The Victoria Photography Meetup Group Message Board › Photoshop CC <-- NEW ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PS USERS

Photoshop CC <-- NEW ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PS USERS

Nathan D.
nderksen
Victoria, BC
Post #: 73
Wow, talk about a draconian license agreement. I wonder what will happen when some of the larger companies' procurement departments get their hands on this agreement. I hope there is some serious pushback.
Dion M
user 7364077
Victoria, BC
Post #: 142
I hope there's pushback, and I also hope we see a renewal in some competition.

In the forum thread Mike posted, a lot of guys said they'd like to see a trimmer piece of software aimed at photographers. There's so much in Photoshop that I'd never use, it's not really aimed at photographers.

Photoshop has been overpriced for years, along with most other Adobe software, and it seems they wanted to keep it that way. Adobe has been fairly vitriolic toward Apple for some time, and I wonder if it started when Apple released Aperture in late 2005.

Thing is, Aperture was initially not (much) over-priced, and it dropped steadily ever since (like any non-software product does after initial release). Adobe followed with Lightroom in early 2007, and since then the prices and features have been competitive. Good healthy competition, and software that's priced at about what it's worth, with a healthy margin of profit without being overpriced.

Final Cut Pro --> $299. How much was Adobe Premiere, before it went to the Cloud? Stratospheric at $799.
Nathan D.
nderksen
Victoria, BC
Post #: 74
In the forum thread Mike posted, a lot of guys said they'd like to see a trimmer piece of software aimed at photographers. There's so much in Photoshop that I'd never use, it's not really aimed at photographers.

Quite true, ironic for a tool called Photoshop. I've been using it many years as part of creating Web sites, but as an amateur photographer I rarely use it anymore. Lightroom now does 99% of what I need, and the only things I go to Photoshop for anymore with my photos is for merging together star trail photos, or for more involved cloning. The rest is superfluous for me, and to boot Lightroom does everything non-destructively while many Photoshop operations (such as cropping) are still destructive operations.

Photoshop has been overpriced for years, along with most other Adobe software, and it seems they wanted to keep it that way. Adobe has been fairly vitriolic toward Apple for some time, and I wonder if it started when Apple released Aperture in late 2005.

It's overpriced for the common consumer, and small businesses with say 5 people or less may have trouble affording it, but for the majority of businesses I think it's always been priced well within the range of affordability. Adobe's market with the Creative Suite apps has always been the professional market, and when your livelihood depends on using Photoshop, InDesign, or Illustrator, I don't think the existing pricing is much of a deterrent. Additionally, the pro market will write the expense off, making it more affordable. For a solo amateur photographer, the pricing becomes out of reach, and now you can no longer use the argument of being able to amortize the price over a multi-year period, it's now a constant expense.

As for the animosity between Adobe and Apple, it didn't help that Apple did not include support for Flash on the iPad, although it's ironic that Apple recently hired Adobe's architect of mobile Flash strategy, Kevin Lynch.

Thing is, Aperture was initially not (much) over-priced, and it dropped steadily ever since (like any non-software product does after initial release). Adobe followed with Lightroom in early 2007, and since then the prices and features have been competitive. Good healthy competition, and software that's priced at about what it's worth, with a healthy margin of profit without being overpriced.

Yep, agreed. Here it's also targeted at the amateur and pro photography markets, so Adobe and Apple both priced their applications accordingly.
Marcia and Mike Ne...
wolfnowl
Group Organizer
Victoria, BC
Post #: 614
What with Adobe's Cloud challenge, the folks at Capture One trumped them again today with an announcement that Capture One allows multiple users to work within the same catalogue. It sounds like one person can be editing while someone else is browsing, but one complaint some people have had with Lightroom is that the catalogue cannot be accessed from a network drive and is locked to one user.

P.S. Dion: You should take a look sometime at the 'permissions' required for some Android apps. In order to install Google Maps for example you need to agree to:

"Permissions
This application has access to the following:

