobe's software (especially Photoshop, while there are currently alternatives on the market Photoshop is definitely the baseline that other software is compared to).

I really wouldn't mind if say, Apple and Autodesk both decided to take a stab at creating their own Photoshop competitors. They both understand the target user to some degree.

Already there (1, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43646109)

There are already a lot of smaller competitors to Photoshop, at least for photographic work.

The main one From Apple itself is Aperture. It's not really a photoshop competitor exactly, but where it does become one is the range of plugins that support it now - pretty much most of the powerful image editing tools have Aperture plugins, so I can do fairly advanced editing in Aperture without ever touching Photoshop.

I always bought Photoshop before because it was still useful in some cases, but don't see any need to pay forever for Photoshop after version 6.0 - or at any rate not yearly, I think you can buy access for just a single month, which I many do at some point in the distant future.

What is really needed now to help bury Photoshop is for Aperture to offer some easier mechanism to turn on and off adjustments made by plugins, right now they just finish with a new TIFF version of your image.

Re:Already there (5, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#43646181)

The main one From Apple itself is Aperture. It's not really a photoshop competitor exactly, but where it does become one is the range of plugins that support it now - pretty much most of the powerful image editing tools have Aperture plugins, so I can do fairly advanced editing in Aperture without ever touching Photoshop.

Aperture is competitive with Adobe's Lightroom, not Photoshop. Neither program supports even basic features like layers, which are necessary for many types of graphical manipulation work. Instead, they're meant as the first step of the workflow for raw image files that have just been taken off the camera.

Re:Already there (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43646215)

Another promising alternative (in Mac-land) is Pixelmator, though it's missing several important features, such as layer styles. What kills it for me is that it's RGB only with no CMYK option, which makes it a no-go in 75% of my use cases.

Photoshop has several aspects that annoy me, but I don't know of any other application out there that does everything it does with a workable interface. Any suggestions?

Re:Already there (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43646317)

it just has to start stealing some low end users that don't need all the features of photoshop

it won't be overnight, but over a few years this will hurt adobe as the low end clones get better as they attract more users. including people who pirate photoshop for low end work

Re:Already there (1)

terjeber (856226) | about a year ago | (#43646297)

The main one From Apple itself is Aperture.

Aperture and Lightroom are similar, and with plugins (thank you google for dropping the price of Nik) the trips to Photoshop become, as you say, much fewer, but those times when you do need to pop into Photoshop, it is for even more demanding stuff, and for that there are no competitors out there.

Re:Corporate suicide Microsoft style (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#43646131)

Considering AutoCAD's licensing, if Autodesk created a Photoshop competitor you'd wish they'd let you have it for $50/month!

Re:Corporate suicide Microsoft style (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year ago | (#43646251)

Autodesk...understand the target user to some degree.

An Autodesk support rep called me a pirate last year when I complained that my (paid) license required I have Inventor running before I could start AutoCAD. Sure, they could probably knock up a good competitor to Photoshop, but their license model would be just as bad as Adobe's. So what'd be the point?

Re:Corporate suicide Microsoft style (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about a year ago | (#43646275)

Well, if Adobe thought they had real competition they'd probably feel the need to be competitive, one way to do that is by having cheaper and less restrictive licensing.

That said, I think Apple would do a better job, Aperture is downright reasonably priced and IMHO the UI for Aperture is better than Lightroom (not that it doesn't have its flaws, I'm just talking about the general workflow).

Subscribe to this! FP! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645919)

Frisky pornstar!

Re:Subscribe to this! FP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646327)

Fail.

Customer abuse == $$$ profit !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645923)

Creative Suite is just another in a long line of products that Adobe will convince its customer base to abandon... FLEX, FLASH, Pagemaker, the list is endless.

GIMPGIMPGIMPGIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645935)

GIMP!

Re:GIMPGIMPGIMPGIMP (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43646025)

and Darktable for those who like Lightroom.