Your accounts
add or remove accounts
Allows the app to perform operations like adding and removing accounts, and deleting their password.
use accounts on the device
Allows the app to request authentication tokens.
Google Maps
Allows apps to sign in to Google Maps using the account(s) stored on this Android device.
Your location
approximate location (network-based)
Allows the app to get your approximate location. This location is derived by location services using network location sources such as cell towers and Wi-Fi. These location services must be turned on and available to your device for the app to use them. Apps may use this to determine approximately where you are.
precise location (GPS and network-based)
Allows the app to get your precise location using the Global Positioning System (GPS) or network location sources such as cell towers and Wi-Fi. These location services must be turned on and available to your device for the app to use them. Apps may use this to determine where you are, and may consume additional battery power.
Network communication
control Near Field Communication
Allows the app to communicate with Near Field Communication (NFC) tags, cards, and readers.
full network access
Allows the app to create network sockets and use custom network protocols. The browser and other applications provide means to send data to the internet, so this permission is not required to send data to the internet.
connect and disconnect from Wi-Fi
Allows the app to connect to and disconnect from Wi-Fi access points and to make changes to device configuration for Wi-Fi networks.
Phone calls
directly call phone numbers
Allows the app to call phone numbers without your intervention. This may result in unexpected charges or calls. Note that this doesn't allow the app to call emergency numbers. Malicious apps may cost you money by making calls without your confirmation.
read phone status and identity
Allows the app to access the phone features of the device. This permission allows the app to determine the phone number and device IDs, whether a call is active, and the remote number connected by a call.
Storage
modify or delete the contents of your USB storage
Allows the app to write to the USB storage.
System tools
install shortcuts
Allows an app to add shortcuts without user intervention.
Your applications information
retrieve running apps
Allows the app to retrieve information about currently and recently running tasks. This may allow the app to discover information about which applications are used on the device.
Microphone
record audio
record audio
Lock screen
disable your screen lock
Allows the app to disable the keylock and any associated password security. For example, the phone disables the keylock when receiving an incoming phone call, then re-enables the keylock when the call is finished.
Your social information
write call log
Allows the app to modify your device's call log, including data about incoming and outgoing calls. Malicious apps may use this to erase or modify your call log.
read your contacts
Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your device, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.
modify your contacts
Allows the app to modify the data about your contacts stored on your device, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific contacts. This permission allows apps to delete contact data.
read call log
Allows the app to read your device's call log, including data about incoming and outgoing calls. This permission allows apps to save your call log data, and malicious apps may share call log data without your knowledge.

Hide

Your accounts
find accounts on the device
Allows the app to get the list of accounts known by the device. This may include any accounts created by applications you have installed.
view configured accounts
Allows apps to see the usernames (email addresses) of the Google account(s) you have configured.
read Google service configuration
Allows this app to read Google service configuration data.
Network communication
view Wi-Fi connections
Allows the app to view information about Wi-Fi networking, such as whether Wi-Fi is enabled and name of connected Wi-Fi devices.
view network connections
Allows the app to view information about network connections such as which networks exist and are connected.
receive data from Internet
Allows apps to accept cloud to device messages sent by the app's service. Using this service will incur data usage. Malicious apps could cause excess data usage.
System tools
test access to protected storage
Allows the app to test a permission for USB storage that will be available on future devices.
Affects Battery
prevent device from sleeping
Allows the app to prevent the device from going to sleep.
control vibration
Allows the app to control the vibrator.
Your applications information
run at startup
Allows the app to have itself started as soon as the system has finished booting. This can make it take longer to start the device and allow the app to slow down the overall device by always running."

Dion M
user 7364077
Victoria, BC
Post #: 143
It's overpriced for the common consumer, and small businesses with say 5 people or less may have trouble affording it, but for the majority of businesses I think it's always been priced well within the range of affordability. Adobe's market with the Creative Suite apps has always been the professional market, and when your livelihood depends on using Photoshop, InDesign, or Illustrator, I don't think the existing pricing is much of a deterrent. Additionally, the pro market will write the expense off, making it more affordable. For a solo amateur photographer, the pricing becomes out of reach, and now you can no longer use the argument of being able to amortize the price over a multi-year period, it's now a constant expense.

I guess it depends how much of the market they want to sell to. For the average serious photographer, maybe aspiring pro, I'd say the pricing is a bit hefty. For the average user outside of substantially profitable business, I'd say it's pricey. I'm sure there are vast numbers of photographers who agree with me, and well, in the end, it's their wallets that do the voting. I don't think their software justifies that price, especially considering the lack of bug fixes and decline in customer support. There's no defence for that, unless people want to defend crappy customer service the world over, alongside record profits.

As for the animosity between Adobe and Apple, it didn't help that Apple did not include support for Flash on the iPad, although it's ironic that Apple recently hired Adobe's architect of mobile Flash strategy, Kevin Lynch.

Yeah I haven't followed that much, I don't have any smartgadgets. But wasn't it something about security holes in flash, performance issues, and that it was poorly designed technology? I recall something like that. Apple has released this explanation, which answers the question about why:

http://www.apple.com/...­

Thing is, Aperture was initially not (much) over-priced, and it dropped steadily ever since (like any non-software product does after initial release). Adobe followed with Lightroom in early 2007, and since then the prices and features have been competitive. Good healthy competition, and software that's priced at about what it's worth, with a healthy margin of profit without being overpriced.

Yep, agreed. Here it's also targeted at the amateur and pro photography markets, so Adobe and Apple both priced their applications accordingly.

Not sure what you mean by the above point, Nathan... I might interpret it in two ways. Do you mean Aperture vs. Lightroom? Aperture is pro software (iPhoto is the amateur software). Aperture and Lightroom are quite similar, equally powerful, and both are targeted at pro photographers, while having price-tags friendly to amateurs too.

That was my main point... all thanks to the competition. Without healthy competition, pricing of products runs amuck, an all-too-common market phenomenon. If you are comparing Final Cut Pro vs Adobe Premier, both are also entirely high-end pro. Each has some advantages/disadvantages, but not to justify the $300 vs. $800.

Mike... regarding the Google permissions. Yep, that's just more of the same, and I avoid much of it; but then there's Facebook. I don't have a smartphone etc., but regardless, these legal agreements are pushing far too much into privacy, copyright & other issues.

But it's one thing to offer a free product like Facebook, or Google Maps, where all their revenue is from ads, and the service is free and optional. But it's quite another thing for Adobe to charge a high subscription fee for a product, and then to claim control over our content, and claim the right to use our content with their advertising, demand to know our birthday, declare they can kick us out at any time with no refund, etc... that is an order of magnitude more offensive, and breaking new territory-- where we are now expected to pay a high price, aaand at the same time get a good rogering from Adobe.
Nathan D.
nderksen
Victoria, BC
Post #: 75
I guess it depends how much of the market they want to sell to. For the average serious photographer, maybe aspiring pro, I'd say the pricing is a bit hefty. For the average user outside of substantially profitable business, I'd say it's pricey. I'm sure there are vast numbers of photographers who agree with me, and well, in the end, it's their wallets that do the voting. I don't think their software justifies that price, especially considering the lack of bug fixes and decline in customer support. There's no defence for that, unless people want to defend crappy customer service the world over, alongside record profits.
Right, however Adobe never really targeted the small guy. They priced CS as a premium product, knowing that companies of any significant size would have no problem paying $1000 - $2000 for the suite. While there is not as much in Photoshop for photographers and so the value for that market is limited, for the rest of the pro creative market there is no equal and the price is easily justified. In the interactive agency that I'm a part of, no one even flinches at those prices.

Yeah I haven't followed that much, I don't have any smartgadgets. But wasn't it something about security holes in flash, performance issues, and that it was poorly designed technology? I recall something like that. Apple has released this explanation, which answers the question about why:

http://www.apple.com/...­

Yep, that article was the nail in the coffin for Flash. I've done lots of Flash development and I'm sad to see it go this way, but I also think it was right to hold the player back from mobile devices. Even Google, who initially included Flash Player support in Android, later dropped support.

Not sure what you mean by the above point, Nathan... I might interpret it in two ways. Do you mean Aperture vs. Lightroom? Aperture is pro software (iPhoto is the amateur software). Aperture and Lightroom are quite similar, equally powerful, and both are targeted at pro photographers, while having price-tags friendly to amateurs too.

That was my main point... all thanks to the competition. Without healthy competition, pricing of products runs amuck, an all-too-common market phenomenon. If you are comparing Final Cut Pro vs Adobe Premier, both are also entirely high-end pro. Each has some advantages/disadvantages, but not to justify the $300 vs. $800.

My comment was just that both Aperture and Lightroom target the pro and amateur photography market. Photographers are generally more price sensitive so both Apple and Adobe had to price their products within reach of that market. As you say, the competition definitely has helped keep prices down for both products but even the starting prices for both were way below the cost of Photoshop. For the Creative Suite products, there is little competition likely because the applications that Adobe makes are really hard to build well, it takes a major investment to build something that Adobe's market for that product will use, plus there is a lot of momentum to overcome with all the people who have lots of experience using Photoshop and don't want to learn another bitmap editor. I am seeing more image editors come out over the last year or so, but none of them target Adobe's market.

But it's one thing to offer a free product like Facebook, or Google Maps, where all their revenue is from ads, and the service is free and optional. But it's quite another thing for Adobe to charge a high subscription fee for a product, and then to claim control over our content, and claim the right to use our content with their advertising, demand to know our birthday, declare they can kick us out at any time with no refund, etc... that is an order of magnitude more offensive, and breaking new territory-- where we are now expected to pay a high price, aaand at the same time get a good rogering from Adobe.

Yes, agreed, it's pretty incredible that they think this is all OK for them to do.
Dion M
user 7364077
Victoria, BC
Post #: 146
Right, however Adobe never really targeted the small guy. They priced CS as a premium product, knowing that companies of any significant size would have no problem paying $1000 - $2000 for the suite. While there is not as much in Photoshop for photographers and so the value for that market is limited, for the rest of the pro creative market there is no equal and the price is easily justified. In the interactive agency that I'm a part of, no one even flinches at those prices.