Re:GIMPGIMPGIMPGIMP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646361)

Really?

Gimp : Professionals :: Farts : Astronaut conducting an EVA.

Oh fuckoff. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645937)

I have never known a release of creative cloud subscription CS apps to stay working 100% for *anybody* for several months at a time, let alone a whole year. From Internet outages, adobe's abysmal registration and support, to paying but finding day or week long delays until the apps actually detect registration is valid. I gave up after less than a year and bought cs6 in February this year.

And I'm a total adobe fan otherwise.

What the hell are adobe thinking? Of ways to make sure their apps are pirated even harder?

out of my labs (2)

captbob2002 (411323) | about a year ago | (#43645941)

Guess I need not worry about having the software available in the labs

i predict (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645943)

the end of photoshop

Software as a Service - What fun! (1)

eagee (1308589) | about a year ago | (#43645945)

I guess the good news is that I have a real impetus to get a lot better at Gimp now...

It's cheaper this way (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645947)

I like it. Unless you skip a version or two, the $50/month for the entire suite is a better price. The release is every year or two, so it costs $600-$1200 per version, vs the $2400 for the entire suite. If you only use two items, then this pricing is better or about equal.

Hardly (1)

Safety Cap (253500) | about a year ago | (#43646081)

Your (and Adobe's) scheme rests upon the misconception that everyone wants the latest and greatest everything.

I have CS6. If they came out with CS7, I'd probably wait a year (or longer) before buying it, because CS6 does everything I need.

Another thing companies like Adobe forget (Microsoft STILL hasn't learned) is that UI changes SUCK for the end user. I am at maximum productivity and you want to mess up my nuts-n-bolts memory (of how to use the software)? Fark you.

I used to use GIMP exclusively. I could probably switch back and get 90% of everything I need. That last 10% would be painful to give up, but I suppose I could learn to do without. So, I'll keep running CS6 until I can't install it anymore (Hello, Poser!) and then move to Gimp.

Re:Hardly (2)

Neufena (725353) | about a year ago | (#43646209)

But don't forget that InDesign won't save backwards compatible files, so if you want to work with someone who uses InDesign CS7 you need CS7 too

Re:It's cheaper this way (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a year ago | (#43646137)

Your cost estimates are too high. Most users don't upgrade all the time. I haven't upgrade for years. The software I have does the job I need. No need to keep upgrading at a significant cost. No need for subscriptions. Adobe is just limiting their market to a smaller group. Most of us won't bother buying or upgrading so that means our kids won't learn to use Adobe's software either. Adobe loses.

Re:It's cheaper this way (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646429)

Translation: "I'm not a professional, and only upgrade when I find a new pirated copy I can torrent. Adobe's refusal to support my piracy by making it easy marks the end of Adobe! I'll show them and not spend any money on their products ever again! Wait, I never have spent money on Adobe's products! HAHA NEVERMIND!"

Re:It's cheaper this way (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year ago | (#43646259)

I think most people do skip versions. At my work, we were using CS2 until just a few days ago, when we finally upgraded to CS6. It costs too much money for too little payoff, and that's before considering re-training people to use the new version.

The people who upgrade most consistently are probably the pirates, which I imagine this is designed to attempt to thwart.

Never used it before, never will now (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#43645949)

That stinks. It's just another way to suck money out of people's wallets.

Re:Never used it before, never will now (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#43645999)

They've already been doing that for a few years - ever since they moved to a faster release cycle.

And people defended that move.

So Adobe already knows its users will bend over however far they tell them to.

Yeah Good Luck (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645975)

Good luck Adobe, that'll also be the last product I buy from you as well. I will not support such a service and forcing me into this subscription service just because you think I really need your product, think again. I'll be happy with CS6 for years to come, in fact, I would have been happy with even the old versions of Photoshop, but the only reason you forced me to upgrade was because your old version does not support newer versions of cameras. I can live with that, I can just import the RAW files into Bibble (Who constantly strive to support every camera out there) and edit in Photoshop then. You guys are shooting yourself in the foot, since the majority of legitimate users of Photoshop are professional users, not consumers, who hold the same belief.

I will not upload anything to your "Cloud". I will not support going back to the 80's with terminal sessions.

yawn, still using a verison from like 8 years ago (1)

NetMagi (547135) | about a year ago | (#43645993)

This will force the people that actually profit from it and use it professionally to step up and buy. The casual users like myself will continue to use outdated versions happily since it does 90% of what I want to do, 100% better than anything else available Heck, I'm still using PageMaker 6.5 for some stuff.

Customers "overwhelmingly" prefer it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43645995)

Yup, all 2 of them!

Adobe. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646009)

This is a horrible idea. Honestly, this is probably the worst idea I have ever heard.

Photoshop is the industry standard. You have a steady supply of income. But you do not have your customers by the balls. They can and will switch to other software the minute it becomes avalable. Especially since most people using photoshop at their jobs are going to be editing huge files, and they certainly don't want to have to wait for those to upload before they can get cracking.

Hell, the GIMP isn't too bad any more. Not ready for prime-time, but with a bit of work (and an entirely new interface) it could be a viable competitor. In a world with out the GIMP and where everybody had Google fiber, this could feasibly work. But we don't live in that, as your stock prices and market share will no doubt soon show.

Piracy (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43646013)

Adobe underestimates how much it benefits from piracy. If poor college students can't cut their teeth on the full Adobe suite, they're likely to learn how to use something else. When those students go out and get jobs, they're more likely to use what they're used to than drop a bundle on Adobe software they've never used before.

Re:Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646121)

This will still be pirated somehow I'm sure. Piracy prevention is a speedbump for pirates and a huge annoyance for paying customers.

Re:Piracy (1)

supersat (639745) | about a year ago | (#43646127)

Why do you think they've left those CS2 download links up, despite tons of people believing Adobe is giving it away? If they cared, they could implement minimal serial number validation.

Re:Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646335)

Yes but it will be several years before Adobe starts seeing any real losses as a result of this. When that happens, Adobe can simply switch back to a more competitive model, with a competitive price. In the mean time, Adobe will rake it in.

This move is perfectly rational. Adobe has every incentive to do this.

Purchase should always be an option (2)

bbasgen (165297) | about a year ago | (#43646037)

It is a challenging proposition: force customers to rent and provide no option to own. This is a natural fit for services, but becomes rather odd for a commodity. It is hard to understand how, in the consumer market, a company can successfully force a customer to pay for a service that they don't use: if I only use Photoshop in March and June, why on earth should I pay for April and May? Subscription models work very well in business, particularly in large organizations, but this will be interesting to watch unfold in the consumer market.

Re:Purchase should always be an option (1)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#43646135)

They didn't have a true purchase option before though. They restricted you from selling your software. They also did things to encourage people to upgrade. This is a more honest and transparent.

How much more do people need? (3, Interesting)

i_ate_god (899684) | about a year ago | (#43646039)

I doubt it'll spur competition, because everyone will just stick with CS6.

I'm not a multi media production expert, but CS6 seems to be pretty feature complete, and if you ever wanted to go further than that, there is always Processing or max/msp, and third party plugins for After Effects, Premeire, and Photoshop.

Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#43646049)

I've used Paint Shop Pro any time I needed to do anything that Paint couldn't handle. I'm just curious what advanced users are getting out of Photoshop that seems to make it the go-to editor for power users.

Re:Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646221)

The reasons you'd get likely boil down to:

  • It's the design tool graphic designers prefer.
  • It's the application that jobs cite in their experience/hiring criteria.
  • It's what real (read: "professional") designers use.

This all boils down to "it's what everyone else is doing", which works for lemmings pretty well.

Re:Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646227)

Yes.

Re:Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646285)

Having used many gfx programs I can pretty safely say (for many at least) Photoshop is prefered because Photoshop is what we know. Many programs have caught up in functionality, but if it takes longer to navigate your way around to find the same things it's just not worth it. This could be the turning point - up until now Photoshops reputation and piracy have carried it forward over many versions where the majority of users have been catered for since some of the earliest. People will go back to it or a new contender will push through. Having to travel to town to 'internet' means I flat out can't use this without returning to crackzors.

Re:Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (1)

gubon13 (2695335) | about a year ago | (#43646389)

To be honest, I was trying to think of an answer to this question and couldn't come up with anything.

I've been using Photoshop since it first came to Windows in the early 90s. Never looked back. I did try PSP early on, but there was a huge feature gap. I've heard that gap has been narrowed considerably, with 90+% of common features. I used to be a graphic designer and Photoshop was (is?) the de facto standard. You almost had to buy it just to be able to open other people's files. That meant, however, that you could easily get help with learning techniques, wide availability of plugins, etc.

I no longer work in the industry, but I still open Photoshop at least twice a week to tweak something. Familiarity is my main reason for sticking with Photoshop. Not sure what I'll do when the new SaaS model goes live...

Re:Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about a year ago | (#43646413)

Yes. Photoshop has accumulated many advanced features over the years that people now rely on. PS is also an industry standard in many, many different industries. Most professionals don't want to invest time learning an "alternative" tool just to save a few bucks, since it could cost them their next job.

Re:Is Photoshop that much better than the rest? (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43646415)

Paint Shop Pro and about a dozen other Windows-based graphics applications have been offering 90% of Photoshop's features for well over a decade now.
The remaining 10% is mostly color and print management, which most people neither need nor know even exists.

Sadly, the common answer to Photoshop around these parts is "Gimp".
Anybody who's ever used Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Painter, Canvas, Photo Draw will be thoroughly disappointed by Gimp's lack of features and especially it's utter lack of usability.

Perhaps even more sad is that Adobe has bought a number of the most succesful competitors. Corel seems to own most of the rest nowadays.

Still, even the free Paint.net is more than enough for most Photoshop users.

This only hurts pirates, not customers. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646051)

Deal with it.

Re:This only hurts pirates, not customers. (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a year ago | (#43646321)

"This only hurts pirates, not customers."

Wrong. Many customers want to be able to work without an active internet connection. Many places internet connections are not available, not reliable and slow. Now customers will just not bother upgrading or buying. This loses customers from Adobe.

Pirates will run with the old versions selling those or they'll crack the new versions. The pirate customers won't care either way. This only hurts customers and then in the long run Adobe and their stockholders.

Cs6 suite is not photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646053)

It's photoshop, illustrator, indesign, acrobat pro, fireworks, dreamweaver, after-effects and a whole bunch of others.

Damn I wish there were open source versions of any of those that had all the features pros need (as opposed to just the ones oss coders find interesting)

Piracy (4, Informative)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about a year ago | (#43646075)

My guess is this is a move to combat widespread piracy among home users. The benefit to home user's pirating your software is that people get to know your product, and then want to use it at work. That's one of the big reasons why MS has turned a blind eye to small time home piracy. Those home users aren't going to pay a $200+ license (or a $50/month subscription) so allowing them to pirate doesn't equate to a lost sale, it encourages companies to stick with a product their workforce is familiar with, and it ultimately get the vendor sales through those companies.

Basically I think they may be shooting themselves in the foot, but not in the way the summary implies. The companies who buy adobe products probably aren't going to baulk at the switch (and in fact a subscription makes things easier on start-ups since they don't have the overhead of a much more expensive license). It's going to hurt them because there will likely be less people familiar with their product in/entering the workforce. They can offset that somewhat by giving it away/giving heavy discounts to education sectors, but at the end of the day if the person can't fire it up on their home computer free/cheap it's going to make a difference.

Re:Piracy (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about a year ago | (#43646349)

If schools continue to buy it, and give students access via key servers, etc, then what is the problem? The student will still grow up using Adobe.

Extrapolation (1)

tippe (1136385) | about a year ago | (#43646085)

I know two people that use photoshop and *always* eventually upgrade to the latest version within a year or two (stupid fanatics; no offense). I can tell you right now that neither of them is going to stand for this and one of them is definitely going to send Adobe one or more very scathing emails to tell them that he will never buy anything of theirs again and to explain to them how they are a bunch of idiots making a very stupid mistake (and is highly likely to call them up in person and yell at them to drill the point home) .

Extrapolating from there, Adobe will lose all of their Photoshop customers within a couple of years, but it will be a boon to their customer service department which will have to hire more hard-as-nails customer service reps to answer angry phone calls and to answer hate mail...

Re:Extrapolation (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about a year ago | (#43646307)

...so those two people were happy paying upgrade fees every year or two, but they'll scoff at paying $20 / month, which is actually cheaper?

Re:Extrapolation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646363)

To be fair, though... if you're upgrading every two years anyway... at the $19.99/mo price (for the single app), that's only about $500 vs. the $699 (for the non-extended version) of Photoshop CS6. They actually come out ahead in this situation.

Really interesting part (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#43646091)

The really interesting part of this seems to be that Adobe gets to keep all the money from the licensing. Previously, if you wanted a license, you'd go to some reseller, and they'd get part of the money, as would a distributor, and maybe ever a couple other companies along the way. This is basically a game changer. Adobe believes (and it's probably true) that it's popular enough that they don't need resellers and other people pushing their products, and that they can do good enough business just selling direct to the end user. As much as I like the idea of subscription software, I do like the idea of the middle man being cut out, since most of the time they offer very little value to the end customer, and can only really make prices higher, or at the very best, bleed out money from the process would have been better served going back to the people creating the product. It's the equivalent of music labels selling directly to end users without going through the music stores (be they online or physical stores/records)

Re:Really interesting part (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646237)

The really interesting part of this seems to be that Adobe gets to keep all the money from the licensing. Previously, if you wanted a license, you'd go to some reseller, and they'd get part of the money, as would a distributor, and maybe ever a couple other companies along the way. This is basically a game changer. Adobe believes (and it's probably true) that it's popular enough that they don't need resellers and other people pushing their products, and that they can do good enough business just selling direct to the end user. As much as I like the idea of subscription software, I do like the idea of the middle man being cut out, since most of the time they offer very little value to the end customer, and can only really make prices higher, or at the very best, bleed out money from the process would have been better served going back to the people creating the product. It's the equivalent of music labels selling directly to end users without going through the music stores (be they online or physical stores/records)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha (Omer Simpson style)
One thing Adobe won't do is decrease prices on its products. Good you've cut out the middleman and the retailers (who could give you discounts). Now Adobe is in full control. Want a discount ? Nope, my way or the highway. And since there is no competitor to Adobe you're royally screwed. Bend at 90 degrees and take it like a real man.

A hole digs its own grave? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646093)

Long ago (in internet years) there was a software company that thought that their customers should not only pay for their image processing software (for creating spherical panoramas), but also purchase a separate license for every pano they created. Their thinking was that people were already used to paying to develop every roll of film they shot so why not get them used to paying for every digital image they “developed”. Now what was the name of that software company... I wonder what ever became of them...

Yes (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#43646095)

Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?

Yes.

Re:Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646183)

Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?

Yes.

Uhm no. Customers are idiots. Witness what the videogames industry has manged to get out of videogamers.
Adobe is simply following suite. The only one to have cold feet is Microsoft (at least on the windows/office side) because on the xbox side they clearly have no problems at all taking away your "property" rights.

Re:Yes (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#43646267)

I'm saying the following:

Yes, they can switch to subscription-only. Photoshop alone has enough inertia that they'll get quite a few customers.
Yes, the backlash will be great.
Yes, it very well may spur competition (and I very much hope it does.)

Also,

Adobe is simply following suite.

I see what you did there.

Re:Yes (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#43646387)

Uhm no. Customers are idiots. Witness what the videogames industry has manged to get out of videogamers.

The videogame industry mostly sells to teenage boys. You can get away with a lot more when you're selling an entertainment product to kids than when you're selling a business product to other businesses.

So long... (2)

socode (703891) | about a year ago | (#43646115)

I've had a full PS license for years, currently on CS6. But my need for it is very much less than my preference for maintaining my own software and update schedules, and avoiding recurring costs. It will therefore be the last.

Bye guys!

Re:So long... (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about a year ago | (#43646279)

This is actually cheaper than upgrading every few years to maintain your upgrade eligibility...

Not horrible for me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646123)

I was buying the update to the full CS master suite every couple years. This works out a little cheaper, especially the first year with upgrade pricing.

It does suck for you photoshop-only people!

Biggest concern (4, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | about a year ago | (#43646147)

We need to have version control for some plugins we use. If there are no controls to prevent new versions from being loaded then it will be imposible to version control

This is actually a great deal. (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about a year ago | (#43646165)

$50 / month is a great deal for your primary work tools. It's much better than the old "Master Collection," which clocked in at over $2500 plus upgrade fees every other year. If you use more than one Adobe product, this saves you money and probably gets you more of the suite than you had before. (If you only use one app you can subscribe for a less appealing $20/month).

Also, let's get real: if people could switch to GIMP, they would have already done it. It's just not there yet. The type of user who was willing to pay $600 for Photoshop two months ago is simply not going to put up with GIMP's shortcomings and quirks.

I suspect that 90% of the "backlash" will come from people who were pirating the software anyway. These people were not customers to begin with.

Pricing (5, Informative)

proxima (165692) | about a year ago | (#43646191)

This means that before too long, anyone who wants an up-to-date version of Photoshop won't be able to buy it – they will have to pay $50 per month (minimum subscription term: one year).

This pricing seemed off. Sure enough, TFA:

For those who don't want the entire suite, Adobe offers subscriptions to individual programs. And now they're cheaper, down from $20 a month to $10 a month, Morris said.

So if you want Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. etc., the suite will be $50/mo. If you only want Photoshop, it's $10/mo. Furthermore, if you really only need software for a month, you can rent the suite for $75.

I can't say I'm a big fan of subscription only (even MS is keeping some purchase options for Office), but pricing like this does create some winners (besides Adobe). Short term projects, for example, may benefit from being able to purchase what was a $2500 package for only a month or two at $75/month. The losers, of course, are those that purchase upgrades infrequently and use their software for years.

Frankly, I'm tempted by $10/mo for Illustrator. The retail box of CS6 is $540, and I have no product from which to upgrade. So for the cost of the boxed version (with its potential resale or upgrade value factored in), I get 4 1/2 years of use of the latest version. One key difference is I can easily drop it after 1 year (and $120), if I don't need it any more. Still, I understand how abandoning box sales will make some people unhappy.

Crazy pricing (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year ago | (#43646193)

My wife is a budding professional photographer, and my son is highly creative and in middle school. Both get a lot of use out of Photoshop, but we can barely afford one permanent license. It's a purchase I'm willing to make only because it opens up future opportunities for both of them.

But if Adobe's going to want about that same amount of money every year, I just don't see how we can justify the cost. We might have to suck it up and hope we can get the same functionality with a collection of much cheaper / free tools.

Re:Crazy pricing (1)

bensyverson (732781) | about a year ago | (#43646229)

If you only want Photoshop, it's only $20 / month, and I believe you get two installations. Any photographer should be able to justify $20 / month for one of your most useful tools.

Re:Crazy pricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646269)

Yeah I dont know why the summary above suggests its $50 for *only* Photoshop. $50 for the entire suite isnt bad if you need it.

Re:Crazy pricing (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year ago | (#43646383)

Thanks for clarifying. That's certainly more sensible. Not a bargain, but closer to doable.

What does the 'Imaginary Property" crowd expect? (-1, Flamebait)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | about a year ago | (#43646293)

When applied to music, the hordes of Imaginary Property people scream that musicians should give away their recorded bits for free (since they can't be owned anyway) and make revenue on live performances. Software-as-a-service with a subscription fee is the exact analog of a live performance for software. You want to use the software, you pay for the live performance.

I guess I don't see why the Imaginary Property crowd isn't ecstatic about this. Companies have realized that trying to restrict who owns their software bits is stupid, because someone will just pirate it. So instead, they aren't doing that anymore, and they are charging only if you actually use their service. Wasn't this the goal of the Imaginary Property crowd - no censorship on bits? (Or was it that they wanted music for free?)

Please, Imaginary Property crowd, now tell me how this is broken.

Re:What does the 'Imaginary Property" crowd expect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646385)

I'm just curious - I've read a little bit about the "Intellectual Property" issues surrounding software and such, but not yet run across the "Imaginary Property" group and this specific view towards music and musicians. What is their primary argument in support of that view?

I like Creative Cloud (1)

Alan Shutko (5101) | about a year ago | (#43646333)

I've been a user of Creative Cloud since it came out with CS6. I've been a big fan.

Adobe bundles a lot of extra software in here that's beyond the base CS Master Collection. The Adobe Edge apps, for instance, were never available in the perpetual license or boxed CS. You also get some limited hosting, typekit account, online storage, and some other stuff.

As far as price, it's a mixed bag. If you were previously a Master Collection user, you would save money over upgrading every year [prodesigntools.com] . You'd come out about the same upgrading every other year [joemaller.com] . If you upgraded less often than that, you'd be paying more.

If you only want a single app, you can get it for $20 a month. Photoshop Extended CS6 was $999, so that would be 50 months until you're paying more. That's a good deal.

Where it gets tough is if you were upgrading from focused versions of the suite, like Design Standard or Production Premium. You get more apps than you were before, but if you didn't need the full set before, you're paying more for apps you don't need.

Opportunity to showcase GIMP (4, Insightful)

dbhost (1129727) | about a year ago | (#43646375)

I think this is a great opportunity for the Open Source Community to showcase what really can be done with apps like The GIMP. There is admittedly work to be done for vector apps, but they are coming along.... Other than using Photoshop specific filters, there really isn't anything Photoshop can do that I can't do in GIMP... Why pay Adobe for their overpriced bloatware?

I'm ok with this. (as I'll never use it) (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#43646379)

I usually work with one version of CS for years, and haven't even upgraded to CS6 yet. So I'm not worried. Lots of time for someone to come up with a reasonable replacement. But CS Cloud Subscription? Um, no, sorry.

What about bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43646381)

In my region, unless you're extremely lucky and can find an open dslam to even hope to get DSL, the only option is cable internet through a small vendor which limits upload speed to .5 mbps. Looks like 1/3 or better of my day is going to be wasted uploading files to edit...

Renting software (1)

mendax (114116) | about a year ago | (#43646411)

Renting software (that is what Adobe is proposing after all) only works when there are no good alternatives, free or otherwise. But there are good alternatives such as The GIMP and it also just happens to be free. Can you imagine how fast the cash-strapped governments and companies of the world would dump Windows and move to Ubuntu (or some other reasonably friendly flavor of Linux) and OpenOffice or LibreOffice for those users who only need computers to browse, do e-mail, and produce documents and spreadsheets if Microsoft did this with Windows? (That fact that it's already happening to an extent only bears this thinking out.) This plan seems to be a rather bad move on Adobe's part.

Incidentally, I use OpenOffice on my Macs to produce documents and it's marvelous. It's got a couple very minor document painting glitches but on the whole it's a solid piece of software and I find it easier to use than Word.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>