Yes, I follow your point, and it is Adobe's marketing choice-- but I don't agree that it's necessarily their best choice. There's plenty of theory about price points that suggests otherwise. But I don't see the point in lobbying for higher prices, for a company with billions in profits and declining quality of customer support.

But really-- I don't care about who doesn't think it's overpriced... because, why would they care? They would not have any reason to complain if it was lower priced. My point is about the vast numbers of people who can't afford it because it is overpriced, and there is justification for that point. I don't think it would take much of a marketing campaign to attract many thousands more buyers if Photoshop or CS cost $300 less, and that could maybe even increase Adobe's profits.

I'm not even going to debate that particular point any longer, because... why? If some agencies want to argue that the price would be too low, then they can just go ahead and donate money to Adobe.

But as I already mentioned it's also about the lack of bug fixes and the decline in customer service, alongside high prices and high profits. Why would anyone defend them on this, unless they are an Adobe rep with conflicted interests? The search engines are rife with complaints about Adobe's transgressions and decline in integrity, and I'm not going to compile a list.

For the Creative Suite products, there is little competition likely because the applications that Adobe makes are really hard to build well, it takes a major investment to build something that Adobe's market for that product will use, plus there is a lot of momentum to overcome with all the people who have lots of experience using Photoshop and don't want to learn another bitmap editor.

Adobe does have major competition for Premier-- and that's Final Cut Pro, as I've mentioned… and it costs less than half as much. About InDesign, well, some major competion was bought out-- by Adobe.

About Photoshop-- true, but that does not, in any way, negate the points I made about price point. Adobe can choose to price Photoshop how they want, but I've provided examples (in more than one post above) that suggest it may very well be due to lack of competition. There were some beginnings of interesting competition several years ago-- but some of them were bought up and crushed-- a common big-corporation tactic to eliminate competition. (Examples of that are a dime a dozen.)

I think it's long overdue to see some new products out there. Without competition, not only are prices controlled by one corporation, but innovation stagnates too.

And when prices are too high for certain software, innovation suffers in another way too, if only a small percentage of creative users can afford it.

Your other points, I agree with.

But about Creative Cloud and the legal agreement… Adobe has thought it over and dumped it on us, showing their true colour-- and to some it is appearing exactly the same hue, saturation, and brightness of a dirtbag.
Dion M
user 7364077
Victoria, BC
Post #: 147
(This has become quite an in-depth conversation, and I think the topic deserves it! :) ...This sort of conversation is a good thing, and it's great to see it here in our own group. I just revised my one post right above^ and fixed or added a couple of points from a couple hours ago. I hope there's a lot more free-flowing conversation about this going on "out there".)
Nathan D.
nderksen
Victoria, BC
Post #: 76
Ok, so Adobe has a FAQ up now on Creative Cloud which has some interesting answers.

Q: Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Creative Cloud desktop applications?

A: No. Your Creative Cloud desktop applications (such as Photoshop and Illustrator) are installed directly on your computer, so you won't need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.

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 180 days even if you're offline.

So uptime of their license server shouldn't actually be a major issue if it's only used for initial activations.

Q: Can I send a file to someone who doesn't have a Creative Cloud membership? Will they be able to view or share the file?

A: Yes, files created by the Creative Cloud apps can be shared like any other file. For example, you can share files through email, FTP, and so on.

In addition, Creative Cloud sharing features let you share files with people who aren't members of Creative Cloud by allowing them to view the files in a browser. Viewers can turn layers on and off, view relevant metadata, comment, and even download files for editing.

Also Adobe says that saving files to the cloud is optional, they can all be saved locally as they are done now. If you don't use their file cloud service, then you don't have to worry about uptime there either.

Q: What happens if I decide to stop my membership?

A: You will continue to have access to free Creative Cloud member benefits, and if you saved your work to your computer you will continue to have access to those files. You will no longer have access to the Creative Cloud desktop applications or most of the services that are components of a Creative Cloud membership.

If you purchased an annual individual membership plan and you cancel after the first 30 days but before meeting the 12-month commitment date, you will be charged 50% of the remaining amount left on your contract.

So you don't lose access to your files because your account was shut down.

Q: What happens to my files in the cloud if I cancel my membership?

A: If you cancel your paid membership you will still have access to the free level of membership, which provides 2GB of storage. You will have a 90-day grace period to download your files to your local machine, and delete online files to get your cloud storage down to 2GB (or to purchase additional storage separately if you choose). If you leave more than 2GB of files in your cloud storage for more than 90 days, you may lose access to some or all of your files.

They don't say what happens if Adobe terminates your account, hopefully they would do the same so you could get your files out of their cloud storage.
Dion M
user 7364077
Victoria, BC
Post #: 148
Thank you for researching that further, Nathan. I'm sure everyone who is following this story will appreciate the info you have provided.

Cheers,
Dion
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Log in

Not registered with us yet?

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy