Adobe Creative Cloud Fail

By now you have probably heard about Adobe’s decision to stop development of Adobe Creative Suite (which includes such software as Photoshop and Illustrator) and move to a completely different subscription-only model. In short, Adobe does not want to sell packaged versions of its software anymore and wants you to instead pay for select software packages or the whole Creative Suite on a monthly basis. For example, today you can purchase Adobe Photoshop CS6 for $599 and own the license, which means that you can install it on your computer and use it whenever you want without limitations. With the new Adobe pricing strategy, you will no longer be able to purchase Photoshop that way – you will have to get a $20 per month subscription for using Photoshop alone (or $50 for the whole Creative Suite). There will be no other option. Software will be delivered over the Internet and once you get it installed, it will make occasional requests over the Internet to to verify your subscription level. Creative Cloud will work the same way that CS6 works today, except it will require an active subscription. When traveling without any Internet connectivity, the software will work for a limited amount of time (something like 30 days) before ceasing to work and requiring you to connect to the Internet.

Adobe Creative Cloud Fail

Our readers might be wondering what we at Photography Life think about Adobe’s new pricing policy, so here is my personal take. I think this is by far the most arrogant and selfish decision on behalf of Adobe. While I actively use Photoshop, Illustrator and Lightroom software for my work, I am already considering alternatives at this point. Not because I find the pricing to be too high, but because I think what Adobe is doing is simply wrong. Read on to find out why.

Adobe Software Update Past

Historically, Adobe released new versions of Creative Suite software every couple of years. As new versions of software were rolled out overtime, Adobe had a lot of challenges with getting people to upgrade to the latest version. Continuous development and innovation are both costly for a software development company, so Adobe worked hard on adding new and useful features to lure people into upgrading. At the same time, Adobe had to fix problems and deliver updates on existing versions for certain modules like Camera RAW that had to be kept up to date due to new camera releases. At one point, Adobe executives decided to cease the development of Camera RAW on older versions of Creative Suite and only push those updates if you owned the latest version. So if you bought a new camera and wanted to be able to open up its RAW files, you had no choice but to upgrade.

What we are seeing now, is a step further in the same direction. Now you have no choice to upgrade – the “upgrades” will be delivered free of charge, as long as you continue to pay the subscription fees.

Adobe Creative Cloud is not a Traditional SaaS

A lot of people got confused by the terms “Creative Cloud”, because the word “cloud” typically means that the software lives on the Internet and is run through a browser. While Creative Cloud certainly comes with integrated cloud services, it is not your traditional Software as a Service (SaaS) model. For typical SaaS software, you pay a monthly fee for accessing and storing your data. Since the data is stored completely on the cloud, you must have an active Internet connection in order to use it. Because of this, most SaaS software is browser and device agnostic – you rarely need a “thick” client to access it. In the case of Adobe Creative Cloud, it is a completely different story. Because Adobe applications require a lot of computer resources, it is impractical to put everything into the cloud. The Internet speed is simply not there yet to support such graphics-heavy applications. What Adobe has done instead, is offer some services (such has online storage and collaboration) that are accessible via the Internet and the rest of it is the same old Adobe Creative Suite that does not need the connection to the Internet.

Problems with Creative Cloud Subscription Model

By seizing the development of Creative Suite software and its modules, Adobe is leaving no choice for current CS users that want to upgrade in the future. While this might not be a big deal for people that occasionally use Photoshop to edit their old photos, think of what happens when you buy a brand new camera next year. Unless you upgrade to a subscription model, you will not be able to open its RAW files in CS6. Your only workaround will be to get the latest Lightroom version, export the file in TIFF format, then edit the file in CS6. According to Adobe, Lightroom for now will be continued to be sold as a software package, but if Adobe does the same thing to Lightroom in the next release, then you will have to resort to third party RAW software and other workarounds. Here is a summary of problems with the Creative Cloud:

  1. You never own the software – that’s right, you are paying a monthly subscription fee and you will never own the software license.
  2. You have no control over pricing – if Adobe decides to charge more for the Creative Cloud, you will be forced to pay more.
  3. You cannot sell the software – since you don’t own it, you cannot sell it. In the past, if you bought Photoshop and decided to get rid of it, you could transfer your license to another person and recover your investment, at least partially.
  4. You lose access when you don’t pay – everyone goes through tough times. If for some reason you cannot pay for the software, you will lose access to it.
  5. It is expensive – for many, $20 per month for Photoshop by itself might not sound like too much. But that’s $240 in annual fees. For a person who already owns Photoshop and paid for a boxed version, this is more expensive than paying only $150-200 for an upgrade every two to three years. If you choose to get a complete set for $50, it requires an annual commitment; otherwise, the pricing goes up to $75 per month. Students and teachers pay more now, with $20 per month for the suite and annual commitment (there is no option for “per semester pricing”). Everyone on the Internet seems to be doing math based on retail box versions of Adobe products, plus upgrade fees. When was the last time you paid full price for a software product? Deals like these happen all the time, so it is not like most people pay the full price to start with. So please do not take into account new software license and upgrade fees. I have been a Photoshop user for over 10 years now and I only paid for it once. I upgraded it two or three times and at one point went from CS2 to CS5. I was never forced to upgrade and did it only when I was interested in the new version and features. Thus, for many like me, the new $20 per month subscription is much more expensive compared to a single $150-200 upgrade fee every 2-3 years.
  6. Pricing is outrageous for several products – licensing one individual software package is $20 per month. If I want to use Photoshop and Illustrator, I have to pay $40 per month for both. Add Acrobat and all of a sudden I am at $60 per month. It would be cheaper to get the whole suite with the software I will never use for $50. Basically, Adobe gives you two choices – pay for one package at $20, or pay for the whole thing at $50. Everything else makes no sense.
  7. Adobe Creative Cloud requires high speed Internet – first, you have to be able to download gigabytes of data over the Internet. I feel sorry for anyone that is on slow networks, especially abroad. Second, you must periodically download large updates when they are available. You will need a lot of patience if you are on satellite, slower DSL, etc.
  8. You lose access to proprietary Adobe files if you stop your subscription – Adobe has many proprietary file formats like PSD, AI, EPS, PPJ, etc. that can only be effectively opened with Adobe products. Once you lose access to Creative Cloud, you will either have to revert back to an older version of Creative Suite (if you own it) or use some other third party tool to open it.

I am sure I am missing other problems, but this is a quick summary of what came to my mind as I was writing this article. With so many problems, why do Adobe executives think that going to the “cloud” would be a good idea for everyone?

What Adobe Should Have Done

I have been in Information Technology for more than 15 years. I have been through enterprise-wide ERP software implementations, bought and used software and even participated and contributed to large scale software development. Adobe should have learned from other software companies on how to handle its product pricing and strategy before making its Creative Cloud jump. When it comes to software, many companies today offer both packaged and SaaS versions, letting the customer choose what works for their needs. And for many software packages, there is an option to move back from the cloud to a local environment – again, it is all about giving customers choice. But what Adobe has done is what some people referred as “extortion” – a forced migration to future upgrades, limited pricing choices and questionable future. In a software world, this sort of move could bring a company down. Heck, even Microsoft commented on Adobe’s stupid decision to move to the subscription model as “premature”.

What Adobe should have done, is give its customer two options – a boxed version with an upgrade path, essentially continuing the Creative Suite line, and a choice to go to the cloud. People that would benefit from collaboration and other benefits of the cloud would choose a subscription model, while everyone else would stay happy with their “owned” copies of the software.


  1. 1) LukeB
    May 9, 2013 at 9:25 pm

    You hit the nail on the head. It is a Fail! Now, maybe someone like Google will knock Adobe off.

    • May 9, 2013 at 9:37 pm

      I very much hope so. I hate the fact that Adobe’s products are a monopoly at this point, with no equivalent products on the market…

      • 1.1.1) Sandra Chung
        June 20, 2013 at 6:54 am

        Actually, Corel Paintshop X5 is a viable alternative to Photoshop.

    • 1.2) Andrew Thornton
      May 17, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      Nasim has echoed all of my concerns. In fact he has been kind to Adobe. They could do even worse things in this Faustian scheme. What if they segment the cloud market into basic, premium and enterprise sections? There is nothing to stop them doing so.

      • 1.2.1) Andrew Thornton
        May 17, 2013 at 10:36 pm

        For myself as a graphics designer/technical writer I am not in the worst position for this. I have the full CS6. I have good internet. I could afford to go to the cloud, not that I will do so unless I absolutely have to. I won’t go to it this year, at least. But there are SO many things that are wrong with this move for people in worse situations:

        [1.] What about people who come into the software market later on and CS6 is no longer sold [ which is surely inevitable] ? They will have no parachute for issues like opening proprietary formats.
        [2.] Where will these leave graphics design colleges? It puts them in a sharp ethical dilemma. On thje one hand you have a responsibility to get your students using the best software that exployers will ask for. But on the other hand the cloud means that if the college has a period of expense, say furniture breaks or something of immediate importance, then the software could be taken away from under a student’s nose, a student who has paid for the course. If I were a teacher of graphics design I wo9uld feel VERY bad about possibly putting a student at that sort of risk. Adobe won’t listen to the petition – 20’000 votes is a drop of water to them – but what they WOULD listen to is a strategic decline in purchasing their product such as in schools or colleges or places of study. That would hurt them a lot more.

        Then there are the “bits and pieces” problems. I have the CS6 on my PC now. If I download the cloud CC will that conflict? You can’t have two photoshops on the same machine. That’s what happened about 5 years ago with a beta Photoshop that didn’t uninstall fully so it stopped any other photoshop install.

        What about ACA [Adobe Certified Expert] exams? I was thinking of doing one in Indesign. Now should I bother?

        Can I write scripts for CC products? What happens to the plug-in market that has existed for CS6? Does it just die?

    • 1.3) Keith Austin
      June 3, 2013 at 8:54 am

      I for one think Adobe is being greedy and may have shot themselves in the foot, being only a amateur photographer I bought their software for occasional use and will not be coerced into paying this fee. Not withstanding they are offering a cut price to induce you to join CC and then what will they charge it future years. Shame on you Adobe.

      • 1.3.1) TimR
        June 3, 2013 at 1:14 pm

        Kieth, Adobe does not read any of these posts nor do they care how anyone feels about their subscription changes… you should be directing your concerns at their website or the Adobe head office and jump aboard on those petitions against the company and sign your name to the long list of people who are fed up with their ridiculous price gouging and subscriptions

        • Don S
          June 3, 2013 at 1:29 pm

          TimR, can you suggest Adobe web addresses for us to go to so we don’t have to search their site?

          • TimR
            June 5, 2013 at 11:09 pm

            sorry i dont know any addresses.. you will have to search online and google around for it..

    • 1.4) eumesmo
      February 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm

      i hope everyone from adobe company burns in hell.
      i just CANR install photoshop….. impossible to download using creative cloud….. it took more than 1 hour and only 7% has been downloaded!!!!!! shame!!!! adobe is a corrupt company.. LETS move to linux and use BLIMP

  2. 2) Anselm Hall
    May 9, 2013 at 9:28 pm

    Nasim, thanks for posting this because I am quite concerned about this now. I just recently purchased Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 boxed software. $909 US dollars which is equivalent to $7000 thereabouts in my currency. Alot of money :( i saved long and hard for this. So what am I to do now? Feels like i threw away my money

    • May 9, 2013 at 9:40 pm

      Anselm, there are many like you that are extremely angry with what Adobe has done. At this point, I recommend signing up for the online petition and hope that Adobe reconsiders. Otherwise, just continue to use CS6 and Lightroom 4 – see my comment above for the camera RAW workaround. If Adobe moves Lightroom to the cloud, then we will have to resort to third party software for reading RAW files :(

      I am keeping my CS6 and LR4 – already made the decision not to move to the cloud. I am also looking at alternatives for the future…

      • 2.1.1) Ads
        May 10, 2013 at 12:45 am

        Hit the nail on the head Nasim – I’m in the same boat with CS6 & LR4, and feel just as disgusted using them after this move :-(

        One option for when they do stop the Adobe Camera Raw updates is to use the DNG converter – that makes new camera files compatible (I used it with my D5100 and CS4 before I upgraded to CS6).

        Ultimately I’m hoping someone else steps up to the plate…

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          May 10, 2013 at 11:17 am

          Ads, yes, there are some workarounds for the Camera RAW updates, but that’s another process to go through that slows down the workflow. Adobe says that some CR updates will be available for Photoshop CS6, but obviously that won’t last long.

      • 2.1.2) TimR
        May 10, 2013 at 3:06 am

        Yea I was thinking of an online petition too for all of us to sign to stop adobe from greedily gouging us with their insane monthly subscriptions..

        I will offer this though, I wouldn’t mind 10 bucks a month for PS alone and 10 bucks for each additional suite for what we actively use and not have to “rent” other suites that we will never use. we could also use a pay as you go subscription for those of us who use it on an occasional basis.. I think this this would be a bit more reasonable price

        • antonio
          May 10, 2013 at 11:15 am

          $10 per month is just the introductory price for the first year. Adobe doesn’t want people only paying $10 a month. Believe me when I say you can expect prices to rise every single year. And then Adobe will use that as leverage to buy a one or two year subscription because they will say you can “lock in today’s low price for the next 2 years if you buy a 2 year subscription today”

          The whole thing stinks! Feels like you are dealing with used car salesmen

          • TimR
            May 11, 2013 at 4:29 pm

            shhhh not so loud… dont want the suits upstairs at adobe to hear that and start getting any ideas.. ;)

        • hektor hektik
          May 11, 2013 at 8:06 am


          Keep CS6 alive as long as possible!
          Don´t subscribe!
          Let Adobe FEEL what they have done!

          • TimR
            May 11, 2013 at 4:32 pm

            they have no feelings at all.. they are cold blooded greedy aliens from another planet that have taken over the company… they dont give a flying f– how you feel about any of it

      • 2.1.3) RVB
        May 18, 2013 at 6:39 am

        This is one of adobe’s worst decision’s,but I think it will act as a catalyst for the development of new software to feed the new market created by the customers that adobe is losing.

  3. May 9, 2013 at 9:30 pm

    What alternatives does a person have to using Adobe Photoshop?

    • May 9, 2013 at 9:42 pm

      Eric, that’s the problem – there is no real equivalent on the market. There is Corel Draw, free GIMP and a bunch of other third party software. But none of them are as powerful :( If Lightroom moves to the cloud, I will switch to Aperture, Nikon Capture NX or DxO.

      • 3.1.1) LCN
        May 10, 2013 at 8:40 am

        I try to escape Adobe for already many years. Too expensive for what it is, a harsh license policy and even for students, they keep up a very expensive license policy with not upgradable versions. Photoshop is a bit an inevitable evil, not easy to replace, but form my pictures & Raw management, I switched already a long time ago to Aperture. Also took a serious look at C1… I really wouldn’t know why both softwares are less than LR… Even contrary, to me they both feel as more valuable options, more professional when it comes to storing your pictures and versions, powerful tools not leaving you abandonned after a year or so, to buy new versions when new camera models appear. I’ve never understood why LR is so popular, the RAW-conversions of some camera’s are even not very exceptional if you compare them to the competition.

      • 3.1.2) DavidB
        May 10, 2013 at 1:39 pm

        In comment #10, Nasim wrote “…If Lightroom moves to the cloud, I will switch to Aperture, Nikon Capture NX or DxO…”

        But will any of these other applications read the xmp data that Lightroom uses for its non-destructive edits? I think not.

        I did some editing with Lightroom on a .NEF file then opened the same file in Nikon Capture NX2. Not surprisingly, NX2 did not recognize the Lightroom edits. Similarly, edits to the .NEF file in NX2 were not recognized by Lightroom.

        Consequently, anyone contemplating a change from LR to another application will have to deal with the possibility of re-editing all their images — or converting them all to either DNG or TIFF.

        Or is there another way?


        • The Other Don
          May 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm

          Hi David,

          There is another way. I am using that way now. Previously I used Aperture exclusively. However after switching to LR, I simply moved my Aperture library off of my rMacBook Pro and onto an external Thuderbolt drive. My new LR catalog and photos are now on my rMBP. I simply stopped processing in Aperture and now process everything in LR. I still have Aperture installed on my rMBP, but I only use it when I want an older file. NX2 reads the .NEF files and I can save them as .tiff or whatever I feel like. No conversion necessary. If I decide to go back to Aperture, I can simply move the LR library to a TB external drive and the Aperture library back on to my rMBP… Not very elegant but it works and is painless.

      • 3.1.3) Paul
        October 15, 2014 at 8:52 am

        There is nothing that Adobe PP and Illustrator can do that can’t be accomplished in most cases even faster and more effectively using CorelDraw and Corel Photo-Paint. I’ve been using both Adobe and Corel for over 17 years and for most jobs I strongly prefer Corel.

    • 3.2) Alan
      May 10, 2013 at 8:02 am

      For me, DXO is my preferred RAW converter before selective corrections in NIK software.

      Apart from RAW conversion, DXO does several other adjustments at the same time – automatically, such as de-noising and correction for lens distortions. I’ve used for several years now and find it is reasonably priced and reliable in operation.

      I have CS3 which I use solely for cloning. I have L/R 3.6 but use it only to host the NIK plug-ins.

  4. 4) Daniel Spencer
    May 9, 2013 at 9:35 pm

    I have written Adobe and expressed my displeasure. You would think they would at least acknowledge my communication, but no, nary a word from Adobe. I refuse to pay a monthly fee for any software. Just like you, I upgraded as I felt I needed. It seemed by the time I was beginning to learn all the new features, they would come out with an upgrade that had a few more bells and whistles. I didn’t need it. Hopefully, some smart Technology people will see the need for a new photo editing software and Adobe goes bye-bye.

  5. 5) Tanmay
    May 9, 2013 at 9:36 pm

    Yes Nasim,

    Thanks for sharing, I feel the same way, this is selfish way to earn profits. The best way to earn more and more with ‘Win-Win’ policy.

    They could have earn more profit by these two options. Looks like the term “Customer Satisfaction” was replaced with profits in their agenda.

  6. 6) Richard D
    May 9, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    I did hear about this last week, and I have suspected they would do something like this for awhile. For I think about the past year, I have seen them make “offers” to pay for a subscription service, rather than outright purchasing the product.

    I’m still not sure of the total implications here, but my initial thoughts were that I do not like this. I have CS3 but do not use it very often. I primarily use LR to edit and organize my photos, but, occasionally, I will use CS3. I have been thinking about upgrading to CS6 because I have been having trouble importing the huge RAW files I now get with my D600 I bought right before Christmas.

    I also want to point out that I do sometimes go to places where there is very limited, if any, internet service. So, while I don’t use CS3 often, this is a concern, especially if Adobe were to do this for LR.

    As with any software, I just want to buy it, pay for it once, and only upgrade if I want to. I have often software which I use which, frankly, I will never pay to upgrade again. As for LR, I have the latest version of LR, 4.4, and have been playing around with the Beta version 5. Although I do like some of the improvements I have seen, so far, these improvements do not seem to be that great. I will probably upgrade to version 5 once it comes out, but if this is any indication of future upgrades of LR, I don’t know if I would really want to buy any future upgrades past v5 if improvements are only incremental. Therefore, I certainly would not want to pay a monthly fee which, over time, would cost me more because I probably would not upgrade past V5. So, I really hope they don’t do this with LR.

    That’s my 2 cents worth. I think this is a bad idea, as Nasim says….Adobe is hosing their customers.

  7. 7) William
    May 9, 2013 at 9:38 pm

    Do you know if because it is cloud based that Adobe will be able to have access to your photos even if they are private ones. I know something I worry about with this whole movement from hard drives to a more cloud based storage system is that things are being stored on a server that we do not own and other then password protection have no control over the security of the files and have to place our trust in a third party. Something about that doesn’t jive well with me.

    • 7.1) Curtis
      May 9, 2013 at 10:17 pm

      This is where the label “cloud” confuses what they’re doing.

      The software is on your computer…your images are on your computer. The applications work as they always have.

      The only reason why you need the net to use Adobe CC is to confirm that you’ve paid your subscription.

  8. 8) Don
    May 9, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    I agree 100% with you – this approach is wrong. Now is the perfect time for competition to step up to the plate and take faithful customers away from Adobe. There are software companies that should be popping Champagne corks over this Adobe decision. As an outcome of this we could all benefit.

  9. 9) Gary
    May 9, 2013 at 9:45 pm

    I am very disappointed in the direction that Adobe has decided to go. I will definitely be looking for other options.

  10. 10) Richard D
    May 9, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    I think William’s question is a good one. Somewhere in Nasim’s writeup, I thought I read that data won’t exist on your local PC; instead, it will reside in the cloud. What is meant by “data?” I certainly hope that does not mean picture files. Right now, I use Windows Live Mail for my email client, but I absolutely refuse to put information in there which includes telephone numbers and addresses for people on my email list. The reason? Windows Live mail puts all of that stuff out on the cloud. I don’t want that sort of data out there. Too many reports of hacking going on out there, and it seems to be getting worse….there was a big bust today of people stealing money from ATM machines across the world because they had illegally obtained PIN numbers of ATM cards.

    • 10.1) William
      May 9, 2013 at 10:14 pm

      You see computers that are starting to come out with smaller hard drives now too, especially with the newer operating systems. Granted they are solid state, that is cool but with software being cloud based and cloud based storage’s being encouraged it worries me. I know when I go on the internet all my whereabouts are privy to the people who own the browser software and they sell that info to advertisers. I however do not want everything I have on my computer to be just as open, like budgets, photos I don’t care for people to have access to and what not.

      • 10.1.1) Lardinio
        May 10, 2013 at 12:28 am

        William, the fact of the matter is images are taken locally and whilst sensors grow and produce larger RAW/Jpeg files, it cannot all be put in the cloud anyway. All the software companies know this. A Nikon D800 produces a 14-bit lossless file of around 60MB on average, you shoot a wedding of 1000 photos and you are trying to put 60GB’s in the cloud. JUST WONT HAPPEN. Not today, not tomorrow. Adobe HAS to process locally and allow you to store locally. They know this. That’s also a reason a reason why hard drives wont be getting smaller anytime soon. SSD’s are only small because they are expensive, wait till the cost comes down. Technically they can currently produce 4TB SSDs. In 5 years that’ll be consumer priced. The only real problem for people here is price, as Nasim said ‘extortion’. In the UK the price for a single app is £17 ish. Over 3 years the price for photoshop is therefore nearly £600, and you don’t even own it! I would pay monthly for a single app if it was £10 and I’m sure over time the pricing will change to reflect the needs of the market, it has to or Adobe will kill itself. I like photoshop but lightroom’s not for me, just don’t like the interface, too much wasted space and the image being edited is too small for me. That’s why I use Google’s Picassa, as I don’t need the batch workflow. On that point, it would suprise me if Google seized this as an opportunity to produce something. It already has the skills and could easily pay for them if it needed and I like what they have done with the pricing on Nik Software packages. Someone needs to step up and force adobe’s hand.

      • 10.1.2) Dave Haynie
        May 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm

        The primary reason HDDs have been shrinking is fashion and cost. Tablets and Ultrabooks have become fashionable, and they all use solid-state memory. SSDs are nice and fast, but they’re many times more expensive than the equivalent in magnetic HDDs. I bought my daughter a MacBook Pro for college last summer (gumble, grumble), with a 750GB HDD (she’s in broadcasting, she’ll need some room for video). An SSD model ran over $1000 more for the same storage. This will pass, but for awhile, solid state is just pricier.

        However, SSDs are solid state, and that’s a good thing. HDD storage has had a more or less linear growth… every once in awhile, they figure out a way to pack in twice as many bits into the same magnetic material. Flash memory chips, on the other hand, tend to double in size with each new generation. It wasn’t ten years ago, in 2004, that HDDs started approaching $1/GB. Flash storage started to hit that point last year… that’s pretty much the rule if you shop around, for SSDs or even camera/camcorder/smartphone class Flash cards. At the very next IC node, that means $0.50/GB, etc. So this is a very momentary thing. And consider, it wasn’t all that long ago that you couldn’t get a laptop with >750GB-1TB storage with any kind of storage technology.

        Online storage is usually a bad idea. It’s great for collaboration, even self-collaboration (eg, syncing)… though in that case, your LAN may suffice, at least for the larger items you sync. But basically, online storage is the most expensive kind of storage — you’re paying something for any substantial amount of it forever. The connection to it, on the other hand, is the slowest kind of connection your computing device has. And the most expensive… going out over the internet costs money. Comparatively, local storage is the cheapest and fastest kind of storage. So it’s STUPID to use “Cloud” storage for anything that doesn’t absolutely benefit from being cloud storage.

  11. 11) B!
    May 9, 2013 at 9:50 pm

    The stupidity of this approach has to be publicized extensively and people need to boycott this by simply not subscribing. Look at what happened to NetFlix not so long ago, apologies were quickly issued but the stocks already tanked as the user base shrank considerably.

    Everybody get onboard or soon it’ll be $15 a month for windows 9, $7 for your antivirus, $50 for Photoshop, $30 for office, yada yada yada until it all gets up and you’ll get a free computer but will shell out $150 a month for the software for it.

    Nowadays everything is per month, foolish people get stuck with what appears a small per month charges, add them up and multiply by 12, 24 or 36 and you’ll quickly see where your money went.

    This cannot work out for Adobe, it simply can’t. Corporate greed at best!

    • May 9, 2013 at 10:01 pm

      Fully agreed. I personally hate the subscription based model. SaaS is good for enterprise, but not for end users.

      • 11.1.1) Stefan
        May 10, 2013 at 10:55 am

        Exactly my thought – it’s not fare a big agency and me to pay the same price of $50 per month.
        Yes, I may use Premiere and Illustrator and some other stuff, like Dreamweaver, but still – I do that for my personal use, and they do business with it.
        I think Adobe’s move is very welcomed for those big advertising and media companies.
        But not for us all.
        We should have choices!
        Either to pick up several products we use and pay less – like they had the packages before – web, design and production. Why not – pick up three software pieces according to your needs and pay $20 for those. Or pay $50 for the whole suite. This sounds way better to me.
        So for example you can choose Photoshop + Illustrator + Dreamweaver, or Premiere + After Effects + Audition, etc.

      • 11.1.2) TimR
        May 11, 2013 at 11:33 pm

        not good for me either.. I’m a deaf photographer living on disability just about to get ready to get a job as a wedding photo editor editing a photographers wedding photos for piecework pay.. I got Lightroom 4 and was going to purchase CS6 or 7 when it came out, now i hear about this silly subscription thing.. I’ve been out of work for over 10 yrs due to crippling arthritis and now i have to find another career alternative as I cant rent this Photoshop because i don’t own a credit card to buy it.. and what about when the job is having a slow month? i wont have much work and i don’t like the idea of paying 50 a month to work on some 5 – 10 photos a month (or none at all).. i really hope they will come up with a cheaper rate and at least better options to pay that doesn’t require a credit card ie: bank transfer or money orders and perhaps PayPal and a lower rate for occasional use for those of us who don’t use the software that much on a daily basis and at least keep the use of the software and our cloud services when we are ready to pay back in again if we don’t use it for awhile

    • 11.2) sarimak
      May 10, 2013 at 7:20 am

      That’s exactly why I’m so glad there are opensource alternatives like Linux (Xubuntu distribution in my case), Geeqie (fast color-managed image viewer), Darktable (RAW editor using floating-point arithmetics and thus achieving very good results in highlight reconstruction), LCMS (color management system) and Gimp (bitmap editor). Because of Darktable’s performance requirements I had to buy unlocked Core i5 + 8GB RAM + fast SSD (using Intel on-chip graphics has no negative impact on performance) but it’s still much cheaper to pay for HW than SW. Overall cost for SW is zero (including updates) and the HW will serve well many years.

    • 11.3) Pete Gould
      May 11, 2013 at 8:01 am

      Actually it may be even worse than you think. We were one of a number of businesses surveyed nearly two years ago by Adobe, which floated $150 as the target monthly fee at the time. We lit them on fire in our response, but the point is THAT’S the sweet-spot number I think they have in mind. The current pricing, I suspect, was to make the majority go quietly. So my forecast is that within a year or two they end the “introductory pricing” and the full suite goes to $150/month, perhaps adjusted upward for inflation. And perhaps the smaller suites for web development, video production, print, etc., re-emerge for maybe $75/month. So your forecast of $150/month for all your software including the OS may be very low indeed.

  12. 12) MichaelG
    May 9, 2013 at 9:55 pm

    Buh-bye. Adobe has been a mixed bag for quite a while. Some great software but some real downsides- security risks, privacy issues, tracking, pricing. This is really the last straw for me. I will be moving to an Adobe free environment as quickly as possible. By the time I would need an upgrade to my current CS I am confident there will be a viable alternative. In any event, I will not reward bad behavior. I do believe in free enterprise. Adobe is free to price any way they want. And consumers are free to vote with their wallets and their feet. Buh bye.

  13. 13) Robert
    May 9, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    It is opportunities like these that software companies will exploit…I hope Nik/DXO/others ‘cease’ the opportunity (just teasing Hoeras with the cease :)
    Maybe Adope has had its day? I recently gave Adobe Premier Elements a go and it was dismal-Sony with Movie Studio was far superior (for my work) so you never know who might jump in.

    • May 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm

      Sony Movie Studio is just a stripped down consumerized version of Vegas, the NLE I’ve been using since the 90s. Vegas Pro isn’t a feature for feature match, but it can do things Premiere can’t — better built in compositing, DAW-class audio handling, etc. It’s not going to compare to After Effects, though at least some of that’s possible in-Vegas using plug-ins suites like Boris Continuum Complete.

      Vegas was the first major NLE to go 64-bit, back in late 2007 / early 2008. It was at one point the only one to treat audio as a first class object, one of the first to use native video (no transcoding on import), the only to allow any kind of mix and match of audio and video media types in the same project, the first to do 3D (for whatever that’s worth.. .don’t use it myself). It is its own thing… some people like the Premiere UI, some the Vegas UI.

      Vegas Pro has GPU-accelerated video and rendering. Most who’ve tried both claim that Adobe’s works better, but Vegas also went directly for OpenCL, rather than CUDA, so it supported non-nVidia hardware before Adobe did.

      There’s a 30-Day demo. Give it a try if you’re doing serious video.

      And of course, if it’s not Vegas, there’s Avid’s Media Composer, Grass Valley’s Edius, Newtek’s Speed Edit, AutoDesk Smoke (Mac-only), Cinelerra/Lumiera (Linux), probably some others. Some do more than Premiere; some cost more as a result. Most video editors even support at least basic project export (EDL, AAF, Final Cut XML), so you can even move things, to an extent.

      It’s some of the other Adobe tools that are hard to replace. Like Photoshop… is GIMPShop the only serious option? Was I wise to avoid After Effects … is there anything like this that’s not insanely even more expensive?

  14. 14) Don
    May 9, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    I have searched the Adobe website to find an email address to send a complaint and am unable to find one. If anyone has one please send it to me.

    • May 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      I started a chat session yesterday with one of the Adobe support specialists and complained. All I got was “we understand your concern”. Their support is also a total fail.

      • 14.1.1) Kathleen
        May 10, 2013 at 9:26 am

        I got concerned about this a while ago and also tried a chat session. Useless! I am so grateful for this website. I understand what’s going on much better now. I have LR4 & CS6 and recently bought all of OnOne and Nik when they slashed the prices. I wasn’t sure if I really needed all of OnOne and Nik, but now I’m glad I got them.

        • The Other Don
          May 10, 2013 at 9:30 am

          Good call Kathleen. I use the NIK plugins all the time. Their B&W conversion software is unbeatable and in my opinion faster than PS… Let’s just hope Google, who now owns NIK, does not go the same way as well…

  15. 15) Don G
    May 9, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    Sounds like its time to fire up my copy of Aperture, NX2, or Graphic Convertor, wont be upgrading to LR4.

  16. May 9, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    I have been using DxO for years. Have never owned Photoshop, and for darn sure never will now. DxO may not be perfect, and can not do some of the fancy steps that are done in Photoshop, but since I am a WYSISIS (What You See Is What I Shot) sports photographer, that is not a problem for me. For all the people out there that change their pictures, good luck.


  17. 17) Peter Trinidad
    May 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm

    Argee with you Nasim. This is a total FAIL. Arrogance and Kick in the butt to all faithful users of Adobe for years. Hope they change their minds. Well, looks like photographers may move to greener pastures.

  18. 18) treat
    May 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    lol! awesome title!

    I agree with your observations and will awaiting your future articles about alternatives. Possibly GIMP, UFRAW, etc, etc.

    In the meantime, I think this relatively recent xkcd-art is quite appropos for the Adobe shenanigans…


  19. 19) Curtis
    May 9, 2013 at 10:23 pm

    One of the things Adobe did that I always thought was good was to allow a work and home installation on one licence.

    This meant that you could legally install a copy of whatever CS application you used at home if work had bought one. The question is does this still apply in the CC world?

    • May 9, 2013 at 10:54 pm

      Yes, it does. You can install up to two copies of the software on two different computers, but can use one at a time…

  20. 20) Mako2011
    May 9, 2013 at 10:25 pm

    I recently attended the National Broadcasters Association in Las Vegas. Adobe had a huge presence there. The vast majority of those customers were thrilled with Adobes position and new pricing model. They saw it as a way to continue with the full suite in a more economical way and make the decision to drop Final Cut Pro X an easy one. The Adobe folks on hand where simply less still photography oriented and indicated that the still only side of the business was so small in comparison that the new move would easily compensate for any loss in the smaller @home customer base of Photoshop /LR only customers. Things are indeed changing. We can not expect Adobe to reverse coarse. I’m hoping to just get them to go down to a single app $10 pricing. That would be fine with me. I just don’t see a as capable alternative to Photoshop at the moment. Maybe down the road. Good luck all

    • 20.1) Lardinio
      May 10, 2013 at 12:39 am

      Great point Mako. Clearly anyone who is using a vast majority of the applications benefit, those higher end users. Adobe just might lose the bottom end if they continue as they are, which provides a chance for a competitor to emerge, who could then attack the very business they sought to protect.

      Another way around this would be for Adobe to sort Elements out. Turn it from some sort of, ‘let’s pretend out customers are dunces’ application, and create a more Photoshop like experience. Element in Expert mode is not a decent experience, the amount of screen estate it uses up is ridiculous, I hate it. If they allowed for 3rd party plug ins like Nik, and stopped treating Element users like idiots, then I guess many unhappy users could migrate there. Until they move that to a subscription model too!

  21. 21) Karl Johnson
    May 9, 2013 at 10:51 pm


    Thank you for writing this article. I have been pretty frustrated with all the great reviews Creative Cloud has been getting in the photography blogging community. Your feelings pretty much sum up that I have be feeling. Thank you for being one of the few honest bloggers not afraid of Adobe. I have been reading your posts and review for a while and they have been great. The lens reviews (85mm 1.4, 24mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8) have been fantastic. Keep up that great work and honest work.

  22. 22) Roberta
    May 9, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    Thanks for posting this. It’s a huge concern for people who are retired and on a fixed income because of the pricing. The other problem I have with this is my internet service. I live in a rural area without many options for accessing the internet. At this point my only way to access the Net is via AT&T mobility and an antenna on the roof of my house connected to the air card. Not only is my service quality/speed dependent upon what is happening with the cell tower but I am also limited to a monthly allotment. Big downloads are a problem to say the least – I often have to go to a friend’s house to download software and imposing on others is not an ideal situation. I am presently using LR4 and CS5 – I upgraded to CS5 when Adobe put out the threat that CS6 would not be available unless people upgraded – I did so and poof they recanted. I understand some asked for and received a refund when that happened I hate jumping through hoops and let it slide. I’m happy using CS5 but am not uncertain if I should upgrade to CS6. Will it be no longer available as an upgrade? This whole situation is a royal PITA.

    • 22.1) Roberta
      May 9, 2013 at 11:50 pm

      Typo meant “now uncertain”….

  23. 23) Pravin Mirchandani
    May 10, 2013 at 12:41 am

    I have had experience of this model in the past and it was not good. I took out a subscription to Intuit Quickbooks, a small company accounting package. Same deal as CC: thick client, monthly subscription, ‘free’ updates. Two notable things happened. Firstly, I spent a lot more money per upgrade cycle than previously, about double. Secondly, in one of the updates they dropped an absolutely essential feature for my business, one I could not live without (multi-currency support). I didn’t realise until too late and was stuck with an automatic upgrade that brought my accounting process to a halt for several months. After several hours and weeks on the support line, Intuit, the publisher, to their credit, released me from the subscription model and cut me a perpetual license with the last release that had my critical feature. I still use it 5 years later. Of course, accountancy does not change as much as image or digital tools, so must-have new features are rare. Nevertheless, the experience was instructive and should give readers pause for thought as they contemplate Adobe’s CC subscription model.

  24. 24) John McElroy
    May 10, 2013 at 12:47 am

    Good article Nasim. I just dropped my Photoshop subscription service this past month. I had it long enough and was nearing the end of the year so shut it down. As it is I love LR and sincerely hope they don’t do go down the same route with LR as with PS. I currently have the new Nik Suite through Google and also have Perfect Photo Suite 7. Between LR and the aforementioned suites I can really do everything I want to do with my pictures. While I loved PS I couldn’t justify having it for just those “certain” fixes that happen occasionally. If they go down this same path with LR I’ll probably look at DX0 for raw processing. FastPictureViewer Professional is a robust program with many wonderful features for sorting through a picture shoot and culling the herd so to speak.
    Thanks for a most wonderful site. I’ve come to rely on your site the last few years for in-depth and insightful articles and reviews.

  25. 25) John McElroy
    May 10, 2013 at 12:50 am

    By the way, I happened to notice a little smiley face in the lower left corner of your page. Just curious, is this by design, just for fun or both!?

    • May 10, 2013 at 11:28 am

      John, that smiley face helps tracks statistics :) I was able to remove it in Chrome, but cannot get rid of it in IE for some reason. Will have to check out my CSS code one more time!

  26. 26) Marko
    May 10, 2013 at 1:20 am

    When being asked about Adobe’s overpricing strategy in Australia, the CEO of Adobe explained the Creative Cloud philosophy, over and over again, avoiding to answer the question about pricing:

    It is an arrogant “because we said so” mentality that will get the company in trouble long term.

    • May 10, 2013 at 11:30 am

      Marko, I saw this a while ago and I was pretty disgusted by his attitude.

      Btw, your link pointed to another video of “Tapir” – I fixed it for you :)

    • 26.2) DavidL
      May 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm

      Being an Aussie this makes me sick.

      Makes me want to switch back to Aperture.

  27. 27) KSPGM
    May 10, 2013 at 1:32 am

    I support your quest whole heartedly Nasim. Good to have a champion with real web ‘clout’.

    There is no ‘metering’ of usage involved. It is not like electricity – the more you use , the more you pay. There is a one off charge to purchase the software – and that’s it. I could take it to the antarctic and never speak to another human being and use it till I die or my laptop stops working with no further charge!

    I use CS6/LR4 in my own time, on my own photographs, and require no other support other than my own PC/Laptop. I have paid Adobe for the privalege of owning their software – and would be happy to pay them, on my decision, a once off additional small sum to upgrade modules like new RAW support etc. But I wish to choose when and if I do that.

    To me, what Adobe propose is equivalent to hiring a shovel to put in the shed for the odd occassion that you need to take it out to dig a hole in your garden and paying a monthly fee for the privalege of having the shovel in the shed. Who does that? I have never met anyone who does – like me they buy the shovel once and only replace it when it is broken or some clever inventor brings out ‘a better shovel’ – or they hire it on a short limited contract basis (say a weekend!) and return it when used.

    lets hope consumer power will change Adobe’s decision. It has happened before!

  28. 28) The Other Don
    May 10, 2013 at 1:33 am

    Spot on Nasim,

    Only point no.7 I take exception with. I live in Finland and have 400Mbps down and 30Mbps up, so I have the bandwidth. What I don’t have is the desire for Adobe to yank me around. I just switched from Aperture to LR but it looks like I will be going back… Great article..

    • 28.1) David Ahn
      May 10, 2013 at 1:39 pm

      Congratulations on your phenomenal bandwidth, but you’re the exception rather than the norm. I travel extensively, and from France to Italy to the Netherlands to Belgium to Sweden, in mostly large cities, I have had difficulty finding really fast internet connections.

      • 28.1.1) The Other Don
        May 10, 2013 at 1:57 pm

        You’ve been to Sweden and you couldn’t find really fast Internet? Sorry but Sweden had the worlds first REAL LTE network and has mobile broadband and fix broadband for years… I travel to France, Germany, Italy and the rest of the countries you’ve mentioned as well and while not as fast as where I actually live, the Internet speeds are decent. Only in the US are the speeds there crappy and uber-expensive.

  29. 29) Simon
    May 10, 2013 at 1:33 am

    Hi Nasim
    While I agree with your arguments, you are incorrect about camera raw support. New releases will still be available also for CS6 (at least for the time beeing) according to Adobe. The only difference will be no new features, but support for new camera models.

    • May 10, 2013 at 11:39 am

      Simon, the updates will be limited to RAW support only, with no new ACR8 features. On top of that, Adobe says that it does not know when they will stop doing this…

  30. 30) MarrinG
    May 10, 2013 at 1:47 am

    I was more than a little annoyed by this ridiculous move. I have sent feedback to Adobe but have not heard back. I was thinking about moving to LR. That is now completely off, not because it is not a good program, but because my (small amount of) faith in Adobe has been completely shattered.

    I recently bought CS6 (design suite) because of Adobe’s mean and rapacious updates policy.(More below).
    I am retiring soon so a subscription model is completely unacceptable. I was planning to upgrade much less often to take account of the change in the amount of cas coming in.
    There is more – Adobe has adopted a suicidal strategy which will be monstrously unpopular. If they want us to move to a new model they would offer it as an alternative and make it more economic over the normal lif cycle but allow those who want a perpetual licence to do so. It is not just the idea of the subscription process I dislike so much is is the decision to give us no other option and try to force us to accept it.

    I was VERY cross when Adobe refused to offer a way to open D800 NEF files directly into photoshop. Other software simply issued an update. Aperture simply opened the files after a support update was issued, something Adobe refused to do. I eventually upgraded but would have much rather have waited until CS7. So Adobe has already shown enormous contempt for the average user, now they pull this heinous stunt.

    I have used alternatives. GIMP has its limits (I think its path selection tools are however much better than Adobe’s path tools). Last time I looked GIMP did not support 14 bit only 8 bit editing. Most tools (but not all) are more powerful in PS.

    Aperture has many good tools, but is not an alternative to PS. It is the template Adobe based LR on. It had its problems early on but got better around version 3 and the price was reduced. It is now well overdue for a proper overhaul. Fingers crossed. In any event, it is a Mac only program, so it is not any option for many.

    • 30.1) Flores
      May 10, 2013 at 10:05 am

      Lightroom was perhaps very much looking to compete with Aperture at the beginning but I think it’s present look came much more from Rawshooter, from Pixmantec, acquired by Adobe slightly before the release of the first non-beta version of Lightroom.

      Rawshooter had two versions, a free and a “professional” one. I still have the free version installed in two of my old PCs. I really liked Rawshooter and got a bit sad when Adobe bought Pixmantec and discontinued the free version. To their defence they did offer a very good price to previous Rawshooter costumers but by that time I had already moved to DxO Optics.

      Best regards,


  31. 31) The Other Don
    May 10, 2013 at 1:54 am


    You are correct except when you make the comparison between Aperture and are literally mixing apples and oranges. Aperture is for photo editing while PS is a graphic design tool that can be used to photo edit.. Aperture is woefully underpowered and appears to be abandon-ware by Apple…

    • 31.1) MarrinG
      May 10, 2013 at 2:12 am

      I think you will find I am agreement with you. It was designed not to compete with Photoshop. It does very limited editing but there are several good tools in Aperture. I agree it is well overdue for a major upgrade but don’t hold your breath. I was not trying to compare them. I am surprised you missed that. I said “Aperture is not an alternative to Photoshop”. That is very clear and not an attempt to compare apples with oranges.

      • 31.1.1) The Other Don
        May 10, 2013 at 2:15 am

        Sorry MarrinG,

        Missed that. We are in complete agreement. Sort of annoyed that I sprung for CS6 and LR even if I did get them with the Student Teacher discount. Not another penny on Adobe products..

        • MarrinG
          May 10, 2013 at 2:39 am

          I don’t regret getting CS6, it is good software.

          What is so annoying is their CRAZY decision. Feels a lot like realising you have been conned.
          Is there a way I can avoid ever buying another Adobe product?
          Will they see sense and allow a more flexible product range.?

          I think the outrage which is circulating on the Internet is completely justified. If they suffer a plunge in share value, a steep decline in profits it and massive customer outrage,it will be entirely their own fault.

  32. 32) Richard
    May 10, 2013 at 2:12 am

    My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that this is yet another example of corporate arrogance of which Adobe is a world leader. I have also noticed that there has been no update of Adobe’s camera DNG converter and this affects D7100 users, I wonder if there ever will be now?

    Lets hope that Google are working hard to create a brand new Capture NX2 with a bridge type interface. I’m sure Lightroom will go the same way, so plenty of scope for others to up their game. May be the kick up the butt that Adobe need. To alter Shakespeare’s words I say “a curse on all their houses”.


  33. 33) Peter G.
    May 10, 2013 at 2:12 am

    Glad I have Nikon Capture NX2… It’s all I need for what I do…. No Adobe for me .

  34. 34) MJohn
    May 10, 2013 at 2:25 am

    Great article. And for me who currently live in the Middle East have no option “now” to go CC but CS but later have to switch over to CC again forced to loose money. Extortion again.

  35. 35) dencelly
    May 10, 2013 at 2:27 am

    An artist who has no income, would no longer be able to use Adobe products. He could not continue working to create new income. He would also no longer be able to edit what he has created with Adobe products or to use these. This is absurd. It seems, that this decision is made by people without vision and incredible greed.

  36. May 10, 2013 at 2:38 am

    I have CS6 Extended and Lightroom 4 but will not even think of paying 20 dollars a month, that is a stupid move from adobe, but I also have Paint Shop Pro X5 and let me say it has 90% of what photoshop has (surprised no one said anything about that) for me PSP X5 and RAW Therepee would be all I need.

  37. May 10, 2013 at 2:49 am

    Thank you Nasim for a first class article and response.

    I am an adobe software user for nearly 25 years. Mainly as a designer within a company. I now work freelance and offer photography as a service as well.
    Adobe have proved themselves to be vain, arrogant, greedy, misdirected and incredibly stupid with this appalling action.
    The best way to deal with them is not to buy into this charlatan action. It’s guaranteed that if you do the price will hike up and never come down, anyone that signs up to this Faustian deal will regret it.
    Refuse, hit Adobe where they have been hitting us for years – in the wallet.

  38. 38) Martin
    May 10, 2013 at 3:13 am

    I wonder what Nikon and Canon will make of this. My understanding is that any future “professional” DSLRs will not be Photoshop accessible through CS6, so “upgrading” to the next camera body will require accepting that one will be permanently paying a monthly Adobe subscription.

    I have a D3s, a D800, and CS6. Great cameras. Great software.

    The next Nikon will have to be something out of this world before I would consider buying, more especially knowing, as I now do, that part of the upgrade will be a permanent extra monthly cost to Adobe.

    I think that I will be staying put for some time.

  39. May 10, 2013 at 3:17 am

    Hello Nasim,
    I really appreciate your thoughts and I agree with you; I was hoping that Adobe could lower their introductory price, following the google nik suite’s example, so that the base of the people that could buy Photoshop will increase. Instead they decided to go opposite direction and I’m really curious to see what will be the real reaction from the market.

    • 39.1) Richard
      May 10, 2013 at 3:29 am

      I’m not really curious as Adobe have little or no interest in the serious amateur, we do not provide the revenue, but are just an interested minority sitting on the touch line! Sorry to be so cynical, but that’s the reality and they will do whatever they want and won’t care about us.


      • May 10, 2013 at 3:31 am

        for sure, since they know they have the far best product in the market with no alternatives..

  40. May 10, 2013 at 3:27 am

    Nasim, spot on as usual:) Being a designer, I have been working with Photoshop since it’s first inception, yes that long:( About a year ago I decided to look for an alternative (Pixelmator? Gimp?) Mainly because I felt that the ‘upgrade path’ had become too expensive for the single user, what I saw was pretty good basic software which was being more bloated year by year. By ‘bloated’ I mean most of the ‘enhancements’ seem to be just different ways of doing the same thing, there are only so many ways you can move a pixel! (I still don’t use ‘Adjustment Levels) Apple do the same with the OS except at least the to let some of the dumber ideas fade away and not be mentioned after a few years. When you buy Photoshop these days you’re not really buying software or enhancements, you’re paying for the Adobe Roadshow. If Adobe had just stuck to selling a basic, but excellent, software package, they would almost be able to give it away free by now. The Creative Cloud doesn’t seem to have grabbed designer’s imagination, so is the only option to frogmarch us up there? I don’t think so:) Cheers Nasim.

  41. 41) Russ
    May 10, 2013 at 3:44 am

    There are still thousands of people on dial-up speeds – imagine downloading the software! Some people like to have non-internet connected machines as their editing machines, safeguarding against viruses etc., how’s that going to work?

    Pure arrogance on Adobe’s part.

  42. May 10, 2013 at 3:46 am

    I have CS6 and LR4 and I will stay with CS6 for the forseeable future. Most of the things I use Photoshop for have been in it for many versions and most of the newer features have third party alternatives.

    One thing Adobe have done is to create a large potential market for someone else if they are able to produce a viable alternative to Photoshop.

  43. 43) FrancoisR
    May 10, 2013 at 3:58 am

    Thanks for informative article!

    Time for me to take a new DXiOn and a good reason to learn other software. It’s their swan song…

  44. 44) Doug
    May 10, 2013 at 4:03 am

    To be honest, moving to the subscription model doesn’t bother me as much.

    Because I’m a hobbyist in both video and photography (pictures and video of the family, everyday life), paying the monthly fees for the suite enables me to use Photoshop, Lightroom, Premiere Pro, After Effects, etc. Purchasing these products individually or as part of the Master Collection would be quite expensive. Effectively renting the software instead is a more cost-effective option.

    I agree that paying $240 to use Photoshop is expensive. Unfortunately (as my wife reminds me), photography is an expensive hobby/profession. As a Canon brand user, almost every L lens is well to the north of $1,000. Photoshop is the L quality of photo editing software. Unfortunately, photography requires us to pay a lot to play.

    For people who can’t afford to use Photoshop, there are a variety of very good options (e.g., Aperture, Pixelmater). Adobe isn’t forcing people to use Photoshop — it’s not the only game in town. However, it’s the best photo editing product and Adobe knows it. I suspect that a lot of serious hobbyists and professionals will swallow hard and pay the additional cost. At the end of the day, we want to produce the best images or video that we can and Adobe helps us do that.

  45. 45) David
    May 10, 2013 at 4:13 am

    If Adobe do not change this stance, then its the end for Photoshop.

    I’m finding that I rarely use Photoshop now, only when I get it wrong in camera.
    I use Lightroom as my everyday tool, so lets hope that Adobe leave that alone.
    Lightroom and the Nik software plugins are enough for me, I had a full version of Silver Efex 2 and Google sent me a link to download the whole package for free….that’s better customer service!

  46. 46) Christine
    May 10, 2013 at 4:24 am

    Hello Nasim,
    I actually did not know about it. And it is a serious concern for me, as I a a graphic and web designer as much as a photographer, and $600 a year is a lot of money.
    Your article may have given me the clue why I had a problem opening my RAW files though. I have a Nikon 7000 and Photoshop CS5. Can you comment? Thanks.

  47. 47) Earle
    May 10, 2013 at 4:57 am

    Et Tu Nasim?

    I read this post just now because I saw the email notice. Your first five problems with the planned conversion to CC are spot on.

    But please at least research basic things like, um, pricing. I own CS6 and LR4. And just like anybody who currently owns CS6 (or from what I’ve read pretty much everywhere who is responsibly covering the Creative Cloud conversions) the buy-in for the first year is a $10 a month fee to use the latest and greatest Photoshop and get all the updates etc. So that’s what, $120 a year? I haven’t seen the student/teacher pricing so I can’t comment on that, except to say that I could see some sort of annual validation that one is actually still a teacher or student to use the product.

    Your seventh point about CC requiring connection to high speed internet. Yes, you’re absolutely right, to download that (or any software) initially, it’s more than helpful. Same for updates. But to work with the software dailly, one won’t need to be connected to the internet at all. For the check-in for subscription validation every 37 days? I don’t know.

    Your eighth point (I should point out here that the .EPS format is far from proprietary, the only time I ever used it was putting out entire newspaper pages with Quark Xpress back in the early ’90s), I can’t speak to any video files, I’m not a video guy. But for the file that most photographers will be concerned, the RAW files produced by cameras may be .DNGs but for your site) we’re talking .NEFs or other proprietary RAW files that are then converted by ACR. so Lightroom will work fine (and the new Lightroom 5 Beta release includes even more actual editing features). It’s been a while since I dealt with Photoshop Elements, but from what I can tell from cursory web checks, some form of ACR is included there too.

    My only concern with Photoshop CC is how it will handle plug-ins. If I can use my existing plug-ins with the CC version, I’m a likely subscriber. If I can’t? That’s a decision for me. Would I buy new plug ins for software that I don’t own but only pay an annual fee to access? I don’t know. Maybe annual fees for yoru favorite plug-ins are the next shoe to drop. Then again, more and more, plug ins are becoming Lightroom compatible as well.

    You want be another photographer chiming in from the sidelines, write comments like you have. You want to be a resource for other photographers and considered an authority (and that’s exactly what this blog purports to be — and in general does a fine job, I used your review of a D3S in my decision to buy a used one) you should not base anything on what reads like me too off-the-cuff research.

    It’s also grandstanding. You — and your family — run a professional photography business. As far as I know it’s your sole means of income. That means — on your taxes — you’re depreciating the value of the computer or tablet you’re reading this on, deducting your cell phone subscription, internet subscription, gear insurance premiums and likely already writing off the expense of purchasing your current software. You most certainly will be able to write off your Photoshop CC subscription.

    That holds true for every professional photographers. Amateurs and part-time professionals? Not so much. So part-time pros who just jump into this will pay more and may not be able to deduct Adobe CC subscriptions. Amateurs certainly won’t — like all other consumers. But it’s not a consumer product — Photoshop Elements is.

    There is a difference, sure. Adobe outlines those differences here:

    Adobe has its reasons to move to a cloud-based format for Photoshop and the users it eyes for that product — as the reader who attended the National Association of Broadcasters convention noted — those guys love the idea. Individual users who can deduct subscriptions from going businesses anyway? Baseless whining. Individual users who can’t (part-time pros and hobbyists)? They do have an issue. Part-time pros can also just factor that cost in their hourly rate.

    All this gnashing reminds me of the uproar when Nikon came out with the D3X at what was then an astronomical price. People who could actually use it as a work tool bought it. Others who lusted after 24mp complained.

    Will individual users go to GIMP (I have friend who raves about that as well as the virtues of Linux, yet uses Windows and PS6) or Picasa? Sure. Will hobbyists who still want Adobe’s industry standard feel opt for Elements instead then spend the extra couple hundred dollars on gear? Maybe.

    As NAPP President Scott Kelby is often fond to say (and I’m just paraphrasing) life isn’t fair and photography isn’t a cheap hobby.

    • 47.1) Rob
      May 10, 2013 at 6:06 am

      Here lies the voice of reason. This is the sign of the times I’m afraid. If I were running Adobe, this is what I would do. Flexibility and agility are key. A more dynamic platform is needed and this is their approach. You have to understand that the costs of distribution, packaging, physical marketing (branding), security (you think holograms are cheap) etc – let’s not forget piracy – are all built into the current, final product costs. Overtime, prices may drop or R&D investment may increase – either of which will be a plus. I think you need to take your heads out of the cloud – or at least recognise that this one just might have a silver lining. (And, by the way, I am a very senior experienced procurement practitioner, and having purchased both site-based and cloud-based solutions for a number of years, view this as a positive step.)

    • 47.2) David Ahn
      May 10, 2013 at 11:01 am

      @Earle, you make a few good points; it is indeed harder for a hobbyist (like me) to justify $600 a year on something that nets us no profit, so we have more to complain about. Someone making $60 to $250K a year as a pro could easily justify $600 a year in software, but that doesn’t mean he should be happy about it, especially if it used to cost $600 every 3-4 years. I remind you that a tax deduction is NOT the same as money in your pocket; deduct $600, you still have $600 less in your pocket; pay 30% tax on $600 you didn’t spend, that’s $420 more in your pocket than if you’d spent $600; now multiply that by 2-4 years depending on how often you USED to upgrade your software.

      • 47.2.1) Earle
        May 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm

        @David Ahn You’re absolutely right, hobbyists get slammed if they want to continue using what’s essentially professional software. This so reminds me of the outcry when Nikon released its $8,000 list price D3X. Pros who could actually see it as a way of making money bought it. Others did not. Some railed againt the pricing (like this) and that is their right.

        Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But for the love of the First Amendement people, can we please STOP yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

        For Photoshop CC it is supposed to cost about $20 a month, or $240 a year to subscribe to Photoshop. If you already own CS3 or above, it costs $120 a year and may go to $240 a year or more.

        That $600 figure applies for people who never had Photoshop before and want the full creative suite, with Illustrator and In Design, etc. It’s just plain wrong to constantly use that figure. It sure whips up the crowd into a frenzy though.

        Interestingly enough, factoring in the 18-month upgrade cycle, if someone who already owns Photoshop subscribed to Photoshop CC for three year with the currently announced price structure, it would cost $120 plus $2409 plus $240 or, um, $600. So the working pro you cite should be happy with that.

        But I don’t seek conflict. I would appreciate it if you (and others — maybe even the host of this blog) would base your arguments on facts.

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          May 10, 2013 at 4:39 pm

          Earle, 18 month upgrade cycle is only good for a person that always updates. See the comments in this article from other people and you will quickly realize that very few actually update that often. I upgraded to CS6 just because of Camera RAW support – I did not care for the new functionality on CS6, CS5 was good enough for me (back then, I hated the fact that Adobe forced me to upgrade as well). So please do not do your math based on the usual upgrade cycle, since even many pros like me rarely update every time Adobe releases something new. And if I go back and take a look at the last couple of releases of Photoshop, I only see one feature that was worth the upgrade for me – content aware tool in CS5. Everything else is junk for my everyday needs. I am not a graphics designer, so I only look at things that will make editing images easier and better. Judging from the past, Adobe cannot deliver new truly useful tools for photographers in every single release, so I am not surprised to see that few people actually upgrade.

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          May 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm

          Also, please point out where I am wrong and stated incorrect facts. I am not basing my math on the $120 per year price, as I know that the price is only introductory. Factoring in the potential price increase in the future, this so called “discount” is negligible. Adobe does specials every year, where you can buy a boxed version of Photoshop for around $300. Take a look at this deal from last year, for example. Do I get these sort of occasional discounts with the Creative Cloud?

          My personal problem with Adobe is not their pricing, that’s only one of the factors…

        • David Ahn
          May 10, 2013 at 7:37 pm

          @Earle, my $600 a year figure was simply an example to show that tax deductions aren’t actual savings, and based on the whole creative suite, which is what I’ve used for years. I upgrade every few years as a hobbyist and I’m going to take one last plunge with CS (only because I want the Retina MBP support) educational, and wait for other options to mature. I’m not really telling Adobe what they should be doing, or anyone else for that matter… just saying 1) Adobe wants to squeeze fresh profits out of old code (1% new every year) by orphaning great software that people have paid for and that still works for them, and 2) a lot of people won’t go along with it. Adobe will still be around, as the market is not homogeneous; those willing to pay subscriptions like yourself will pay, those unwilling will find other options, and the world will still keep turning.

        • Mono
          October 6, 2013 at 5:51 pm

          Paying more for the same is a privilege that makes one feel professional and special.

          And those amateurs will not be able to afford the professional tools, they toohk our jabs!


    • May 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm

      Earle, great points, thank you for bringing them up.

      Regarding pricing: $120 per year is an introductory rate for existing CS owners. That pricing is there for the first year, to lure people into moving to the cloud. As soon as the first year expires, you are back to $240 per year (assuming that the $20/month cost stays the same by then). So this “incentive” is only good for the first year. Now take your CS license cost and compare that to a 3 year plan (with an assumption that you upgrade every 3 years) – my math tells me that Creative Cloud is more expensive than what I paid for my CS6. For new owners, the Creative Cloud might sound a little better, but not for those who already own it (as I pointed out in the article).

      As for the Internet connection – it is not a concern for me, but it can be a concern for others (see other comments about this). And if you do not keep connected to the Internet, the software will stop working after a 30+ day period, as it has to validate that you are still subscribed.

      Regarding file formats, I am not talking about camera files here. If you use Illustrator, Photoshop or other Adobe software, they all have their proprietary file formats. Yes, some of those can be opened via third party software, but how good is third party software if it does not have all the functionality that Adobe provides for that particular file? If you happen to drop your subscription, your only option will be to save your files in “compatibility mode”, so that your old CS suite can open it. And those that never owned Adobe software, will have to resort to third party tools. The whole idea of losing access to software just because you stopped paying for it does not sound attractive to me. Again, this is not a traditional SaaS package!

      Plugins should work fine with CC.

      As far as being able to afford Adobe CC – I can certainly afford it. For me personally, price is not the issue – it is the whole idea of moving to a subscription model. I simply refuse to pay for software on a monthly basis. I already have enough monthly payments on my credit card and I do not need another one. I also do not upgrade every time a new version of Photoshop comes out – I have done it maybe 2-3 times in the last 10 years. What bugs me about Adobe is not the price (although it is surely a concern for many). What bugs me is their attitude towards their customers. A subscription model like this kills innovation! This is a great example of corporate greed. This is not your average maintenance price, this is what Adobe wants to charge all of its customers. As a business owner, I absolutely hate the fact that a software vendor pushes me towards a certain decision. In the IT world, if a software company switches to a full SaaS model, they will lose many customers. That’s why they now offer both and let the customer decide. If SAP or Oracle go after their customers and tell them that they have no choice but to move to the cloud, they will be in a lot of trouble. Even Microsoft pointed this out as a premature decision – that has to tell you a lot about Adobe’s direction.

      As for the consumer vs professional argument, if Adobe has plans to move many of its Photoshop users to Elements, that’s their decision. People will find alternatives and Adobe will eventually lose its market share. There are millions of people that use Photoshop for their occasional needs. It simply means that Adobe will never get that crowd into their “creative cloud”.

      Regarding your D3X comment – take a look at what happened to that line. Very few people ended up purchasing the camera when compared to other pro-level cameras and price was the main reason. Nikon ended up with a D800 that is a world better than the 3x priced D3X, because it realized that it made a stupid mistake. If Nikon continued similar pricing strategy on all of its products, it would have no market share left by now…

      Again, Adobe jumped the gun too early on its cloud offering. Instead of putting enterprise and individual users into the same bucket, Adobe should have offered cloud services with collaboration to enterprise, while keeping their CS line for individuals. It is all about giving choices to customers and Adobe clearly does not want to understand that.

      • 47.3.1) Earle
        May 10, 2013 at 6:25 pm


        First, thanks for your cordial replies. This is the first time I’ve had a chance to reply.

        Regarding the D3X, I seem to recall the camera always in short supply during the sweet spot of its life cycle. Did it sell as many units as say the D40 or D3000-series cameras Of course not. And I expect Nikon made more off of those cameras than it did off of the D3X. And I seem to recall D800 sticker shock when that camera came out too. Then again there was sticker shock when the D600 didn’t come in at the rumored $1,500 price but came in slightly north of $2K. Come to think of it, both of those cameras were released with problems.

        My pricing comment was aimed more at the other gentleman who kept on calling Photoshop CC a $600 a year commitment.

        But can you please tell me why you discount the $120 initial price offering in your observations about Photoshop Creative Cloud yet point to an outdated discount program for CS6 and Lightroom 4(did anyone acutally pay more than @$70 for Lightroom 4, ever? to try and establish a base price of $300 for CS6? Those who bought in at that price were fortunate and it was a true discount just as Nikon’s decision to sell the D600 and 28-85 for a price that basically gave the lens away for free was a true discount. Nikon won’t be shipping out new lenses free in the near future.

        From my perspective, you can’t have it both ways.

        And the truth is, no one knows what the future subscription prices will be.

        My day job is in the newspaper business (or what’s left of it) and I’m very familiar with the concept of subscription sales and churn. There are people who will subscribe only during sales, drop the paper and (hopefully) be brought back after a while — usually with some sort of specialized offer. Who’s to say Adobe won’t “extend” the $120 offer for the first-years. Or offer those who first buy in for $240 a year that sweetheart $10 a month deal to get them to re-up for year two. Or offer the flexibility offered for corporate users to activate a license as needed in month-long increments.

        You can’t answer that question any more than I can.

        As for the fact that if you don’t pay to keep your subscription going you lose access … that happens with internet access, cell phone access and everything else.

        It’s really not that much different that the sales practices of many photographers. Case in point, wedding photographers (I don’t mean to pick on wedding photographers, one could easily use portrait photographers, senior candid/portrait photographers or the latest rage “invite me to your special event” photographers). You pay a photographer to come in, shoot the blessed day.

        Then, in most every case, does the photographer tell the customer, thanks for the payment, here’s a hard drive with full-resolution, edited copies of EVERYTHING I shot, have a nice life?

        I think not, they’re selling prints, photo books, maybe tossing in a couple of Facebook sized low-res files. And then if the customer wants more. Those images are sold again. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But at what price are THOSE reprints sold? At whatever markup the photographer deems fit. With Smugmug and Zenfolio (ironically also subscription-bases services) the photographer doesn’t even need to do much more than send the customer the link where they can order the finished product.

        How again is that sales strategy any less diabolical that the proposed subscription service? There is no difference.

        After all, you can save every image you EVER create with Photoshop as jpegs — which can be opened by hosts of programs everywhere. Would you lose access to your PSDs (barring some occasional program as others have noted or, say, Elements in a “compatibility version)? Why yes. And that’s akin to giving customers prints or web-sized images while retaining the high quality digital files for eventual resale.

        • David Ahn
          May 10, 2013 at 7:43 pm

          There’s nothing diabolical about trying to make money, the problem is charging steep subscription fees for software I bought outright that will no longer be updated to support newer CPUs, GPUs, OSes, and cameras get updated. It’s like asking me to pay $500 a month for a car I paid off 5 years ago; sure, they make it look shiny and new, but it’s the same car with a new coat of paint and now it has Bluetooth.

          Earle, are you an Adobe employee, or just a very loyal customer?

          • Earle
            May 10, 2013 at 8:31 pm

            David, I am only a customer. I’m also a trained journalist who makes a living being objective.

            In the last few months I also have had to fork over money to Microsoft to buy yet another version of Microsoft Office because when I upgraded to Mountain Lion, Apple’s OS no longer supported that version of Office. And just last weekend I had to buy new scanning software for the exact same reason. When faced with a choice between Silverfast — which would charge me for two licenses (at fairly hefty fees) to use two scanners, I opted for VueScan, which cost one-third the cost of Silverfast and allows me to use it on both scanners. Am I annoyed that the MS Office suite I bought when I owned a Power PC-based laptop no longer works with my current computer? Yes. Did I call Microsoft names for not offering me any sort of upgrade discount from my old software or Apple names for pulling the plug on continued support for my old software? No.

            Take my word for it, I cursed loudly, marveled at the fact that when I bought the software through Amazon that it cost more to just buy a digital download and email me an activation key than have them ship me what was an essentially a piece of cardboard with the code.

            You lose me with the car analogy though.

            You can use your current Photoshop with your existing computer (apologies, I forget if it’s CS3, 4, 5 or 6) and existing camera. If you change camera or computer and you cannot then you will need alternative software. It’s your choice.

            If enough people choose to jump off, as you’re inclined to do, Adobe will then face its own decision as to whether change how it offers a subscription or maybe even reverse field (as others have mentioned, the New Coke, Classic Coke syndrome).

        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          May 10, 2013 at 8:09 pm

          “Regarding the D3X, I seem to recall the camera always in short supply during the sweet spot of its life cycle” – I think you are confusing the D3X with some other camera. It never had a sweet spot of its life cycle. It was always available and very few people were buying it when compared to D3 and D3s.

          “And I seem to recall D800 sticker shock when that camera came out too” – I think you are also confusing this one. In fact, people were quite shocked to see the D800 at $3K (check out this post). Because of its attractive price, the D800 sold like crazy. People had to wait for months to receive their preorder.

          “Then again there was sticker shock when the D600 didn’t come in at the rumored $1,500 price but came in slightly north of $2K” – sticker shock? The $1,500 price tag was only a wish, people understood quite well that a full-frame camera would not be priced that low. Again, check some of the articles on this and other blogs for reference.

          “But can you please tell me why you discount the $120 initial price offering in your observations about Photoshop Creative Cloud yet point to an outdated discount program for CS6 and Lightroom 4(did anyone acutally pay more than @$70 for Lightroom 4, ever? to try and establish a base price of $300 for CS6?”. Because the discount is initial. Many of us that own CS6 are not planning to upgrade to anything else for another year or two, until Camera RAW is no longer updated. So that intro $120 offer will most likely expire by then. As for the Photoshop price, it was actually priced lower than $300 at one point for the full version. I have a friend that bought it for $289 during the holidays. Please don’t tell me that everyone buys Photoshop at its full $599 price – it is discounted quite a bit, especially during the holidays and that’s when people buy.

          As for Adobe discounts for Creative Cloud, let’s see what happens – their initial offers are not appealing to me and many others.

          Either way, even with its $120 per year discount, add the numbers up for a period of 3-5 years and consider a person who already owns the software and pays $150-200 for upgrading. Two years at $360 is already more expensive than $150-200 for the upgrade. Now do this for 5-6 years and you will see why so many people are angry.

          “As for the fact that if you don’t pay to keep your subscription going you lose access … that happens with internet access, cell phone access and everything else.” – if I lose access to the Internet, I still have my apps on my computer – I don’t lose access to them. If my cell phone bill is not paid, I still have my phone and all the apps I bought for it – I don’t lose them. Sorry, but your argument does not work here.

          As for your wedding photographer argument, there are photographers that do both. My wife owns a wedding photography business and she always provides high resolution photos to her clients. She does not lie to her clients and even if she did charge for photos, she would make sure that her clients are well aware of it before signing a contract. Her prices would obviously reflect this… So let’s not compare what a wedding photographer does for business to Adobe – that’s not a good comparison.

          Lastly, why would I want to save work I create with layers, filters, vectors, etc in a JPEG file? I would never be able to work on that same file again if I wanted to change anything. Third party tools can open PSD files, but not all of them can render the files the same way that Photoshop does. The same goes for all other proprietary Adobe formats. I would never save a photograph in PSD format – there is TIFF and other image formats for that. I am talking about more complex stuff, where you blend multiple layers, add text, objects, etc.

          • Earle
            May 10, 2013 at 9:03 pm

            Nasim, you are correct, I was confusing the overseas concern about the disparity in the price of the D800 in great Britain at it’s initial offering. However, from time to time I’d peek over at the D3X on B&H’s site during the sweet spot (I was referring to the life cycle of the camera, not pricing) and never seeing it in stock.

            I’m not discounting that people in the past may have paid $289 for Photoshop. That deal’s not on the table anymore and, well chances are it’s not coming back anytime soon. They saved $311 on Photoshop, a wise buy.

            Time will tell on how the subscription plan plays out. If it’s unappealing to you, I expect you to vote with your wallet — you’ve got two years to see whether other options are more appealing. We clearly have no common ground with that matter.

            When I was saying one could save images as a jpeg, I was referring to the actual image, with the layers merged down. The types of files one typically uses to post to the web, send to clients who prefer jpegs vs. Tiffs etc.

            Lastly, I’m sorry you took offense at my wedding/portrait/event photographer analogy. But you also misread it. Not once did I indicate that a photographer with that type of sales flow (essentially charge a sitting/shooting/event fee, provide prints/books/maybe some FB quality digital files — then charge again at some markup above cost for reprints) was lying to the client. That was not my intention. I was pointing out that photographers frequently make profit off of reprints above and beyond the reprint cost and — in this day and age — are doing so basically at a click of a button through third-party sites such as Smugmug and Zenfolio. The ironic part there being that those are subscription services.

            But to illustrate how misunderstandings occur, if I read your post correctly, your wife always supplies her clients with high resolution digital files that they can then use to reproduce prints at will and never need to interact with her again for that event (and charges accordingly). If that’s the case, so be it. But if that’s not the case I misunderstood what you wrote and I’m asking (as politely as I can) for clarification.

            Have a pleasant evening,


            • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
              May 10, 2013 at 10:10 pm

              Earle, I did not take any offence at all regarding your wedding photography comment :) Just stated out that there are photographers doing both and that my wife would always be straightforward with her clients, letting them know what they get. And yes, when she provides high resolution images to her clients, they never come back to her requesting images at extra cost – they only come back for more work or when they lose the DVD. Some of them choose to do prints professionally through my wife, others want to do it themselves – but she leaves that up to the client to decide. As for being honest and not lying, there is also truth in what you said earlier – there are some dishonest photographers out there. But they don’t stay for long and end up going out of business or charging little for their bad services (unfortunately). And yes, clients have the right to reproduce prints at will for their own use, since they own the high resolution images – who would stop them from doing that? Now it is another story if clients get images published somewhere, or submit work as their own. For those situations, the contract clearly states what kind of rights they have. She will never give original RAW files to her clients for that very reason.

              Hope this clarifies things a little better :)

  48. 48) Jim Ballantyne
    May 10, 2013 at 5:24 am

    I read somewhere that the Ts and Cs of Adobe that allow Adobe to terminate the use, by any user of their service, and deny access to any assets that person may have lodged in their services, at any time, with-out notice, and to remove, (or destroy?) any material owned by such a person that Adobe hold on their services.

    Consider the consequences for you business if Adobe choose to do this to your assets, perhaps for legal reasons. Perhaps Adobe having been forced to comply with a court order, they may have no alternative. Too bad if later you are found to have been incorrectly identified as the wrongdoer and your current work is no longer available?

    It is imperative to have a strategy that ensures you are never wholly dependent on Cloud services. Any company that has sole control of your assets has unreasonable control over your business, personal or commercial.

    It may be to the advantage of anyone considering, or already using the cloud to read all general terms and conditions and make their own decision about the risk to their assets that may be solely or jointly in the hands of a third party.

    Oh Yes. Here is where I read this; in “The Adobe General Terms of Use”:-


    Paragraph 15:

    “15. Investigations.

    15.1 Adobe, in its sole discretion, may (but has no obligation to) monitor or review the Services and Materials at any time. Without limiting the foregoing, Adobe shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to remove any of Your Material for any reason (or no reason), including if it violates the Terms or any Law.

    15.2 Although Adobe does not generally monitor User activity occurring in connection with the Services or Materials, if Adobe becomes aware of any possible violations by you of any provision of the Terms, Adobe reserves the right to investigate such violations, and Adobe may, at its sole discretion, immediately terminate your rights hereunder, including your right to use the Services or Materials, or change, alter, or remove Your Material or Account Information, in whole or in part, without prior notice to you. If, as a result of such investigation, Adobe believes that criminal activity has occurred, Adobe reserves the right to refer the matter to, and to cooperate with, any and all applicable law enforcement authorities. Except to the extent prohibited by applicable Law, Adobe is entitled to retain and/or disclose any information or Materials, including Your Material or Account Information (or elements thereof), in Adobe’s possession in connection with your use of the Services to (a) comply with applicable Law, legal process, or governmental request; (b) enforce the Terms; (c) respond to any claims that Your Material violates the Terms or rights of third parties; (d) respond to your requests for customer services; or (e) protect the rights, property or personal safety of Adobe, its Users, or third parties, including the public at large, as Adobe in its sole discretion believes to be necessary or appropriate.”

    • May 10, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      Jim, thanks for pointing this out. I can imagine how one would feel to find their subscription service terminated and everything removed. Another reason to stay away from such offerings.

    • 48.2) EnPassant
      May 10, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      That begs the question: Criminal activity according to which law? US law or the law in the country the user lives?
      In some places on earth it is a crime to criticize the government. On the other hand there are surely things considered criminal in USA but not in other countries.

  49. 49) Michael
    May 10, 2013 at 5:49 am

    While I too, am disturbed about this move by Adobe, I can view it a bit differently. Creative Suite is no longer for photographers. It is a full graphics design studio in a box and as such, is priced well for commercial work. Even as a subscription model. What Adobe is doing is preparing its customers for the future of pricing, and delivery. While not a true SaaS as you point out, it will be at some point.

    Lightroom 5 (beta) is a photographer’s tool and it continues to incorporate more and more that a photographer needs. I’m sure that many of us use Photoshop far less than we used to.

    Thirdly, as someone pointed out, Google’s Nik will now get on the development fast track and add more products and features.

    By the way, if you shoot with a D4 and pro lens, you’re paying over $8000 to take a picture. I don’t hear anyone complaining about that, and the upgrade every 2-3 years many of us purchase…

    As always, the marketplace will decide. I, for one, will keep CS6, will not buy the subscription, will use LR and Nik, and await the next product suite that will invariable arrive before the next PS upgrade.

    • 49.1) Peter G.
      May 10, 2013 at 6:52 am

      By the way, if you shoot with a D4 and pro lens, you’re paying over $8000 to take a picture. I don’t hear anyone complaining about that, and the upgrade every 2-3 years many of us purchase…

      You mean that to take two photos costs $16,000 ? :-) ( BTW ..I shoot with D3S, D3 and D2Xs )
      I use NX2 and it does all that need to do with my photos.

    • May 10, 2013 at 4:59 pm

      Michael, Adobe considers Lightroom to be a professional tool as well, so what happens when that gets moved to the cloud? That $20 subscription will be $40 per month for Photoshop and Lightroom. I cannot wait until Google or someone else that Adobe cannot buy comes up with a great alternative to Photoshop. Lightroom is replaceable, but Photoshop sadly has no competition at this point.

      As for the D4 and pro glass, yes, you pay a lot of money for the camera, but you own it! You can sell it anytime you want and it is an asset. With Creative Cloud, you are renting the software and have no option to own the license that you could sell or transfer.

  50. 50) Glenn
    May 10, 2013 at 5:59 am

    Looks like they are getting sick of people like me that are still happy with PSE6 for Mac. I don’t get what these people are thinking. How many more X amounts a month can the average person afford. I already got like four insurances, gas, electric, Directv, phone, garbage,etc, etc, etc at X a month!
    Heck I don’t have an iPhone cause I do not want that X amount a month for data!

  51. 51) HomoSapiensWannaBe
    May 10, 2013 at 6:28 am

    Well put, Nasim. Adobe deserves a loud F___ Y__ on this one. I was considering whether to purchase Photoshop CS6, but will definitely not do so now.

    On the other hand, this may open a chance for a competitor to emerge. I don’t like depending on a dominant player for any product or service.

  52. 52) Rick Lunn
    May 10, 2013 at 6:50 am

    There is a real problem with item number 1 under “Problems with Creative Cloud Subscription Model”. You never have owned your Photoshop software! (That’s where I sopped reading) All you ever owned was a license to use Photoshop, you have NEVER owned the software. Read the small print. I have never in my life seen so many cry babies. Think back to when you shot nothing but film. Unless you shot black and white and did your own developing and printing (some developed color also, but not many) most photographers spent way more than $50 or $10 or $20 per month on the price of film and having it processed. Geez get real! If you don’t like it move to something you can afford. I wish Adobe all the success in the world on this venture, and so should every photographer.

    • May 10, 2013 at 11:14 am

      Rick, you should have read the rest of the article before posting your comment. I spent over 15 years in IT and I certainly know a thing or two about software licensing. For people who do not understand how licensing works, it does not matter if you call it “software” or a “license” – both are the same for them. What they do understand, is that once they own the software license, they have a right to sell it or transfer to another person, so even if they never own the actual software, they certainly own the license with transfer rights.

      You call people that refuse to accept the cloud model “cry babies”? Seriously? Read the comments above, on DPReview and many other sites and you see EXACTLY the same reaction. Even Scott Kelby’s supportive article got a lot of heat from his readers, some canceling their Kelby training subscriptions (just saw that this morning). Film? I never shot film, so your comment on its monthly cost does not work for me.

      • 52.1.1) David Ahn
        May 10, 2013 at 1:25 pm

        Nasim, ignore him… he’s just a troll. Seriously, who sides with a $4B/yr company over real people trying to feed their families?

        • Diane
          May 10, 2013 at 8:19 pm

          Well said, David! I was thinking the same thing.

  53. May 10, 2013 at 6:58 am

    Its clear that Adobe does not value amateurs as much as professionals. Elements is a mess, LR continues to lack essential features found on in CS6 and the costs of CC are double what an upgrade every 18 months was. Many pros I know are in financial difficulty,indeed many camera makers are not doing as well as they have. In the end there are more amateurs than pros.

    Most importantly Adobe messaging and its hard to navigate website have been the source of all sorts of misconceptions.

    As you say one big fail. Many solutions have been proposed by Kelby and others, lets see if the new coke gets a fix or not.

    The 9.95 deal is on until July 31 lets wait and see if anything happens before that.

  54. May 10, 2013 at 7:00 am

    Seems to me that this is just a standard ‘Internet’ reaction where the mob run around moaning because something has changed.

    Your argument about RAW support going out of date applied when the software could be bought off the shelf so you had to regularly shell out £200 for updates every 12-18 months anyway.

    So an alternative view point:
    Point 1: You rent many things in life: houses, telephone lines, power connections, water connections etc Stop paying them and you know longer have them so not sure why software being on the same basis is so evil other than the fact its a change.
    2. You never had control of the pricing when it came in a box. Prices rise for just about everything you buy these days. Software especially as the cost of developing is always increasing as a people centric process and they always want more money.
    3. Agreed, but refer to point 1.
    4. Just like most things in life, if you can’t afford them you can’t have them. There are many various alternative free platforms available.
    5. Whether its really more expensive or not depends entirely on how you used to buy. If you upgraded all the time it is neutral. Also remember they dropped the ability to upgrade from anything but the most recent versions so that shortened the gap between upgrades. The sweetener is they will now give you regular updates outside the annual cycle. Even $50/month isn’t really that much – a meal out once a month? If a business can’t afford that then I’d say they have bigger issues to worry about. Think about how that compares to upgrading your pro camera every three years (which you don’t really need to do)
    6. Agree its clearly aimed at moving you to the main bundle if you use more than one product.
    7. A minor point. It’s a one off download and you can always just leave it running. And you don’t need to take the updates if you don’t want to.
    8. I think you will find there are numerous other programs out there that will open those files e.g. gimp. Plus, as the vast majority of users already have a version of CS you can always revert to using that or use it to batch convert your files. It works alongside the CC versions.

    A couple of positive points:
    You get access to regular updates that occur more frequently than 12-18 months (no having to wait for them to put it in a box and release it)
    Most businesses prefer an Opex model to Capex
    Its better for the planet. No more cardboard boxes and plastic wrapping
    You can take it for just a month if you want (although it is more expensive)
    You can install it on Mac or PC with no mucking about with changing licences
    You can run it on two devices (didnt spot anything saying they had to be owned by the same person…)

    I’ve also worked in IT for many years and most software vendors are desperately looking to move to a SaaS model for the guaranteed revenue. Plus the reality is most got you with the support fees which no reputable business would avoid paying (especially as many compliance programs require software to be current and maintained).

    No one is being forced to do anything. Stick with the current versions you have now (at least for as long as it works on your OS). Move to an alternative (the vast majority of people never use more than 10% of the functionality anyway).
    It’s unlikely to bring them down, the casual users (who are the majority complaining) are often the ones who don’t pay for it anyway. The heavy users are the ones they are aiming this at. End of the day the only thing that will make them reconsider is just how many people sign up in the next 12-18 months and if it matches the number they had in their head (petitions will just be ignored). If they keep adding new features that people want (which is why people buy it in the first place) then I think takeup will continue to increase.

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:50 am

      Ian, let’s not compare a software product to your monthly utilities. If we go with the same approach, we might as well make everything SaaS – your operating system, office, browser, itunes, etc. I doubt you can talk people into spending $100 or more for their computer.

      As I have pointed out in the article, SaaS is great for companies that do not want to invest in datacenter infrastructure. But even that is debatable, as there is no “one size fits all” solution. One of my last projects was SAP ERP implementation and the software ran on a couple of Dell servers in VmWare environment. For a small company with 50 corporate employees, it made no sense to move SAP to the cloud. Now if that same implementation was for a global company with thousands of employees, then SaaS would make more sense. But SAP does not force you to move to the cloud, as they understand that the SaaS model has its own problems. Take a look at all those businesses that could not operate because of Katrina and Sandy – many were not even in the same region, but used the datacenters that were cut off.

      Most companies operate on a maintenance model today, including SAP. If you buy their software and decide to host it yourself, you pay a 20% maintenance fee annually. So if you have $200K worth of licensing, you pay $40K per year. That maintenance fee covers all new software updates and support. But if one day your business cannot pay that maintenance or you move to a different platform, you can keep using the software – you just lose access to updates and support.

      But this is not what Adobe is doing. There is no license, there is no maintenance – you pay for the whole thing and lose access when you don’t. That’s what I do not like about it…

    • 54.2) Pete Gould
      May 11, 2013 at 8:16 am

      You are of course completely wrong, but it will probably take you a couple of years to learn it.

      For one thing, a major reason for Adobe to innovate stems from the fact that in the traditional pricing model, they only make money when they produce an upgrade with features people want, at a price that incites them to buy. The rental model guarantees income whether they continue to innovate or not – unless a competitor comes out with something that can replace the whole suite, which is unlikely (and if it showed signs of happening Adobe would simply buy them up as it has with 60 other companies).

      For another, $50/month is a first-year introductory price, intended to incentivize people to move quietly to the new model. When Adobe first surveyed us about this concept the price they were floating was $150/month. If they get away with this, that’s where I expect the price to go quickly.

      And if this works for Adobe, expect all other software companies to follow suit. It’s great for them: guaranteed monthly income with no particular need to innovate further.

      If you think that’s great I would suggest switching to another beverage: you’ve been drinking MUCH too much Kool Aid.

    • 54.3) Mono
      October 6, 2013 at 6:43 pm

      It’s been months, but this is very simple:

      I can have a license of Photoshop for 20 years and it will cost nothing extra to Adobe. I could still be running windows 95 and a Ancient Word edition on a 486, or writing text in an Amiga500 word processor. It doesn’t cost the companies nothing. Why would I pay by the month? They have developed software, they have taken the costs, they had their sales, it’s over. They can develop something better and offer an upgrade or new software if they want my money. That’s what is fair.

      But when I have a 20 euro a month phone/dsl deal, it costs the company more than 15 euro just to keep me connected. They have to keep me there for at least a year, just to make a small profit. The same costs apply to the local authorities that pick up the garbage and fix the holes in the pavement, the electricity company, etc. They are doing something every day to provide the service, that’s why I pay by the month.

      It’s funny that we are discussing if a deal is fair, and the quality, competency, professionalism of the customer come into the discussion along with irrelevant comparisons that attempt to justify the decision of the company. These things are completely irrelevant.

      Switching from selling to renting a a major change that should normally be made public and discussed between the two committed parties up front. When one-sided changes appear, it’s always because the side that decides on them believe the have the upper hand in the partnership and making the rules. But it’s our money and the customer should come first.

      Most of the revenue of Adobe comes from amateurs, because they are new players in most markets or simply inferior to the competition. The only exception is Photoshop. They shouldn’t alienate amateurs like that. They should lower their prices and get in more households, not try to build prestige, exclusivity and service models. Avid own the professional video and audio market and they are moving the other way, reinforcing their position in the educational market and lowering commercial pricing.

  55. 55) Larry Todd
    May 10, 2013 at 7:10 am

    I agree, this is a bad move on the part of Adobe. This is what happens when one company dominates the market. They can more or less do whatever they want. So many photographers depend on the use of Photoshop in particular and probably Lightroom as well. I have a few thoughts about all of this. I assume if we purchased a packaged version of the software that it should be good indefinitely. Realistically one could expect to probably stretch five years or so at the most is my guess.

    1.) The vast majority of Photoshop and Lightroom users are probably amateur hobbyists. I could be wrong, but this is my guess based on what I think I know on the photography market. The new pricing model from a personal perspective definitely will hurt a lot of people and that is unfortunate. If you are a professional, it is a reasonable cost in your business operating expenses versus the return you get from your work. In a strange and unfortunate way, maybe this will help professional photographers by starting to separate the amateurs from the professionals. The amateur weekend warrior photographer has definitely been an issue for many of my professional photography friends.

    2.) I typically use a couple releases back in Photoshop because I mostly work with film and analog processes and only scan in my work for web display, etc. Most of my edits are extremely basic and could be done in Aperture or another low end program probably. I think this is a good time for me to purchase Aperture and start learning it as might be the case for many others. Or, at least go get a trial of the software and try it out.

    In closing, I think what we are seeing with Adobe is the start of a trend for modern digital photographers. Get used to it and get your wallet out. Now that so many of these companies have the market on a continual treadmill of spending money, it will over time just be the “norm”, or at least that is what they want you to think. A couple of converging issues are happening. Companies are mostly moving to a model where they are no longer shipping physical software any longer. It is the new norm, for better or worse. I also think this Adobe topic highlights why I love working with analog equipment and processes so much. Adobe could fall off the planet tomorrow and it really wouldn’t hurt me or my business. I might be a dinosaur to a contemporary DSLR user, but that is okay because it helps my work stand out from the masses. I encourage the readers here to either dust off your old film camera or go out and get one very cheap. Do some authentic photography where you have to get it right in the camera and learn to develop your own film and make prints with your hands. Make the darkroom your Photoshop and if you need the print online, just get an inexpensive scanner and call it a day. You don’t need to spend a lot of money to enjoy photography or to produce professional results. The greats before us produced world-class photography without computers and certainly without Photoshop, so maybe it is time for us to get back to the basics again and evaluate our own work individually.

    Just my two cents…


  56. 56) Kayar
    May 10, 2013 at 7:15 am

    I am a wedding photographer and Adobes new direction sucks. I am also looking for alternatives. I think I will switch to Aperture. Lightroom will go to the cloud. that is for sure.

    • 56.1) Tim Mielke
      May 10, 2013 at 9:03 am

      If you need a photo editor, I have used GIMP. It reads and write PSD files too.

  57. 57) Knips
    May 10, 2013 at 7:24 am

    Nasim’s article is the most intelligent response to Adobe’s new “pay-for-play” program that I have read.

    I upgrade with each version of Photoshop but realize that it hasn’t been money well spent for me. Most upgrades are evolutionary and make tasks a bit easier but not revolutionary allowing me to do things I otherwise could not do. The novelty upgrades are not a “must have” and I generally revert back to my tried and true workflow. I.E. -“Camera shake” correction is a neat thing to have but let’s face it, if you have to rely on software to correct camera shake……………

    I can live for a very long time with my copy of CS6. I will go with PS-cloud if I have to when the enhancements and upgrades actually do something for me. Lightroom is a different problem. I have put too much time into cataloging and keywording to afford to lose it. But I don’t think they can use this model with Lightroom. Too many acceptable alternatives like Aperture, etc and if enough Adobe users become disgruntled, it’s all the more reason for Adobe’s competitors to gun their software development to provide a more attractive product to expand their user base.

  58. 58) Peter
    May 10, 2013 at 7:55 am

    Thanks for the warning, Nasim.

    It’s time for me to look at other software as a replacement for PS. Their monopolistic attitude has always annoyed me, so now I have a good reason to switch.

    I never loaded my PS with plug-ins because I didn’t want to rely on Adobe for just this reason.

    • 58.1) Tim Mielke
      May 10, 2013 at 9:01 am

      GIMP has some comparisons to Photoshop and can write and read some of its files types too.

  59. 59) Richard D
    May 10, 2013 at 8:34 am

    Just another 2 cents worth of my input.

    Adobe is in business to make money, and, yes, they have the right to do what they think will grow and continue their business.

    But, I think most people here do have valid concerns and gripes, so I’ll add one more.

    I did say that I would perhaps consider going to Aperture or something else in the future if LR moved to this new model. But I bet for many here, it has taken some time to become as proficient as they are with either PS or LR. Maybe many of us don’t have the time or don’t want to take the time to learn a completely new product. Although I currently use LR for the bulk of my photo editing, I also have Nik. However, while I think the Nik plug-ins are very nice, I don’t use them too often because I simply don’t know them that well, and it takes me a lot longer to process an image with Nik than it does with LR.

    Photography is not my main line of work, but I do a little on the side, and it helps to have that little bit of income. I’d also like to increase the amount of photography work (and income) if possible. If I were to have to go to this new model for some reason (and, perhaps, I never would), I can see that it wouldn’t work for me if I would have more ongoing expenses. I think this new model would prevent someone like me from going into it and perhaps might even prevent someone from expanding their photography work, if they see that they either have to completely learn a new product, or have ongoing expenses.

    I can understand how heavy users of PS who rely entirely on this for their income might welcome this change, but I think it will hurt those of us who don’t use it that often….and, again, I really hope they don’t move LR to this model.

    • May 10, 2013 at 11:05 am

      Richard, yes, I fully agree with you. Those of us that rarely use Photoshop will see no benefit from this cloud offering, so they will be forced to use an older version indefinitely, or find alternatives.

  60. May 10, 2013 at 8:44 am

    Hopefully, the people of Adobe will change their minds. But let’s not hold our breath.

    Cloud or no cloud, Adobe has to confront the spectre of hackers. Maybe the software can’t be contained on a computer, but there are many ways to load the code. It’s a shame as Adobe was one of the more lenient companies regarding piracy.

    • May 10, 2013 at 11:03 am

      John, Adobe already addressed the hacking concern and said that its new cloud software does not block hacking attempts. Because it is a local install, I am sure hackers will find a way to get it cracked. However, I do not really see the point, because you won’t have any access to the cloud without a subscription anyway.

      • 60.1.1) John Smith
        May 10, 2013 at 11:45 am

        Than you, Nasim. I just think that it is a murky problem that will create more murky problems. Also, if hackers bring down Adobe, that could be a problem in immediate access.

        • TimR
          May 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm

          heres where we need hackers help.. would love to call on all hackers around the world to hack up adobes subscription services to bit and pieces for as long it takes until Adobe backs down and decide to return to the boxed software again.. hey Anonymous… are you listening?? ;-D

  61. 61) Noel
    May 10, 2013 at 8:50 am

    This is just wrong and unfair. Professional or amateur photographers need not be connected to the internet for their work, forced to pay additional fees, nor cut off from using the software. Adobe might lose to other editing programs. Too bad.

  62. May 10, 2013 at 8:54 am

    Very well written. I agree with your points against the CC move. The alternative software choices I believe will arise. My prediction is something funded by Google.

    I teach Digital Media and Photography at a small college and we usually tried to skip a version to save upgrade costs. Now the school is probably going to raise the budget needs for the Adobe software. In the end, who pays for it? The customers–the students.

    At this point, I am unaware of any educational discounts like before. In this economy unless they give heavy educational institution discounts, I believe this Creative Cloud will hurt Adobe in the educational community.

  63. 63) Ron
    May 10, 2013 at 9:00 am

    Adobe’s policy change lead me to give GNU’s Gimp a try. It turns out that Gimp does everything I use Photoshop for just fine (mostly clone, patch, and heal). And Gimp is free, although I do donate to GNU. Cutting ties with Adobe turns out to be painless as far as Photoshop is concerned.

  64. 64) Flores
    May 10, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Hi Nasim

    I also see a move to “cloud” (subscription) only as bad, I very much prefer the present situation in which everyone can choose the solution that seems more appropriate at the time but thinking about it this is not so different from present situation as it seems. Adobe (and others) has been slowly moving in this direction for years and they are only making it more obvious now.

    For example, you say “You never own the software – that’s right, you are paying a monthly subscription fee and you will never own the software”. I haven’t read a recent Adobe license agreement but most software houses I know never sell you the software. They only sell rights to use. That may surprise most people but it has been like that for as long as I remember (and I’m not exactly a young guy).

    Another “problem” one can see in subscriptions is the need to periodically check the subscription state over the Internet. But current Adobe products will also stop working if one does not revalidate its license state periodically (see what happened when Adobe discontinued its CS2 validation servers…).

    So, again, I agree this is a move in the wrong direction, but it’s far from being something new, most software houses have been moving in this direction for years.

    Best regards,


  65. 65) Grant
    May 10, 2013 at 9:26 am

    They lose so many million$ on piracy, I can’t really blame them. I know I’ve certainly used those I speak of (in the past, of course)

    • May 11, 2013 at 8:42 am

      Do you actually have any evience to support that they’ve lost millions from piracy? Every study I’ve seen (other than those paid for by BSA and similar companies) says that there are no losses, and probably are gains. After all, which is worse for the software company, someone using a pirated version of that company’s software, or using their competitor’s software?

    • 65.2) David Ahn
      May 11, 2013 at 9:53 pm

      The SPA releases best-case numbers in billions in lost revenues based on every pirated copy being converted to a full retail price purchase. As a hobbyist, I may play with a $1000 software package I download off and on, but if I couldn’t download it, I’m not going to buy that unless it’s going to make me money. Most professionals who rely on software to earn their living will buy licenses because they need technical support, because loss of use = loss of revenue.

      My unscientific estimate is that 90-99% of all pirated copies would NOT have resulted in a sale if piracy were completely blocked.

  66. 66) Richard D
    May 10, 2013 at 9:34 am

    Another comment…..many have suggested using something like GIMP. That’s certainly a good suggestion to consider.

    But I have concerns about free software like this. Many like me become very dependent upon something we use very often. That’s one reason I have paid for my LR upgrades over the years…..because one would think Adobe might be around for a long time. I don’t know if I have that same feeling of comfort with something that is free and which might just “disappear.” It doesn’t seem as if someone who produces free software would be as obligated to try to continue producing upgrades and continue to produce free software as someone who actually gets paid for their software. Maybe that’s not the case, but something to think about.

    • 66.1) Ron
      May 10, 2013 at 10:49 am

      In reply to Richard D., my guess is that GNU will outlast Adobe. GNU has a solid support base derived mostly from donations from commercial enterprises for whom their software is critical to support their own products. GNU’s GCC compiler suite is the leading example. In the grand scheme of things tech, GNU is far more important than Adobe.

  67. May 10, 2013 at 9:47 am

    It is funny how all the pricing revolves around the “update” pricing. No one has mentioned the initial cost of Photoshop. If you had bought the latest iteration of PS it would have cost you $700. If you don’t update for 24 months, that equates to $29 per month. (~$15 over 48 months) Granted this monthly amount will decrease over time, if you don’t upgrade PS. You can tell where I’m going with this. Figure the rest out yourself. :~)

    • 67.1) Richard d
      May 10, 2013 at 10:19 am

      I’m not quite sure when I bought my first copy of Photoshop, and I don’t even remember which version it was, but I think I only paid about $200, but almost certainly not more than $300, to start with many years ago. I just don’t think I have ever paid much more than $200 for a single piece of new software. I also don’t remember when I upgraded to CS3, but that was a number of years after my first copy of Photoshop. I think I probably only paid about $200 for the upgrade.

      I also know that I almost certainly upgraded to CS3 no later than early 2007. So, that would now be 6 years (72 months) that I would have been using CS3. I am now considering upgrading again to CS6 but really need to figure out what this whole new modelling pricing really means.

      My gut feeling is that the way I use CS, upgrading perhaps every 3 available upgrades, it is cheaper for me to go that route than to continually pay a monthly fee. I’m just making a rough estimate, but I’ve probably paid $600 in total for the original CS plus the single upgrade I’ve had, over roughly 8 years? 8x12x$20/month = $1920.

      But, we’ll see.

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:30 am

      Rick, actually, it is the other way around – all the positive posts about Adobe I see show the cost of purchasing the license, along with upgrades. But that math does not work for those of us that actually own Photoshop. Also, Photoshop CS6 price is not $700 as you indicated, it is $600.

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:31 am

      One more thing, see the link on the above post that shows a good Photoshop + Lightroom deal. People rarely buy Photoshop at its retail price of $600. So saying that new license with upgrade fees is more than subscription is not true for even many new and existing Photoshop owners.

  68. 68) Art
    May 10, 2013 at 10:29 am

    Nasim thanks for taking the time to share your views on this subject.
    I agree with your views on Adobes decision to discontinue their boxed versions of creative Suite. I do know some people who are in the graphic design business and they think that this is the best thing since sliced bread, but for me it is a bad deal because in the long run it will cost me more money since I only use Photoshop and at $20 per month it just does not seem worth it.
    I was going to take advantage of the $10 per month deal since I have CS5 and it would give me time to explore other options, but Adobe would not let me pay for the whole year and insisted that I would have to pay month to month even though you are required to subscribe for a year for that price. I politely told them that I did not want them saving my credit card information on their servers, but they said that I would not be able to subscribe unless they were able to charge my card on a month to month basis.
    So I will use CS5 until I find another solution. (time to relearn GIMP) Hopefully Adobe will realize that they are isolating a lot of users and come up with a better solution. I personally will let Adobe know of my displeasure by not giving them any of my hard earned money. This includes any future purchases of Lightroom or Elements. Maybe if enough photographers refuse to give their money to buy Adobe products they will decide to change the way they do business. Unfortunately this may also impact others such as Scott Kelby who sells instructional books and videos for Photoshop. Companies like Adobe will only change its policies if it hurts their bottom line and they have to answer to stock holders.
    But this may have good results such as other companies filling the void that Adobe has left some of us in.
    Just a suggestion but maybe Photography Life could do some software reviews in the future.

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:35 am

      Art, yes, the new pricing certainly sounds very attractive for businesses that do graphic design. But what about individual photographers? As you can see, many are in fact concerned about this forced move to the cloud and pricing is a big concern.

      As for software reviews, that’s definitely in the pipeline – need to do more of those and do a post on “alternatives to adobe photoshop”.

      • 68.1.1) William Jones
        May 10, 2013 at 10:45 am

        Nasim, just a quick suggestion: How about an article that lists all of the available photo editing programs (in reading the above comments, several have been mentioned that I had never heard of before)? The article could also provide a link to the home page for that software, so that people could do their own research on the available options. Lastly, for each software, list required platforms (PC and Mac, PC only, Mac only).

        Detailed reviews of the programs could be done in follow-up articles.


        • Profile photo of Nasim Mansurov Nasim Mansurov
          May 10, 2013 at 10:52 am

          William, that’s a good idea, I will put that in my “to-do” list.

          • Diane
            May 10, 2013 at 8:06 pm

            Thank you for yet another excellent and most informative article, Nasim.

            Additionally, I would like to echo William’s suggestion regarding reviews of photo editing programs. That would be awesome!

            Thanks in advance~

      • 68.1.2) Art
        May 10, 2013 at 11:21 am

        I totally agree with you on all your points and like you said it does hurt the individual photographer and I am one of them.
        Even though I do not make my entire living off of photography (I have friend who sells my photography at local craft fairs) it does pay for my equipment (barely) and it is going to force me to find alternatives because with Adobes attitude toward the individual photographer I refuse to purchase any more of their products. This means additional future expenses and time finding replacements for not only Photoshop but Lightroom also.
        For now I can get by on Lightroom 4 and Photoshop CS 5 but eventually I will have to upgrade.
        I am looking forward to any “Alternatives to Adobe” articles. Also if there is any way I can help (i.e. purchasing software for review, etc.) just let me know.

  69. 69) Manzini
    May 10, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Would you know when they intend to put this into effect? I would want to buy my boxed cs6 before then!
    Thanks for the info.

    • May 10, 2013 at 10:56 am

      Manzini, for now the word is that they will indefinitely continue to sell the boxed version of CS6. You can already move to the Creative Cloud anytime you want.

  70. 70) Matt
    May 10, 2013 at 10:54 am


    Thank you. I have skimmed the conversation but am unclear about whether the proposed changes by Adobe will affect Lightroom. Will they?

    I read your posts every day; thanks for all you do.


    • May 10, 2013 at 10:57 am

      Matt, Adobe says that for now Lightroom is not affected, but they also indicated that it might move to the cloud fully in the future. As of now, Lightroom is already a part of the Creative Cloud.

  71. 71) John
    May 10, 2013 at 11:22 am

    We can all make our voice heard by signing a petition against Creative Cloud mandatory option:

    And yes, we have Youtube video click to mock the offering already:

  72. 72) Peter
    May 10, 2013 at 11:30 am



    • 72.1) timr
      May 10, 2013 at 11:38 am

      expect well over 500 and up.. this is HUGE…

      • 72.1.1) Peter
        May 10, 2013 at 12:06 pm

        Hummm! You might be closed to the truth than I am.

        I’ll change my comment estimate to 350.

    • 72.2) John
      May 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm

      You missed the outpour of negative comments on CNET over the last few days. People are furious with more than 650 comments to one article alone.

      This is creating the same outrage as Netflix decision to raise prices 60% back in 2011. I think Adobe jumped the gun on this decision and unless they listen to the feedback and tweak the CC offering, they risk to lose many loyal customers. Forcing consumers into a new and unpopular business cloud model might cost them greatly.

      It might be a bone to the competition and invite more innovation into the digital image editing business.

  73. 73) Andy, London UK
    May 10, 2013 at 11:39 am

    “Would not buy again”.

  74. 74) Rick
    May 10, 2013 at 12:11 pm

    Over the last couple of years I have come to rely almost exclusively on Lightroom plus plugins such as Nik. If I can’t get a good photo with that, then I feel I should get out and shoot more instead of labouring over a flawed photo in PS/Elements, with a few exceptions. I realize this isn’t a solution for everyone though. At least if I am one day forced to go subscription because of a new camera body, I won’t have to subscribe to as many products.

    For those photographers who haven’t tried Nik or OnOne products, I suggest giving them a try. I find Nik more stable. You may also find you really don’t need PS either. I do hope sales for Adobe suffer so that they will reconsider.

  75. 75) David Ahn
    May 10, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    I hear a lot of people crying “arrogance” or “stupidity”. I propose a twofold motivation: fear that future upgraders will dwindle as each iteration gets less groundbreaking, and past success selling subscriptions. The subscription model is the desperation of a company that has grown too large to innovate, and whose lack of innovation has led to shrinking growth ( Since so many bought without coercion, they’re now trying extortion to force holdouts to buy in. Microsoft went down the path of begging for monthly donations, then Intuit (Quickbooks), but neither was stupid enough to bluff this boldly: pay or take your business elsewhere.

    I predict the development of alternative software will accelerate due to this push from Adobe. I believe that GIMP will see a lot more contributors get onboard, and smaller companies will make major bids to become players.

    • 75.1) Ron
      May 10, 2013 at 10:28 pm

      The chart suggests that Adobe is a failing company.

  76. 76) Brian
    May 10, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Hi, Nasim.

    Great summary of the problems with CC. Do you or any of your readers have any info on what portions of Adobe’s income stream comes from professional graphics and photography houses vs. amateur and semi-professional photographers? If those of us who don’t earn much or any income from photography only represent 5% of their revenue, for instance, I don’t think they will care if all of us stop buying/renting their products. If, on the other hand, we represent 50% of their income, our complaints might have an effect. Thanks.

  77. 77) the fox
    May 10, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    What Adobe is doing pretty much drives people to pirated versions. Its the elephant in the room. MS tried to use DRM and it was an epic (man, I am starting to hate that term) failure. I see this as similar. Adobe has a way of slapping buyers of their products in the face by already assuming you are a weasel. I just did a fresh install of Mountain Lion and using Little Snitch, was getting very angry about the endless phone homes Adobe does. I’m of the belief that if Adobe brought the prices down, more people would purchase. Even better, I feel Apple should buy them. Aperture’s prices were brought down. Just random thoughts but, Adobe comes across as arrogant and ruthless.

    • 77.1) Don
      May 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm

      Yes, elephant is in the room and it just took a big Sxxt…!!!

  78. May 10, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    Just when I was thinking about moving from Aperture to Lightroom… maybe I don’t want to support Adobe because of this!

  79. 79) Chris Weller
    May 10, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Not sure if this was covered in the comments above, but I also believe this signals that adobe no longer believes they can provide enough value in future releases of these mature products to convince people to upgrade to the new version.

    In my opinion, this is their way of saying, “hey we can’t squeeze enough profit out of future versions because we are on the downside of the product cycle.” If they put out new versions and no one buys, there is no revenue for adobe. Once CS6 is off the shelves, this strategy locks people in to paying for the software regardless whether they want or need new features.

    To me this also separates these products into the “Pro-only” category. Many amatuers who currently use Photoshop now, will likely just use Lightroom and Photoshop elements instead. Segregation of the market. Force the pro’s who really need it to pay more and let the others go to a lower-end product.

    This is a huge wide open door for a competitor. If I’m google, and I own the best plug-in’s in the market (Nik) and a very competent editing platform (Picassa), I sink a ton of R&D into this gaping hole and eat Adobe’s lunch.

    • 79.1) Peter
      May 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm

      I think you may be right as to Adobe’s product strategy. There’s just so much you can do with CS.

      I had CS3 and upgraded to CS5. Honestly, I could get along fine with CS3, but got forced into upgrading because of a new policy Adobe introduced. Now, they’re at it again. Once burned twice shy.

    • May 10, 2013 at 3:15 pm

      Chris, you would be surprised to find out how many people are on older versions of Creative Suite. Adobe does not want them sticking to their old software anymore and wants to force them to update. Not cool.

    • 79.3) David Ahn
      May 10, 2013 at 7:57 pm

      Chris, exactly what I’ve been saying. It’s time for leaner, faster players (including open source) to steal fat cat Adobe’s captive market.

  80. 80) jdl
    May 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm


    This is only an hypothesis, but I’m pretty sure Updates Rollout will be much slower as Adobe won’t feel to innovate to attract new client/current client over new features.

    I’m working for a big company here, ~40k employees. I have yet to figure out ‘how’ to bring this to Internet security department/Software acquisition dept., etc. Approval to go with Adobe CC’s gonna be incredibly painful.

    On a personnal note, I bought CS6 for webdesign (or something like that) and lightroom 4. I’ll make sure to stick with it and look at other solutions when the software will be outdated.

    • 80.1) Chris Weller
      May 10, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      Agreed 1000%. Human nature, without the need to innovate with new features in order to convince people and companies to purchase, they will have very little motivation to make this product as good as it would be if they had to SELL new versions to people who already own a perfectly capable version of the software. They will only innovate when they are forced to.

      GOOGLE, your turn to apply pressure!

  81. 81) Andrew
    May 10, 2013 at 2:26 pm

    Not that you need yet another person agreeing with you, but here goes…

    I paid $300 for CS3 way back when, and upgraded to CS6 for $300 (yes, paid full price for upgrade) about 3 years later for a grand total of $600 for about 5yrs of software. I wasn’t planning on upgrading this time around because… well… I’m not all that excited about the updates. I find that it makes sense (for me) to upgrade Photoshop about every other release. So $600 for probably 6-7 yrs of use. About $100 yr.

    Why on earth does anyone (Read: Adobe) think I would prefer to pay $240/year for incremental updates I would not have purchased at their release anyway? But they’ve got me by the short hairs because of Raw, thank goodness for Lightroom. If they move that to subscription… Let’s just say the thought scares me. Makes a guy seriously consider going back to film where you were not beholden to some software company, just an enlarger and a few toxic chemicals. :)

    • May 10, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      Yup, same here, only paid 2-3 times for upgrades in the past…

  82. 82) incognito
    May 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Nasim, i didn’t read all comments, maybe it’s answered here already, but I read on their FAQ, you need to go online at least once in 30 days, software is fully installed on your computer.
    Next- PS6 alone cost around 600$, subscription cost 20$ a month, so, you spent 600$ in 30 month, its 3.5 years… I see only good points here, I don’t need to spent so much money to get this product, I can get genuine now for only 20$ a month. I lived with cracked all the time cos I couldn’t afford 600$ for software, since dec or jan, I use this option in UK, I’m very happy with this, finally I have fully working Adobe Bridge, cracked version didn’t worked properly. OK, for proffesionals, 600$ is not a big deal, but for enthusiasts… I better save my money and buy some photo gear, it’s almost half from new D600 body or one nice lens.
    Like everything, Adobe CC has its weaknesses, but I see many good points too.

    • May 10, 2013 at 5:02 pm

      Yes, you need to connect every ~30 days or the software will stop working. As for PS6 cost, it is often discounted quite a bit to around $300, so I would not use the $600 price for a comparison.

    • 82.2) David Ahn
      May 10, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      Ahem, incognito, 30 months is 2.5 years, not 3.5. The problem is not just the cost, though that is a problem for people who wait years between updates. The problem is when they have enough subscribers needing their monthly CS fix, there’s no incentive for them to innovate. Even if they largely tread water and only add support for new hardware, they still make just as much as if they constantly created tons of new features; paying Adobe every month regardless of worthy upgrades is a DISincentive for them to innovate.

  83. May 10, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Check out Serif’s PhotoPlus software. Good price and can do a LOT.

  84. 84) ashok
    May 10, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    hi, i am checking out pixbuilder which is offerred by wnsoft… its very similar to cs and best of all free. the layers screen looks different and there is no raw conversion as yet. otherwise even many of the screen look similr to cs.. the quality of the imges are as good asanything adobe delivers. so check it out for yr self… i wud be very interested to hear what others think of pixbuilder….

  85. 85) B Heiting
    May 10, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    What the corporate fan boys (and girls) don’t seem to be considering is that Adobe soon will control all of your digital property produced with their software, whether or not you have a copyright, or whether it resides on your computer drive or their servers. Hard for me to believe that the legal eagles of any ad agency will gladly turn over million$ of corp. property to the whims of Adobe, and/or the courts.

  86. 86) Ron
    May 10, 2013 at 10:03 pm

    For those looking for alternatives to Adobe products, the following site appears to be a nearly exhaustive listing of what’s available:

    • 86.1) Alan
      May 11, 2013 at 3:58 am

      There is no mention of DXO or any NIK products.

      • 86.1.1) Ron
        May 11, 2013 at 7:38 am

        Thanks. After watching this tutorial and trying Gimp it appears that DxO Optics Pro 8 and Gimp 2.8.4 are the perfect exits from Lightroom and Photoshop.

  87. 87) Florian
    May 11, 2013 at 1:57 am

    There’s another thing about pricing …
    You certainly remember the discussion about software pricing outside the US. It wasn’t just about Adobe, but Adobe was surely one of the companies at the centre of this discussion. Basically, the logic behind this was that the distribution of boxed software is expensive.
    Great! With a download-only, subscription based model, prices will finally become fair. Or so I though … So, you guys pay $20, right? That would be a bit over 15€ here. But the annual commitment subscription is actually 24.59€ (that’s almost $32).
    Yeah, the same math you’ve seen elsewhere still works if you take the price of the boxed software. But 60% extra charges for not distributing boxed software?

  88. May 11, 2013 at 3:45 am

    Hi Nasim, I know you’re busy (mainly reading this thread:) It would be great if you could do a quick review of the newly updated Pixelmator 2.2 (Mac only)

    This software has had it’s problems in the past, and does seem to run a little slow sometimes but… if they can do it for… wait for it… $15! Enough said?

    • May 11, 2013 at 4:29 am

      Ok I know I’m replying to myself but here goes:) Another aspect of Adobe’s flawed philosophy is, Apple often, in the past, have upgraded the OS and rendered some elements of Photoshop either unusable or conflicting with the Mac, maybe for 6 months or more. So how’s it going to go in the future? Are customers going to be happy paying a monthly fee for software that doesn’t work properly for a considerable amount of time? Will Adobe just blame Apple? Will customers be able to withhold their subscription?

  89. 89) Daniel
    May 11, 2013 at 3:56 am

    Great summary of points there Nasim. Unfortunately, Adobe are jumping on the bandwagon created by other software giants like Electronic Arts and Activision / Blizzard. These companies have decided that having a subscription model with always-online DRM is the way to go. It keeps the software owned by them and not the consumer. They feel it also combats software piracy. What they also don’t consider is what it does to their consumers and their rights.

    This form of model needs to totally discouraged, but also because software ownership laws are kind of grey at the moment, I believe, laws need to be changed to make it black and white, where software ownership lies (with the consumer). As long as the areas are grey, we the consumers, are left with no rights when these companies decide to change subs, add things to software we don’t like, not allow us to use the software offline etc.

    If WE pay for it, it should BELONG to US, to do with as we please, at any time we please. This happens to almost anything else we buy, why should software be any different?

  90. 90) Tim
    May 11, 2013 at 5:53 am

    I think you are misrepresenting on aspect of the Creative Cloud Suite. You state that updates are automatic which is not true. They are available automatically but the decision to apply the updates still rests in the hands of the end user. Adobe Application Manager is where that decision is controlled.

    The main theme of the complaints in this thread is price and we always will feel that the price is too high. That is why there is an open market for other products. As for the architecture of subscription based services Adobe is not unique in this approach. Have you looked at Microsoft Office 360? The ability to control releases and to reduce production cost will drive just about any software developer to this model over the next couple of years.

    The author does not address one of the primary reasons that Microsoft and Adobe have been quick to adopt this model – piracy. I work in many developing countries and I can buy all the copies (working) of CS5 you want for $20. Same thing applies to Office 2010. Use of the subscription approach closes a big hole in the piracy market.

    Is the service over priced? Probably but according to Adobe statistics more than 9 million of us signed up for it in the first month. Nobody forced CS5 or early version users to sign-up but we did. I strongly believe that within a year there will be new pricing schemes that will still utilize the subscription approach but will create smaller bundles (more focused products) that are directed at photographers or web developers and the price of those bundles will come down.

    The one aspect that I don’t think Adobe has considered is what role Elements will play in the picture. As Elements gets closer to LR capabilities it might be the alternative many photographers want.

    • 90.1) Peter
      May 11, 2013 at 7:33 am

      Good comments. I completely forgot about the piracy (theft) issues, and the impact that it has on software companies. Adobe probably felt that impact more than most because of the nature of their product and the high initial cost of buying a full edition.

      I guess, in the final analysis, I would do the same thing if I were faced with piracy. We all eventually pay for criminal activities. I bet everyone on this blog knows someone who thinks stealing software is OK.

  91. 91) Anthony
    May 11, 2013 at 6:05 am

    This has been a superlative presentation of the issues by you, and discussion by, so far, 175 posts. One thing is missing, though: Bob Vishneski!
    We need a Vishneski rant, and a press release written by him for Adobe.

    • 91.1) MartinG
      May 11, 2013 at 8:29 am

      I don’t agree. I do not think it is needed and I for one am happy not to read a rant by him at all.

      • 91.1.1) Anthony
        May 11, 2013 at 8:38 am

        Lighten up! Satire is wonderful, sarcasm maybe even better.

        • Peter
          May 11, 2013 at 10:38 am

          Anthony, don’t sweat it. There are a few “very serious” types on this site that just cannot recognize a joke/satire/etc. I’ve been chastised several times by them for my comments…jokes that don’t register in their f/22 view of some of life’s joys.

          Welcome to the club!

          • MartinG
            May 11, 2013 at 10:36 pm

            You are right. I took your comment at face value and did not notice the ;-) inherent in it.

          • MartinG
            May 11, 2013 at 10:42 pm

            Not f22 more like F5.6 ( still a very serious aperture). The way I see it those who stay in F1.2 to 1.4 mode all the time have the advantage of speed and being able to ‘lighten up’ but the depth of field is kind of shallow. Sometimes that is exactly what is called for and sometimes you are looking for more. Mental note to self – different apertures for different situations… :-)

    • 91.2) TimR
      May 11, 2013 at 10:58 pm

      you’ll find Bob at his fav pub sobbing in his beer and venting his anger at Adobe with his drinking buddys and making preparations writing his masterpiece article venting his rage against Adobe.. he’ll be back when he sobers up soon.. we hope..

  92. 92) Steve
    May 11, 2013 at 7:22 am

    Great article and great reader responses. I now find it interesting that Adobe is considering a photography bundle. Additionally, Adobe is now offering a promotion of $10 a month for a single app if you own CS 3 or later until July 31st for the first year. Sounds like Adobe might be a little nervous? I hope so. Here’ the article:


  93. 93) James
    May 11, 2013 at 7:27 am

    I like the Creative Cloud idea for the long-term, but at this point I agree that the pricing is all wrong. The $50 per month doesn’t make sense unless you actually use a lot of the products in the Suite. I would think a regressive pricing such as $20 for 1, $10 each for product 2 & 3, $5 for the 4th, $49.95 for the entire suite (not sure if that math makes sense for consumers, but you get the idea).

    At this point, releasing Creative Cloud Small Business and/or CC Enterprise for larger companies might have made more sense. For individual consumers, the option of licensing a boxed version should still be available.

    For me (an amateur), I haven’t even exhausted Lightroom’s capabilities, yet. I will probably keep LR and add Elements to see how that works. Hopefully, Adobe won’t eliminate Elements (not needed in CC because of PhotoShop) and push LR to subscription only any time soon.

  94. 94) Alberto
    May 11, 2013 at 7:48 am

    After considering the cost of the annual subscription for the CC, 49.99 per month once the introductory price is over I went online to the adobe customer service chat line to ask adobe what would happen if at the end of this period I decided not to renew and just keep the copy I have of CS5, would adobe block access to that as well even if I originally owned the product, the reply;
    you will need the serial number and the original disc of CS5. I replied that I did have the serial number but had no clue where my original disc was, what then? the reply; you better look around and find it, is there anything else I can help you with? By then I was getting pretty upset at the idea that if I can not locate the original disc I may be out of luck and just replied, NO. and click. Obviously this looks like a potential problem for those that may be in the same situation. With so many seasoned and professionals on board this forum maybe this could be further clarified. Thanks for reading and thank you Nasim, for all your support.

  95. 95) hektor hektik
    May 11, 2013 at 8:10 am

    If this becomes to table, at the end we have a monthly bill of $ 400 (Adobe, Microsoft, Apple, Autodesk, …).
    Elsewise, if we do not, or can not pay we lose the full access to our own files.
    This the cloud we want to live on?

  96. May 11, 2013 at 8:32 am

    For those who want to step up your opposition a bit, I’ve composed the following letter to my representatives in Congress. I’ve also put it up on Facebook. Feel free to cut and paste, tweak as desired, and send it to YOUR US legislators. If some Senators and Congressmen begin to express an interest, that could change Adobe’s direction in a hurry.


    Dear __________:

    I would like you to consider the need for possible new legislation similar to that which was used to break up Bell Telephone – and for similar reasons. Since its founding, Adobe Systems (maker of the popular computer software packages Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere and many others) has acquired more than 60 other companies, to the point where it has effectively bought up its entire competition in the marketplace.

    Now that there is no effective competition, the company has just announced that it is abandoning the traditional software license. Instead of selling software licenses to its customers and allowing them to use the software until the company offers an upgrade that excites the customer base, Adobe is moving to a rental model in which customers must pay $50 per month (or whatever amount Adobe demands in the future) in perpetuity for “permission” to use its software – whether it continues to innovate or not. Stop paying and the customer’s CURRENT software is deactivated by Adobe. There is no option to purchase a perpetual-use license and no ability to continue to use one’s software without paying a continuous license fee. Adobe expects this to be the “new normal” for computer software.

    If software companies are permitted to move in this direction one will pay a monthly fee for Windows, one for Quickbooks, one for anything Adobe, and on and on. Stop paying and your computer becomes a boat anchor. Under this model the customer owns nothing and the company has the ability to physically prevent the customer from using software that they may have paid for over the course of many years, representing an investment of thousands of dollars (we have probably paid Adobe $20,000 or more over the course of our relationship – and under this model they can shut off everything we have if we stop paying a monthly fee).

    Adobe has been able to reach this point because it has been allowed over the years to buy up an entire industry. Actually multiple industries: print production, video production, web development, etc., etc. There simply is no competition for Adobe’s product line – and when one springs up, Adobe promptly buys it.

    In the short term this trend will be extremely harmful to individual consumers and small businesses that are forced into a more expensive model with no end in sight. Run behind on monthly payments due to a difficult economy or slow paying customers and the software shuts off, disabling the small business.

    In the long term the negative effects will be on everyone. The software vendor / customer relationship exists in a balance. Software companies are motivated to innovate because only a new software release, reasonably priced and with exciting new features, influences customers to buy. Thus, to keep up revenue, companies must constantly innovate and reinvent themselves in order to develop value for their shareholders. The rental model turns this on its head since customers must pay whatever amount the software company dictates simply in order to keep using the software they already have. This significantly reduces the company’s incentive to continue innovating: it can halt development on a mature product and just sit by and collect the rents. For consumers, this is a particularly ominous development.

    It is also quite similar in nature to the situation that was allowed to develop with Bell Telephone many years ago, which became “the only game in town” for telephone service and thus felt itself empowered to raise prices to intolerable levels without sufficient innovation to justify the costs. Instead of fueling innovation, the money simply went into the pockets of shareholders. Congress intervened then and it should do so now, and, as I said above, for the same reasons.

    I hope you agree that this deserves Congressional intervention. If you’re on Facebook, I would encourage you to visit the Adobe and the Adobe Creative Cloud pages and read message upon message from one outraged customer after another – all ignored by Adobe which is proceeding full speed ahead with its anti-customer money grab.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter. I suspect that I am not the only one you will be hearing from.

    • 96.1) hektor hektik
      May 11, 2013 at 8:41 am

      The best post I read regarding Adobes Changing Philosophy!

    • 96.2) Peter
      May 11, 2013 at 10:41 am

      Politicians can’t read letters this long…attention span problems, you know.

      • 96.2.1) Pete Gould
        May 11, 2013 at 11:04 am

        Can’t say I totally disagree – but the staffers will at least skim it and if it comes from EVERYWHERE it will still get some attention.

        The hope is that some inquiries from Congressional offices will get Adobe’s attention a lot more quickly than some griping by the customer base – which they don’t seem to really care about at all.

      • 96.2.2) raischub
        May 11, 2013 at 1:34 pm

        Thus not very helpfull

      • 96.2.3) Pete Gould
        May 24, 2013 at 11:16 am

        Following up Peter’s post about politicians not reading letters this long – yesterday I received a phone call from Congressman Jim Himes’ admin about the letter. He had clearly read it in great detail and was concerned about the antitrust implications as well as the potential for the entire software industry to go to a rental-only model. He was going to make some calls to the DOJ about the antitrust angle and get back to me on potential legislative approaches.

        Thus I would say politicians DO read letters this long.

        • peter
          May 24, 2013 at 12:29 pm

          One thing you can say for certain is that Jim Himes secretary (admin) read it.

          Please keep me informed. I’m dying to hear what “potential legislative approaches” are going to be taken.

          I wish I had your faith in our gov’t, witness the IRS scandal and the wiretapping approvals by the DOJ.

          • Earle
            May 24, 2013 at 7:34 pm

            I’m sure the intern who read and wrote that letter cleared it their immediate supervisor who may have mentioned it to the U.S. Rep. Most of that letter may not even be boilerplate. That’s about how government works. Staffers write legislation for the elected officials then give them executive summaries. I don’t want to disparage government because government actually can work effectively that way (Do you really think the rich doctor, lawyer or car salesman — the latter of which my current U.S. Rep is by the way — really study most of the issues before they trade away their vote on issue A because they need a vote on issue B?)

            That being said, Adobe is refusing to sell its latest upgrade and only lease it. Existing CS6 users can already receive full value of that software (and are likely not using it to its full capacity).

            Adobe is not forcing anyone to either upgrade their camera or upgrade their computer/change their operating system. So how is Adobe alone denying any current users of full value of that product? They’re choosing not to sell that product anymore.

            If you as an end user are not able to get full value of your old product anymore because you upgraded your camera or computer, that can’t be Adobe’s fault.

            And if you choose to subscribe to the Creative Cloud and then stop subscribing and lose “access” to your images as PSDs or multi layer files, you know that going in.

            • Pete Gould
              May 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm

              The risk is that Adobe will redefine how software licensing is done industry-wide, with all software payable monthly, from operating system to Office suite to accounting software to all other productivity software. If you don’t see the problem with that we will just have to agree to disagree.

          • Pete Gould
            May 24, 2013 at 8:24 pm

            When I said “he had clearly read it in great detail” – I was talking about the admin. But that’s enough, at least for now.

        • Hoeras
          May 24, 2013 at 7:04 pm

          The trouble with Microsoft, now Apple, and it is all making it in the Media, and now also Adobe…. I can see why politicians would be interested. What Adobe is doing could be the tip of the iceberg with others corporate types watching on and see if they can adopt same methods – if Adobe gets away with it, or do not get checked, it will potentially become a flood and a headache for the pollies.

  97. 97) Roberta
    May 11, 2013 at 9:45 am

    I have a question. I am using CS5 if I want to upgrade to CS6 can I do so at the upgrade price without doing the CC thing? When I go to Adobe’s web site it appears everything is now set up for CC with no options for someone who would like to purchase an upgrade from CS5 to CS6 without doing CC. I have problems downloading software and usually prefer to buy the disc – is that still possible? If so, does anyone know where to find it?

    • 97.1) Pete Gould
      May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am

      Hi Roberta –

      According to Adobe, CS6 will remain available for sale. It just won’t ever get updates beyond minor bug fixes – in order to ever get new features you would have to move to CC (unless we collectively manage to get Adobe to change its mind).

      The problem of course is that the industry doesn’t stand still. New versions of Windows or Mac OS will eventually break CS6. New graphic cards will come out that it can’t support. We work in video production and certainly new video formats will emerge that CS6 won’t recognize. So the “permanent” availability of CS6 will stop being helpful pretty quickly.

      • 97.1.1) Roberta
        May 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm

        Thanks for the reply. I understand CS6 is still for sale, however, I can’t locate it as just the upgrade only the full set – usually the upgrade is available for about $199 or less. I was going to try to wait out an upgrade from CS5 but I fear if I don’t do it now I won’t ever be able to do so without CC. I can probably get along with LR and CS6 for a while. Unless something happens with internet service in my area (they claim too few people to bother to service) I am pretty much out of luck because I don’t have the bandwidth and big downloads create such a problem. I rarely even watch a U Tube video nor can I easily take online classes that are video based or worse yet anything streaming. I hope I don’t have to upgrade my Mac Pro for a while and that I can continue on without even thinking about CC for at least a few more years. I understand it is not realistic to think about permanent I’m more interested in for the time being :-)

        • Roberta
          May 11, 2013 at 2:53 pm

          Also for more on this please see my reply below to
          202) raischub

      • 97.1.2) raischub
        May 11, 2013 at 12:54 pm

        Are you payed by Adobe? The whole web knows this already, but some people want to have full access to their work after the end of subscription. And CS6 will still make it a few years. Some people don´t want to be bind to Adobe, paying the rest of their life. I think, every one who has read this threat knows the conditions.
        The new business model is not acceptable for nearly all of us.
        I will still keep my Master Collection for the next ten years. Maybe I have to run it on its own machine one day – but thats better and cheaper than paying lifelong! Better than no freedom of choice!

        • Pete Gould
          May 11, 2013 at 1:05 pm

          raischub – you seem to have aimed your “are you paid by Adobe” question at ME. If you’ve read any of my other posts you should know that I am ADAMANTLY opposed to the coercive “creative cloud” move by Adobe. A little higher up in this thread, I have provided a model letter for each reader to send to his or her US Senator and Representatives to obtain Congressional involvement in stopping this move by Adobe. If you are based in the US, I would encourage you to scroll up a little, find my letter, cut and paste it and tweak it to make it yours, and send it to your own legislators.

          As to my response to Roberta – she asked a question and she gave an honest answer which included my concerns about the fact that the usefulness of CS6 will be short-lived. This is all the more reason why we should OPPOSE the CC model, not move to it.

          I hope this helps you with what seems to have been a misunderstanding of my message.

          • raischub
            May 11, 2013 at 1:35 pm

            Please excuse.

            • Pete Gould
              May 11, 2013 at 1:38 pm

              No offense taken – we need to all know we’re on the same side on this.

    • 97.2) raischub
      May 11, 2013 at 12:48 pm

      I think the US order page is that:
      But you don´t must order at adobe. The boxed version of some CS6 is also still available at amazon and others (sometimes cheaper than Adobe). Go there and search for or use Google.

      • 97.2.1) Roberta
        May 11, 2013 at 2:51 pm


        Thanks for trying to help but it is not possible to just upgrade from that page or any place else that I’ve been able to find. I did check Amazon and they seem to only have the full copy at $699. On the Adobe site at the link you provided this happens after hitting “buy”: when I change the little arrow thing from “full” to “upgrade” then the “add to cart” button is grayed out and not functional. So the way it appears to me is that Adobe is also telling customers – you may have upgraded to CS5 because we told you that would be the only way you could do an upgrade to CS6 but now we’ve changed our mind. The only way you can get CS6 is if you pay for the full copy or go CC! Is anyone else in the same boat?

        • raischub
          May 11, 2013 at 4:20 pm

          I just tried and it IS possible (tried for CS6 Creative Suite Standard up from CS5.5)
          Go to the site I referenced.
          Choose your Product and click on buy (No worry nothing happens till that)
          Next site you have to choose the Suite you want.
          At the right side choose at: I want to buy…: Upgrade.
          Now everything is greyed out.
          NOW you have to fill out I own: Choose what you have.
          Now all isn´t greyed out any longer and you get your price.
          Fill out the rest and your done.
          Does it work?

          • Roberta
            May 13, 2013 at 4:40 pm

            Thanks so much raischub! I’ve found your contributions to this entire thread helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to assist me. I think I was so annoyed at Adobe’s latest shenanigans that I wasn’t thinking clearly or perhaps observing clearly. I just went through the entire process and purchased the darn thing even though it’s definitely not in the budget for this month. Now my big problem is the download – I will probably have to impose on a friend who has decent internet to be able to do the download but once that is done and I’ve registered CS6 I hope to not have to deal with Adobe until LR5 comes out of Beta. After that I hope I don’t have to deal with them again. I have really enjoyed using Photoshop andI don’t relish the idea of learning an entirely different system at my age but if something else comes along in the next year or two I will probably make a switch. I’m using OS 10.6.8 on my Mac Pro and will probably stay there until I am forced into something else – or maybe by then I’ll be too old to care (lame joke – I hope I can retain my senses and continue to care).

  98. 98) Daniel
    May 11, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Most photographers I know are not major studios or they are art photographers. You know what they say about artists? They do not make a helluva lot of money, hence the phrase, “starving artist”. It seems with all the new point and shoot cameras on the market, everyone thinks they are a photographer. Work is getting scarcer and scarcer. I for one recently closed my studio and work primarily out of my house now, due to trying to save money. I really cannot afford any additional monthly expense.

    • 98.1) David Ahn
      May 11, 2013 at 11:45 pm

      Re: DIY photographers, it’s a sign of the times, and photography isn’t the only trade affected by the tides of change. I’m a physician, and more and more people are refusing vaccines and my recommendations. You can curse change, which will only make you bitter, or adapt and be happy.

      • 98.1.1) Don S
        May 12, 2013 at 12:15 am


        You are demonstrating wisdom and adaptability. Events like this have continually taken place in history. Progress and improvements will be made for all of us to benefit from. If people had a crystal ball and could see fifty years ahead they would have less resistance to change.

        I follow health and health care more than most and understand your comment about vaccines and medical recommendations – it is a movement going on worldwide! I believe it will improve health care and longevity with many aggravations and elations along the way.

      • 98.1.2) MartinG
        May 12, 2013 at 12:48 am

        “Change” we cope well with. This is more like a revolution. We curse the revolution imposed by those who have not thought about the enthusiast and the amateur.

        An acceptable ‘change’ would be an option to buy licence that was not a monthly rental fee.

        • David Ahn
          May 12, 2013 at 1:31 am

          Sorry for the confusion, Martin, this was a side conversation about the change in the photography market, not specifically about the Adobe Creative Cloud debacle. With regard to the main topic, I’m completely against the position of a company who feels entitled to an infinite revenue stream based on past innovations. :)

  99. 99) Phil
    May 11, 2013 at 11:36 am

    I appreciate the heads-up on the forthcoming Adobe changes.

    I expect the adverse comments from current users will have but a small effect, at least in the short term, on Adobe’s plans. Perhaps a more significant impact could be made with the widespread advocacy of alternative/s to Adobe’s software.

  100. 100) raischub
    May 11, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    I not only advice, I beg all Adobe users:
    Please keep your CS6 alive as long as you even can!
    As long as they let you!
    Don´t subscribe to this cloud!
    The only way to let Adobe feel or needs is a failing income! They won´t hear anything else.
    Keep in mind: They promised stack-holders in march to rise their revenue!
    That´s the background and nothing else.
    If this comes to table at the end we all have a big bill at the end of month.
    Others will follow!

  101. 101) raischub
    May 11, 2013 at 2:19 pm

    Found a Comment in the web ( – How greedy is Adobe’s Creative Cloud subscription?), that there is a petition to the whithouse.
    I am not an American. But for those who are, I think this is also a good way to show Adobe (and potential followers) that this software distribution model is not accepptable:

    • 101.1) Pete Gould
      May 11, 2013 at 2:23 pm

      I’ve signed it already and encourage everyone to do likewise.

  102. 102) FrancoisR
    May 11, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    This cloud thing has turned into a cumulonimbus, hope Adobe listens to the thunder it generated… So far I have downloaded and installed two softwares that emerged out of the storm.
    I like my CS6 but I feel as faithful to it as Adobe is to its clients. I dont buy the piracy BS, greeed greed greed… Hope the chinese come up with something…

    • 102.1) TimR
      May 11, 2013 at 10:39 pm

      adobe will never ever ever listen nor care about you or anybody.. so don’t even think of hoping they will listen they are only in this to steal rob swindle and cheat us in any way they feel like it and they don’t care if you threaten them to go somewhere else and use other photo editing software.. they already got what they wanted and grabbing as much as they can til they are told to stop and they wont return a dime… they only care for one thing only: MONEY…billions of billions in their fat overloaded bank accounts… you watch… they will fall and they will fail when we all stop using their greedy subscriptions.. but by then it will be too late.. they will be elsewhere in the world taking their Photoshop code and your hard earned money with them while basking on a sunny sandy beach far far away sipping pina coladas laughing at the scam they pulled off

  103. 103) Richard D
    May 11, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    Anyone know how I can turn off followup comments that come in via email? I had turned them on but didn’t think there would be so many of them, and they’re overloading my Inbox !!!!!! :)

  104. 104) Peter
    May 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    Many biblical warnings leave us in no doubt that increasingly cataclysmic events will occur before God’s direct intervention in human affairs. These terrifying prophecies will see their fulfillment at some future time when a great creative cloud born of lord Adobe will consume digital images from the hard drives of all humanity. Leave all hope behind and return to film before it is too late.

    • 104.1) raischub
      May 11, 2013 at 3:59 pm


    • 104.2) Gerald Peake
      May 11, 2013 at 4:13 pm

      Film? Ah yes I remember that one. Wasn’t that the scam whereby you bought a roll of celluloid, popped it in the camera, took some pics on it, then where forced to pay more, in so-called ‘development costs’, in order to see any images?

      • 104.2.1) David Ahn
        May 12, 2013 at 10:03 am

        Haha that’s funny. But with film, you knew how much you were paying for a certain amount of film; they didn’t charge you a film subscription where you paid $20 a month hoping they would send you enough film for your needs. There is no cost of materials or production like film, with digital the costs are salaries, bonuses, benefits, and marketing. Adobe is proposing that we contribute monthly toward their overhead and profits in FAITH that they will continue to provide innovation and updates, rather than the traditional model of them MAKING film, and us buying it. Would you pay $50 a month to Sony Pictures in the hopes they will keep making great new films? Or $500 a month to GM on their word that they’ll keep sending you new cars every 2-3 years?

  105. May 11, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    I apologize in advance for sharing this – please do not view if you are easily offended:)

    • 105.1) Rob
      May 12, 2013 at 11:14 am


  106. 106) Peter
    May 11, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    I’ll bet the rank-and-file at Adobe are laughing their heads off.

    This Hitler sequence has been used many times before, but it’s still good.

  107. 107) Peter G.
    May 11, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    Typical corporate America nowadays. !

    All MBA’s screwing the company and their customers.

    • 107.1) Tim
      May 12, 2013 at 5:52 am

      Since I started the debate on the issue of piracy I will clarify some facts. I am not sure where the SBA gets their facts that more than 90% of pirated software would not result in sales but they are false. I work as a consultant in many developing countries where the entire government implementation of technology is based on pirated software. In the past 10 years I have watched companies such as Oracle, Microsoft, SAP and Adobe negotiate with these governments to stop the pirating. In many countries these software companies have gotten legislation passed to stop the pirating. In exchange the same companies have “Grandfathered” the governments pirated (maybe non-licensed is a better term) as legitimate software which has allowed them to upgrade to the most current version. They then have negotiated pricing related to future upgrades. In Ukraine that deal alone is worth more than $160 million dollars a year.
      All that said the end to non-license software is not going to change the revenue model of Microsoft and Adobe’s adoption of subscription based products. That is how your cell phone company and many other’s price their services and it is going to be the way we pay for many more things we have licensed in the past. The cost that service will seem outrageous right up until someone develops a comparable or better product. Why has your cell phone bill gone down in the past years – because the cell phone companies would rather bill you for 10 years than one year and have you run to their competitor. The same will happen with Adobe.

      • 107.1.1) David Ahn
        May 12, 2013 at 10:12 am

        I wasn’t aware of large entities engaging in piracy, but that’s still NOT why they’re moving to the CC. They’re moving to the CC not to combat piracy. They’re doing it to combat slowing revenue growth, NOT by innovating and driving new sales and upgrades but instead by trying to FORCE existing users to give them NEW revenues from an OLD code base.

    • 107.2) Peter
      May 12, 2013 at 7:55 am

      It amazes me how people love to denigrate “corporate America” and have probably never worked in it.
      I guess that opinion fits neatly into a political ideology that also denigrates corporations, but accepts their contributions without question.

      Tim’s explanation (235) makes a lot of sense and convinces me that this is our future. Stealing from rich America seems to be OK, especially if you have less wealth.

      I taught an ethics course for a Fortune 100 company in Asian countries and found their ethical reasoning supportive of what’s implied in Tim’s comments.

      • 107.2.1) Pete Gould
        May 12, 2013 at 8:16 am

        Well I for one certainly agree that piracy causes real harm and I completely support corporate efforts to control it.

        However, as I’ve said, the vendor/customer relationship exists in a balance, and both parties have to respect that balance. Companies are entitled to be paid to innovate, but customers, once they have paid, are entitled to what they have paid for. Imagine a subscription-only universe: you can’t buy a Blu-Ray, you can’t pay for and download (and thereafter keep) a music track from iTunes. Every piece of created material you must pay for, monthly, in perpetuity or you can no longer access it. As absurd as that sounds it’s simply an extrapolation of the Adobe model.

        For those who are comfortable with a subscription-based approach, I certainly would support their having that option. But it MUST be an option.

        I’m not a photographer: I own a video production company. A video project is a complex nest of Premiere, AfterEffects and Audition project files (all proprietary to Adobe) and incorporated layered Photoshop and Illustrator files. Clients can return a year or two later needing changes to existing projects. In the subscription model, if we moved to a different platform we would lose access to our files for lack of software to open them. And in fact we lose access to them eventually anyway since Adobe only pledges to provide access to older versions of its software for a defined period.

        None of this is acceptable to us. It would become acceptable if, and only if, the model were changed so that at the conclusion of the subscription we retained access to the software. But for Adobe to be able to completely shut off our access – THAT we will oppose at all costs.

        • Tim
          May 12, 2013 at 8:31 am

          Pete in some ways I agree with your point but I think you have to look at one aspect. You are entitled and will always be entitled to use the current version of the products that you have licensed from Adobe and thus your previous productions are safe and reusable. The CC is for future products and the way those future products will be marketed If the new products allow you to do more creative projects or to complete projects more efficiently is that not something that is of economic value to you as a production company? If it is then you are justified in charging more for your services. If the new products do not provide you an economic benefit within your company then continue to service your customers using the products that you have licenses as there would be no need for you to move to the product versions offered in the CC subscription Adobe is offering you.

          I am a photographer but I also use the web development and publication applications that Adobe has to offer. When CC was introduced I did an evaluation of the new features in the latest versions and decided there was economic benefit to my using them thus I am willing to pay the price. As a photographer who has a license (2 actually) to CS5 I would have chosen to stay with CS5 instead of moving to CC if that was the only application I used.

          So many in this string of posts want to make it appear that Adobe is holding a gun to their head to support their previous loyalty to the products that they have come to know and rely on. That is not the case nor will it ever be in the future. Read the ELUA the license for any product you bought is perpetual. It is only revocable if the terms of the ELUA are violated. What you paid for in that license is your forever. Should Adobe in some moment of stupidity try to void that licenses there are any number of watch dog groups that would file a class action suit faster than the sun can rise.

          • raischub
            May 12, 2013 at 8:55 am

            I don´t agree. What Adobe did is just forcing. As any one in the creative branch knows Adobe is a kind of (now ice-cold) monopolist. Many workflows from photography/creation till the printed products or created web-sites are meanwhile based on solutions that are unthinkable without adobe SW. And they know that exactly. So big companies – which profit most of this (ugly, so called) cloud – will step in. If CC is growing up after a while, new “features” are added and file-formats will change, there will be no way for others to be part of the game. So CC version of AE & Premiere are still not compatible to it´s previous version (CS6) TODAY (have a look at the cloud product specification site / FAQ)!!!
            And I think, when new future are added in june it will happen to the other Apps too. Theres absolutely no guaranty from Adobe for a FallBack to CS6. Also most of the Adobe Files can not be handled (opened) with other Software. Thats not so great problem with Photoshop as there are alternatives like tif, svg, png and others, but not all Photoshop Features (like 3D) can be converted this way. But with the Video-Tools or Vector/Graphic Tools it´s different.
            I for myself have to guaranty my industrial clients access to their files/works for a min of 3 years. If I decide to quit the subscription & change software, it´s more than 2000$ for me (here in EU the cloud is much more expensive – and that´s for today. Nobody knows what´s Adobe going to do, if they have enough sheps in the cloud) only to have full access to these files. Do you really think, that´s a fair model???
            Else: InDesign. If you would like to unsubscribe after 3 years, created thousands of files – Do you think I like to convert them to non editable PDFs after subscription ends? You are invited to do that for me. No, I cant´agree to what you wrote.
            And still – the longer I think about: I´m really of the opinion that this change isn´t legal. And many others see it the way. Here is a monopolist using his market might to press his users in a distribution model that they don´t want or can´t pay.

          • raischub
            May 12, 2013 at 9:16 am

            Piracy: Adobe exactly knows, that there is a great abuse of their software running as stolen copies or in abuse of educational copies. But: they were generous in a way, that I will say, they provocated it. In this way the apps become a stable standard base. PSD is THE image editing app. And: If they have systems now, to stop that… Where is the necessity for them to be only part of cloud apps? Why can´t they implement that in a CS7? There is no great difference between the “cloud” & and the not cloud software! Both are running local. I ever payed my updates. No tear about. If someone makes great tools, and I use them, I will also pay for them. No question. Nothing against stoping piracy from my side.

            Software will get better/cheaper with monthly pay rates? In term of cell-phone companies we have a totally different situation! I can use my cellphone any longer if I change the provider and so it makes sense, that shorter times make it easy to change.
            But in case of Adobe: I can´t use my creations with other tools (in the same way/fully editable) after subscription. In case there are other competing Software-products, which allow me, to use my files as before – I would agree. Then it makes sense. But that isn´t today. Most of Adobes Files are only useable with Adobe Software. So if I change SW I still have to pay for usage of my own creations (maybe for many years). So in case of change I pay twice! That´s not the same as with my cell-phone. Or?

          • Pete Gould
            May 12, 2013 at 2:22 pm

            Ah, Tim. If only the world worked that way.

            I’ve been in the production industry for over 30 years, and the rates we can charge in the corporate market don’t go up – if anything, they are subject to constant downward pressure. Having the latest technology only gives us a better chance of landing business, not charging more for it. Pricing is always a strong consideration when clients book projects and while our quality is top of the line, most prospects are so bottom-line focused that what the ultimately care about is what it will cost. I have to charge less today for doing HD production than I charged for standard definition in the 1990s.

            So we are clear on your point: the license terms for CS6 are perpetual; moving forward, all future version of the software are intended by Adobe to be rental-only, with deactivation if the monthly fees are not paid. Five years from now (for instance) if one stopped paying the monthly fee, one would have to revert to CS6 – the latest version with a EULA that provided for perpetual use.

            The problem with that is that five years from now, CS6 is unlikely to support the then-current operating system, video or motherboard chipsets, or present-day video file formats (just like CS1 would have no way to use an MP4 or ProRes file). That’s why this really does represent a gun pointed at the heads of Adobe users, at least in my industry. The project files and the way they interrelate are all proprietary, the software becomes obsolete after a version or two, and there’s really nowhere to go if one uses the platform’s features the way they were designed to be used. On the other hand it’s often quite possible to skip a version upgrade or two if they don’t contain compelling features – and I want that decision to be mine.

            I have no objection to paying for innovation. I merely object to paying an unlimited, perpetual monthly fee for a mature product.

            • Tim
              May 12, 2013 at 7:45 pm


              The world often does work that way. As a consultant the more experience I get the more I am able to add value to my clients and the more they are willing to pay. It is a value proposition and for many of us it works.

              I fully understand that your market maybe saturated making competition stronger and that is keeping your prices flat or even dropping but let’s look at one root cause of that – the proliferation of tools that replace basic skills in the photography and graphic arts industry. What you did 10 years ago took specific knowledge and skill. Today any kid with a computer can turn out high quality graphics and video. Why because companies like Adobe have made tools available that eliminate the knowledge and skill you worked so had to develop over the years.

              My son is a graphic artist and wed designer. Five years ago when he had to do things like code in HTML to create a workable website he could command a good fee for event he simplest web presence. Today he is moving away from web design simply because there are 100 want to bees for every real artist. They can use package software to develop web presence in their bedrooms. Unfortunately the quality of the web presence has dropped dramatically but that is a result of many web developers relying only on the production capabilities of packaged software.

              Maybe just maybe the higher cost of these tools (which by the way is a misnomer if in fact you use multiple products) will eliminate some of the want to bees and return the industry to trained professionals who have bot the skill and knowledge to deliver quality products.

              My point on the terms of the EULA was for those who felt that they did not want to move to the CC alternative and that magically their installed software would evaporate from their computer. I am holding on to my CS5 CD simply because eventually I will stop wanting to pay for the CC as I am close to retirement and will not need it but will want to have access (more Bridge than CS5) older files if I want it. When I hang it up and turn to photography as only a hobby Picasa will work just fine for me.

            • raischub
              May 12, 2013 at 9:29 pm

              Reply to Tim (as no more layer available)
              I´m a graphic professional. For more than 28 years in total and working with Adobe tools for more than 22 years now, daily.
              The Price isn´t the problem for me. Absolutely not.
              There are great tools & I pay for them.
              Always did – also to Adobe. Ten thousands of Euros over last decades.
              I would pay triple the price of the “cloud” (sorry may sound arrogant – but it is really true) if:
              Adobe did not bind it´s customers this way.
              Also you held your CS5 – all the work you create with CC is not available after description. You can go on working afterwards with your CS5 – if your hardware and OS-systems still accepting that then. In Photoshop you can convert your files to other formats like TIF but with other Apps like After Effects, Premiere… – NO chance. So all your creations are gone after quitting. Adobe does not point that fact in it´s announcements but it is (see FAQ site of CC).
              If it would be a really free market and there were Applications which I can use to edit my own files – OK! I would accept this. Not lickely – but I would.
              But for the moment Adobe is a monopolist in graphical industry and many of the existing workflows are based on Adobe SW. More: It´s not thinkable without that. So the big companies – which profit most to Adobes strategies will be the first who jump on the train to dependency. For those the problem what happens after isn´t as important (But: Many companies here begin to think about, what a great dependency that means, and what Adobe can dictate them in Future. Many of agencies are working on solutions avoiding Adobe). So the little ones and that without lower or irregular income are kicked out of the workflow.
              It would have been no problem for Adobe to implement tools to prevent piracy into the classical CS model (from substance it´s nearly the same). It wouldn´t have been no problem for Adobe to create an Buy-Out solution (You can quit, but you get the software version at this moment to use for future and your archive, if you paid for 2 years already or else). There was no Need to chancel the cloud optional mode.
              No! Adobe is the first who will make the way to a restrictive software distribution. Here in germany nearly 90% of usership (and I mean PAYING usership) seeing this way. Don´t like to use harder words: Not happy about that. And I don´t think, that this will make the development better. Even Adobe was never too good with updates (look at Autodesk or Maxon – there are worlds between each version. Sometimes in a way that you think it´s a new App with all that new features!) They are a monopolist now – and after there is no classical version any longer in one or two years – they are a much bigger monopolist. And they know their clients have to pay. In any way. Or go. And lose their files. That´s no motivation.
              So conclusion: It´s not first the price, which is the problem here. Its a abuse of market might. A bending of customer. Taking me the freedom of choise. And a lifetime rental of your own files after end of subscription.
              I don´t see any cause why there isn´t a boxed version any longer – from customers sight.
              Again: If this comes to table – it will revolutionize the way we are working digital in a way that is not good for us. Its´s only good for Adobe to become bigger and bigger. One of the big bulls. And which of them has to care about cutomers. Shareholders are the targets!
              By the way, at this place: Nothing against you, Adobe DEVELOPERS! YOU did a great jop over the last decades. But your strategists?

            • Pete Gould
              May 12, 2013 at 10:51 pm

              raischub has stated it perfectly.

      • 107.2.2) David Ahn
        May 12, 2013 at 10:30 am

        You’re partially correct, people are quick to call corporations greedy for trying to generate a profit, which seems OK for small businesses and for self-employed people. HOWEVER… corporations have shown a tendency to use their much larger resources and means to use oppress smaller competitors or their customers. See corporate lobbying, campaign contributions, creative accounting, suing smaller companies out of existence, patent trolling… and yes, subscription software.

        “Everyone who wants to buy our program has already bought it, and existing users aren’t paying for upgrades because what they bought is already good enough and we can’t seem to come up with any compelling new features to make them upgrade. So why don’t we sell them the software they already own AGAIN as a subscription? We’ll just promise UNLIMITED UPDATES! This way, there’s steady revenue and the pressure to innovate is off.”

        If you think this is a great idea, you either work for Adobe or a similar stagnant company who’s selling software subscriptions in lieu of creating great products people want to buy. For someone who owns NO Adobe products, this is a cheap way to get INTO an expensive CS package, but over time it will grow very expensive to STAY in the CS package.

      • 107.2.3) Hoeras
        May 24, 2013 at 9:00 am

        >It amazes me how people love to denigrate “corporate America” and have probably never worked in it.

        I never worked in the SS either, so that doesn’t stop me… LOL

        • Peter
          May 24, 2013 at 10:30 am

          Very flawed reasoning process, and I guess that’s why you gave your comment a LOL.

          • Hoeras
            May 24, 2013 at 7:54 pm

            Sorry, but the History Channel was on in the background and guess what, they were showing a program about the… ?

            But I still stand by it – saying I can criticise corporations that use the “legal person” defence and when you look at the psychological profile that matches the “personality” or behaviour of these “legal Persons” – the best match is “psychopath”.

            I experienced this personally when my Mother bought a house and the previous owner from whom she agreed to buy the house from, made things difficult (she was lazy) and my Mother had the agreed finalised amount of money in the bank and ready to pay. A temporary stale-mate went near six months and house prices had actually fallen. Yet somebody in an office figured out that throwing my 78 year-old-Mother out and sell it for $20.000 cheaper via auction, than she was willing to pay, SELL AT A LOSS, because the owner had defaulted payments, they could claim that $20.000 plus a little bit more, from their insurance. An opportunity to make a few measly dollars via a less than moral trick. The victims, an insurance company and my Mother getting stuck in the middle of a stouch between those two.

            They gave her two weeks to get out, even though she had more money (10% already in trust with the Real Estate agent and rest sitting in a bank), they undersold her house because they made an extra couple of thousand dollars they would not otherwise have made (forced the insurance company to pay), even though the sale of the sale price of the house had been made in good faith. Never mind throwing an elderly woman out who had just had a hip-replacement.

            They never even approached her, she just got a knock on the door by the Sheriff – you have fourteen days or we put you and all your belongings on the kerb (no, we will not help you to protect it), where you have an additional 24 hours to remove it of the kerb or be fined, and if the fine is not paid, you are then also told you will loose all your belongings.

            I wonder if the person in that office, who made this decision based on a sneaky way to make an extra few bucks and thought himself clever and very satisfied with himself (maybe even made a good name with his immediate boss) , would HE do that to his Mother or Grandmother?

            And yet that evening, he went home and had dinner with his wife and family and compartmentalised the decision he had made earlier that day?

            Does this sound a bit “SS” to you. It sure does to me!

            The Real Estate agent, who was the one who sold the house for twenty grand lower at the auction (yes, the same agent that he had brokered before earlier much higher $ sale), said they were criminals – but untouchable. He was the only one to apologise, and it wasn’t even his fault.

            Download “The Corporation” – I had first-hand experience with this. I had a friend rising on the corporate ladder and couldn’t stomach it and quit “because I wanted to die happy rather than rich.”

            And no, not all Corporations are bad – but they need to be judged by their “personality.”

            Adobe has shown a side to its “personality” and we have the right to be judging them accordingly. We all get judged according to our behaviour, and rightfully so.

            Collectively, maybe we can induce a little bit of behaviour modification in Adobe.

            BTW, the name of that large financial company is called “Prudenxxxx” in Elizabeth St, Sydney. Now they can come and take me away to court?

  108. May 12, 2013 at 10:06 am

    I completely agree, its outrageous what Adobe intend doing. I only have CS5 at present so intend upgrading to CS6 now before it disappears and this will have to be the last piece of Adobe software I use. I am only an amateur photographer but use Photoshop all the time, very extensively, but I certainly cannot afford to pay each month for Adobe Cloud versions

  109. 109) The Other Don
    May 12, 2013 at 10:07 am

    While very few parallels can be drawn between banking and photography, a photographer friend who happens to be a banker summed up the situation with Adobe in one word: GREED… This is the current problem on Wall Street, in London, in France, etc… Greed pure and simple…

    • 109.1) Peter
      May 12, 2013 at 10:26 am

      Is GREED the same as PROFIT?

      Where did I go wrong thinking that issues can be complex?

      I guess life is just a simple linear regression…forget this multiple stuff.

      • 109.1.1) The Other Don
        May 12, 2013 at 10:29 am

        Good question Peter… I have no idea how Greed verses Profit is calculated by some… I guess it is a philosophical question. In the case of Adobe, I would say that they wanted highly inflated profits to sate their unquenchable Greed. No idea what is at the heart of the matter…

        • Pete Gould
          May 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm

          Well let’s see. Profit, in this context, occurs when Adobe develops an upgrade with terrific features and it is so compelling that it generates revenue that far exceeds its development cost.

          Greed occurs when Adobe realizes it can trap its customer base into paying a never-ending fee based upon a single innovation. Imagine a world in which you could not download and retain a song from iTunes, or purchase a BluRay copy or digital download of a motion picture, or could no longer purchase a book (either in hardcopy or via digital download), but had to pay a monthly and unending subscription fee to access each one of them? That is the logical extrapolation of what Adobe is doing here.

  110. 110) Peter
    May 12, 2013 at 2:46 pm

    Based on the 250 excellent and varied comments above, I’ve decided on this course of action:

    1- Keep on using CS5 unless a problem with my computer develops.
    2- If CS5 is creamed, I will revert back to CS3 which does everything I need to do anyway.
    3- If CS3 is creamed, I will probably go the subscription route and keep using Photoshop, since I’m 72 and nearing those “clouds” anyway.

    Do I think writing our Congress about this issue will help? No way. Wishful thinking based on jacked-up emotions on this subject. Waste of time, but I think it gives congress a good laugh when they are considering gun control, Bengazi, Obamacare, unemployment, debt that could destroy our country, 2014 elections, etc.

    And as far as corporate greed is concerned…simplistic reasoning at its worst but forever a common whipping boy. Makes people feel good.

    But, thanks for all the comments. They made up my mind.

    • 110.1) Daniel
      May 12, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      I go to photography websites for photography issues, tips and photography information. It never fails that someone has to inject politics in the conversation. Sheesh!!

      • 110.1.1) Peter
        May 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm

        Daniel, I did not bring up the political stuff. Go to comment 190. That’s what I responded to by pointing out that politicians have other things to worry about other than Photoshop.

        Do your homework before you make accusatory and misdirected comments. Sheesh!

        • Daniel
          May 12, 2013 at 4:11 pm

          I apologize, however, someone brought up writing congress and you added this:

          “Do I think writing our Congress about this issue will help? No way. Wishful thinking based on jacked-up emotions on this subject. Waste of time, but I think it gives congress a good laugh when they are considering gun control, Bengazi, Obamacare, unemployment, debt that could destroy our country, 2014 elections, etc.”

          Can you see how I took this as politicizing? Again, I apologize.

          • Peter
            May 12, 2013 at 4:24 pm

            Ok, thanks.

      • 110.1.2) raischub
        May 12, 2013 at 4:46 pm

        If this software distribution model comes to table, it – not only may be – will have deeply impact on how we work digital in the future. If this is not stopped – others will follow. Guarantied! At the end of the day you don´t even have to pay a monthly fee for PSD – even for all the others too. Including your OS (like windows). Think about, if you have to pay that all monthly. I don´t like to think that to the end.
        So: If you are interested in digital photography, it´s nearly a must to have this in mind.
        The Adobe model kicks you out of race in the moment you have no money. Else although the people with low incomes will be out of. Most of the websites and forums are discussing this theme because the users wan´t to have their tools not to bee distributed such restrictive. It´s your part to read a forum or not. But I´m absolutely not with you that it is in the wrong place here. But may be we in europe have a different opinion and behaviour on that. Don´t know.
        And as I read the threat, many of confused users asked how to get on with Adobe in the future. As the marketing arguments of Adobe don´t tell the truth or conceal important facts, where can they ask, when not here?
        Also some people wondering if this software distribution is really legal/law conform. And sometimes important to activate others.
        Excuse my poor english – but I´m not of the opinion that the comment is wrong here.

        • peter
          May 13, 2013 at 8:49 am

          I agree with you on one point: “But may be we in europe have a different opinion and behaviour on that.”

  111. 111) Hoeras
    May 12, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    Microsoft went ‘controlling’ with its License games, then Apple upped on that with iTunes, and now Adobe has gone to “Number One” outdoing both of the other stinky two.

    One word seems to come to mind: Bully!

    Yep, the have become so big they can be the Big Bully on the block.

    And it’s not “cloud” at all – it’s a monopolised subscription model. And it is anti-competitive – and if no choice allowed, then may it also be open to a legal challenge?

    That would be interesting… a class action of Adobe users AGAINST Adobe. That is a novel idea?

  112. 112) Anastasia Beaverhausen
    May 13, 2013 at 3:52 am

    Once you cancel the subscription, you will not be able to open file developed in Creatice Cloud on older versions of Adobe software. They will no be backwards compatible. So, your files are held hostage until you re-up for another year.

    • 112.1) Hoeras
      May 13, 2013 at 5:59 am

      If this happens, then I will have nothing to do with Adobe – and look elsewhere, because anything else can only be better, not worse.

      There has to be a line drawn in the sand and beyond which you just say NO! Otherwise your freedom will be taken away – and then what next? If I have to learn GIMP, so be it.

      • 112.1.1) Pete Gould
        May 13, 2013 at 9:22 am

        What do you mean IF this happens? It has already happened! Either we fight them successfully or it’s a done deal.

        • Hoeras
          May 13, 2013 at 9:56 am

          I have a Canon S110, Fuji XE-1, Sony NEX 7 and D800E – at the moment the software I have supports those – so I have a little time to gauge things, but I know what my thoughts are – hopefully others will send a message with similar sentiment – and they may get the point or they are not getting a cent out of me from now on…

          If anybody believes they are indispensable, then they become dispensable.

    • 112.2) peter
      May 13, 2013 at 10:46 am

      If you’re so concerned then convert all your PDF files to TIFF, now.

  113. 113) The Other Don
    May 13, 2013 at 4:54 am
  114. 114) Peter G
    May 13, 2013 at 6:35 am

    Have been running NX2 for a few years now…..Works for me

    • 114.1) peter
      May 13, 2013 at 8:44 am

      I just hope they come out with NX3 and don’t leave the software business.

      I just wish they had cloning tools equal to CS5

      Nik leaving is a disappointment.

      • 114.1.1) The Other Don
        May 14, 2013 at 9:03 am

        Not sure what you mean Peter, but NIK software is still there even if it is owned by Google… :(

  115. 115) Hoeras
    May 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    It is funny how Corporations complain about Government intrusions and then do exactly to their client what they don’t want the Governments to do them.

    I am getting more and more sick of “too big to fail” Corporations basically wanting to rule our lives.

    Interesting is that THEY may themselves become the rationale for more Government Regulation – and then they can only have themselves to blame. Talking about giving somebody “too much rope”? If the public screams, then the powers that be have to listen (and we are not just talking about Adobe here), and people have a right to expect that Government protect them from predatory behaviour, that Government have a responsibility to protect US.

    But BOTH Governments and Corporations should realise that there are lines of propriety that should not reasonably be crossed. That BOTH should behave reasonably. Or at least try.

    It’s now up to Adobe whether they want my clientele or not. I don’t need them if they abandon me. I will make THEM dispensable.

  116. 116) Peter
    May 14, 2013 at 9:00 am

    As a Nikon owner I have plenty of choices:
    1- keep on using CS5
    2- have CS3
    3- keep on using Capture NX2
    4- have Elements 11
    5-have used Lightroom in the past; could go back
    6-a Nikon friend of mine is testing out DxO Optics Pro
    7-have Photomatix as a standalone when shooting HDR (it also does single images too)
    8- or go the Photoshop subscription route

    My philosophy is never be held hostage to one piece of software. Always experiment and look for alternatives. This situation is a perfect example of being held hostage.

    • 116.1) The Other Don
      May 14, 2013 at 9:05 am

      Best post ever Peter… I agree… I have CS6 and do not see a reason to upgrade considering I do most of my processing in LR. I just switched from Aperture to LR but have no problems moving back. I have Capture NX2, so I am not stuck without alternatives. There is also Pixelmator…

  117. 117) Peter
    May 14, 2013 at 11:29 am

    Pep pill for all those on “suicide watch” because Adobe has spurned their affections and loyalty.

    For instant relief, go to Google search engine and type in these words: Photoshop alternatives.

    No charge for my medicinal services.

    • 117.1) The Other Don
      May 14, 2013 at 10:49 pm

      Funniest post ever Peter… Just what this thread needed….

    • 117.2) Hoeras
      May 15, 2013 at 3:00 am

      Slightly different but similar take on it; if Adobe doesn’t want me any more, I will oblige. Bye!

      They don’t need me? Then I don’t need them. Simple really. The World is bigger than Adobe.

  118. 118) Peter
    May 15, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    I think the well has run dry at 280 comments. Time for a few beers.

  119. 119) bill
    May 17, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    The future….

    …..Next month, we will launch the fully integrated version of our new Creative Cloud desktop application. As part of that transition, we are updating the server APIs and code that manages file sync.
    We had initially planned to take the preview offline next week for these updates, but some updates this week have caused instability in the service. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you.

    Most Recent Status Update

    All production systems are functioning. The Preview for Creative Cloud Connection is temporarily disabled.

  120. 120) Chris Pettit
    May 20, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    My creative perspective on the Adobe CC controvery:

    • 120.1) FrancoisR
      May 20, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      Nice Chris!

      • 120.1.1) Chris Pettit
        May 20, 2013 at 7:07 pm

        Thank you!

  121. May 22, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    As a professional freelancer, I chose the CC version the first year it was offered. The introductory price of $29 a month couldn’t be beat, especially having access to every program Adobe offered.

    However, I realized also, at the time, I was being reeled in. Now, I am already paying $50 a month the 2nd year. Further, I have no control over payment increases that Adobe will require over time. But the real bottom line is I also have no control over my work. If I stop paying, I have no more ability to edit or update my “Adobe” files for clients.

    Also, as a “professional” I feel for the many loyal “hobbyists” who have invested in Adobe products for years and now are forced into a marketing scheme that really makes no sense to them. Most certainly this is a classic case of disrespecting the people that got you to where you are today.

    What is the solution? An earnest plea to third party entrepreneurs to come up with alternatives to the Adobe offerings. Right now Adobe has clout because there really are no rivals. Pixelmator GIMP, Sketch etc. etc. are good first starts but cannot hold a candle to Adobe products. To win the war, we must have REAL alternatives to turn to. Go Google or whoever wants to rise to the occasion. If you build we will buy.

  122. May 23, 2013 at 6:18 am

    Nasim, for what it is worth DPReview published a list of “10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren’t Photoshop).


    Most, if not all, of them have been mentioned above.


  123. 123) Michael
    May 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    Glad someone has finally mentioned alternatives to Photoshop. What other editing softwares do you recommend?

  124. 124) Michael
    May 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    Does using Corel reduce image quality?

  125. 125) Alaria
    May 24, 2013 at 6:44 am

    This is going to ruin it for hobbyists like me. I get PS for Christmas every 2-3 years from my Dad who is normally a total tightwad and blows a gasket every time the electric bill is a dollar more than he was expecting it to be so. It’s a lot easier to fork over a bit once in a while when budgets allow but a monthly rental fee… guh.

    I rue the day when all the corps get on board.
    50$ for Adobe
    50$ for Microsoft
    65$ for Autodesk

    want to run Notepad…. that’ll be 1 $ please.

    Sorry Dad :(

    • 125.1) Peter
      May 24, 2013 at 8:18 am

      Alaria, ‘Noli equi dentes inspicere donati’

  126. 126) Hoeras
    May 24, 2013 at 9:08 am

    Guys, I have MY solution… if the subscription model is all they offer me, then they will never see another dime from me. They will have to get their money elsewhere. I will make do with whatever alternatives there are, and life goes on. I will still take photos, I will still find ways to edit them, there is life after Adobe.

  127. 127) MartinG
    May 24, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    I remain totally opposed to the terms on offer.

    So what are the key things that they would have to change to make things easier for those of us who feel that Adobe has been behaving like a merciless bully? It is a TERRIBLE model anyway, but what if it was $10 per month for a module and $25 for a suite? What if the packages would continue to work for 6 months if you stopped paying? (We would rent for a while then stop, then join up again, I know!) What if….

    The big problem is that no matter how you try to rethink it by adjusting the monthly fee, or even extending the cut off – it REMAINS an obnoxious, insulting and diabolically exploitative model.

    I used to like Adobe – now I see them as evil monsters. This is a huge ‘fail’ alright. Once CS6 ceases to be compatible with my current technology, I won’t be able to use their software. It has an impact on other companies too. I was planning to upgrade the computer in the next 2 years- I guess I can’t do that easily, what if I decide to upgrade to the new nikonD900 etc.

    Sigh! So much evil in one simple announcement.

  128. 128) Johan
    May 27, 2013 at 10:20 am

    I don’t understand why people are so upset, as a non CS suite user I am suddenly wishing to give some of those programs a try. The price for a perpetual license used to be too unattractive for me previously.

    I see several benefits to subscription for the user.

    Lower upfront cost, this is huge for many people, both corporate customers who can now afford having all licenses fully upgraded all the time, and for the hobbyist who can cough up $20 bucks instead of hundreds (or illegally obtain a cracked pirated version) to see if PS is worth it.
    This makes editing software a regular low cost rather than an irregular large item which may be hard to fit into the yearly budget.

    People who do not use PS constantly can pay for a short subscription to fix their holiday pictures, then let the subscription expire.

    People learning PS or other CC tools in school will be always learn the latest version. Schools can increase the amount of licenses without running in to huge upfront costs. If there is a drop in students they can rapidly decrease costs.
    Similarly for a corporate user base, if they have need of 5 extra licenses for a 3 month project, there is no need to consider if it is worth the investment of a perpetual license which will go unused.

    We don’t hear rants that pro photographers, artists or designers charge what they can and use copyright laws to construct various licenses to their work at different price points.
    Naturally Adobe will try to maximize their profits just as most pro photographers will charge more if they can get away with it.
    If they get fat margins, the field will get more attractive for their competitors.

    Subscription style pricing has been a successful in many other areas such as games, music and entertainment. It does help in decreasing pirating. Why illegally download possibly contaminated cracked code which may not be patchable, when you can have access to fully updated and supported software for a small fee.

    The thing to look out for is proprietary formats, always make sure you can access your work from another platform if needed.
    Though if you do change platform and need to go back to adobe proprietary files, you only need to to pay a short subscription fee to access them again…

    • 128.1) BabaBonga
      May 27, 2013 at 10:51 am

      This distribution model does not stop piracy in any other way, than the classical distribution. It´s one of the half-truth arguments, I can hear so often…: The Apps are running local the same way, they did before. If Adobe is able, to stop piracy this way, they can also stop it in the classic distribution. Nobody here has anything defending software piracy.
      An other half-truth argument is the existence of file-types which will make us able to fully edit our creations. Many of the Adobe formats can only be opened fully compatible and editable with Adobe Software. And if you want to change Software you have to convert (ALL) your creations in other formats, which mostly will not take all the features with them (like full 3D Access in PSD can not be converted fully to other filetypes editable). After Effects and Premiere are already (today! see product specs) NOT compatible between CC and CS6. Otherwise there are no Apps (or formats) which allow to export with FULL functionality. And there is NO GUARANTY (I talked with Adobe support) that the compatibility (as today) will be the same in the future. InDesign was never fully compatible even one version below. And many of us don´t trust Adobe, that they will do their best to make their files as compatible as possible. By the way: I don´t want to reactivate my subscription in case of printing out one single file. Thats unacceptable.
      Something getting cheaper??? Adobe tells stake-holders, that they will come to more than 10% growth in Margin although they lose many of their users. And telling us, that they will keep the “cheaper” prices???
      I think it´s more likely, that they will rise if enough users are in the cloud, have many files created and a step back is difficult for them.
      Buy the way: I don´t think, the price is the first thing (but it is an argument).
      You can read this thread again – there are so many arguments why users are confused and won´t accept what Adobe has to offer. It would have been fair if Adobe offers a Buy-Out strategy like paying monthly for 2 years and get away with this software version for unrestricted future use. So many user suggested that. But Adobe shows no reaction. They are pointing out all their sugar glossy announcements and hiding all the negative items.
      All of your arguments were discussed above, and I think all words are said.
      If you feel lucky and comfortable with the cloud – nothing against.
      I would pay three times the price, if they would give me freedom of choice.
      Also I´m afraid other software companies will follow.
      And I don´t think it´s highly motivating for Updates, if a company knows, they will get their fees next month if they are innovative or not.
      Only a monopolist can do such a radical change- and I hope Adobe will not be for a longer period.
      I think it´s an big Image Disaster for Adobe, when I have a look to all the web-blogs.
      Even their stock-market price went down for more than 10% since May 6, 2010.
      And even more than 12% under rising NASDAQ.
      Maybe, thats the thing Adobe will hear…
      But also might be, a change would make them lose their faces.

  129. 129) Tim
    May 27, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    This thread has been going on for quite a while and it is obvious that the vast majority of the responders are willing to jump off the Adobe bandwagon the minute that something else comes along. For those I hope that a product comes along soon.

    What I believe most people are missing in this discussion is an understanding of how commercial (versus retail box software)software is sold today and that what Adobe is doing is moving the products like CS6 into a commercial software model. They obviously believe that many users will only need Elements to make them happy and Adobe has a stated direction of keeping that product in the current retail license structure. For the last 40 years commercial software has been marketed through a perpetual license that was of value as long as you paid an annual maintenance fee (usually 15 – 20% of the purchase prices) to make sure your product remained compatible with the ever changing (Moore’s law) hardware your business is running on. They were betting on the fact that hardware and major operating systems improvements would force a complete upgrade in 3-5 years.

    Adobe is putting a new twist on this and making it a subscription but the concept is the same – over a period of time they need to get a predictable amount of revenue from each user and this allows them to incrementally move the product through the maze of upgrades of related to hardware and operating systems. Any one out there happy running CS6 on Windows 95 or a Pentium III processor. That is what I thought. Instead of the traditional upfront license with annual maintenance fees they are receiving that predictable revenue on a monthly basis.

    Now to the issue of holding your files hostage. I have been in the IT business for more than 45 years. Proprietary file formats are nothing new and again those in the commercial world are very familiar with dealing with proprietary data conversions. It was not until well into the 1990s that Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) became a common way of getting around proprietary data issues. It was pressure from the end user community that forced companies like Oracle, Sybase, Informix and IBM to adopt these standards and to eventually abandon proprietary file formats. They did not change the license structure they changed the value of the product. With the right vocalization of concerns to Adobe they too will abandon the proprietary format and rely on the value of their product to retain customers.

    Writing to your congressional representatives is a total waste of time. Adobe is not attempting to force a monopoly but rather to make more money for the value of their product. Congress could deal with issues of monopoly and unfair trade but gouging customers (if that is truly the case) is called capitalism and it is the fabric of successful companies in America. So save the time and effort of sending emails and letters to congress and focus on letting Adobe know what you expect of their products.

    If Elements fits buy it and use it. If your life or business are better off through the use of CC realize your needs have moved into the realm of commercial software and thus the price just went up.

    • 129.1) Bababonga
      May 27, 2013 at 6:39 pm

      I don´t think, that it´s useless to think about the legal aspects of this distribution. Here in the EU many are meanwhile thinking, that the move of Adobe is against law. I´ve read a few posts where people plan to take the way through instances. I think, every possible step should be taken to stop this way of a monopolist.
      May be there are different law conditions in the US – But as I see it here, there are aspects, which can make this distribution model impossible…
      Let´s hope and see….

      • 129.1.1) EW8500
        June 21, 2014 at 12:29 pm

        These folks are likely french… Not a reference of anything here… Et je suis Francais!!!

  130. 130) Chas
    May 31, 2013 at 3:48 pm

    I own a small C-Corp design company and we are NOT excited about this move by Adobe. There’s nothing wrong with them supplying two version of the software… one purchased and one cloud but they don’t even give us that grace. We’re no getting on board with renting our software and will not be moving to creative cloud.

    • 130.1) TimR
      May 31, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      good for you! the more folks that refuse to come on board with this silly inferior subscription thing, that will get adobe’s attention and realize that no one is buying into this scam of theirs and will have no choice but to take drastic measures to return it back to the way it was before or come up with a better solution.. ya should direct your comments directly to adobe and give em bloody hell.. ;)

  131. 131) Michael
    June 3, 2013 at 9:30 am

    I, along with many other photographers, are looking in to alternative software. We are having a hard time finding software that doesn’t reduce resolution or image quality. Does anyone have suggestions?

    • 131.1) Murray Foote
      June 3, 2013 at 10:59 am

      I believe the best alternative at the moment is probably Photoline, though I haven’t tried it. 16-bit with layers, for example. (

      I wouldn’t be in too much of a hurry if you don’t need to switch now, though. I’d wait for a year until the introductory pricing expires. There has been a lot of complaint. By then Adobe may have changed their pricing structure or introduced a new non-cloud photographic-specific Photoshop substitute or someone like Google may have come up with a new alternative.

      • 131.1.1) EW8500
        June 21, 2014 at 12:27 pm

        Jury is out. 9.99 for PS CC is it. @GB vs 20gb storage is the only change.

        • Murray Foote
          June 21, 2014 at 11:01 pm

          Jury is back in, I think you meant to say.

          I agree. I have CC and didn’t try an alternative. The long-term upgrade price was $20 a year ago though.

          • EW8500
            June 22, 2014 at 11:16 am

            Still is. Difference is that the infamous (to me) cloud storage is reduced to 2GB which is a joke since Adobe offers 2GB for free.

            • Profile photo of Murray Foote Murray Foote
              June 22, 2014 at 11:25 am

              No, they reduced the “permanent” price to $9.99 a couple of days ago. Either 2GB or 20GB of storage is neither here nor there for me so that doesn’t phase me.

    • 131.2) alan
      June 4, 2013 at 4:03 am

      In my humble opinion, an excellent RAW converter is DXO. I then adjust the resultant TIFF’s in Capture NX2 or NIK Collection.

      • 131.2.1) Murray Foote
        June 4, 2013 at 7:26 am

        I’m sure it’s true that DxO is an excellent RAW converter and there’s probably also Capture 1 and several obscure ones. But I don’t see any need to migrate away from Lightroom at this stage if you are using it as it remains stand-alone. Photoshop may be another matter and I suspect there are very few viable alternatives to it.

  132. 132) Ben
    June 5, 2013 at 7:51 pm

    Dare I say it, CC=Communist Cloud

    • June 5, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      Love your response, however I must also point out that CC = Capitalist Cloud works just as well, and, perhaps in this case, might be the more appropriate choice. I ain’t no Commie, just being observant.


    • 132.2) Murray Foote
      June 5, 2013 at 9:29 pm

      A Communist cloud would be predicated for the people and therefore either free or cheap. However it might not work. Definitely a Capitalist cloud. May work but they don’t care about the poor.

  133. 133) fufu
    June 9, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    u fail… lol dosent cost more then before, maybe because u hacked it before

  134. July 6, 2013 at 6:23 am

    It doesn’t matter what Adobe does, someone will always complain.

    • 134.1) Hoeras
      July 6, 2013 at 9:00 am

      If they are greedy, so should you? Or do you like being ripped off?

      • 134.1.1) EW8500
        June 22, 2014 at 11:41 am

        How $9.99 per month is being ripped off when Photoshop cost 1,000.00 and each upgrade around 500?

        If your purchase this software and do not upgrade it will take 101 months for the software to cost more… Assuming you do not buy upgrades every two years…

        101 months = 8 years and 5 months

        At the end of that period you have an user that still has the latest and one who has a sub par product…

        I love this ‘greed’ that makes a program affordable to all and that my friend is the real problem: Even the poor can afford a Rolls Royce! OH! The misery!

  135. July 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Almost 37,000 folks have signed.They don’t like Adobe CC licensing.Show @Adobe how you feel.

    Another more fiscal way to show @Adobe you dont like the CC licensing scheme. #adobe2014

  136. 136) Ed Ruth
    September 1, 2013 at 1:25 am

    Yes, I teach Photoshop but have begun teaching more about post-production in general and less about Photoshop during the course. I teach about the alternatives and their benefits for specific uses. I will do more of this until, ultimately, phasing out Photoshop all together. While I understand the benefits of a predictable monthly revenue stream and the headaches that must go into finding ways to tempt users into updating, I feel Adobe will soon be in decline. Creative Cloud has basically taken Adobe behind a software curtain and the refugees have already begun to flee the corporate dictatorship.

  137. 137) Steven
    September 9, 2013 at 9:35 am

    What are you complaining about? Go out and take some photos. Make your clients happy.

    If $20/month for the latest image editing technology is rubbing you the wrong way, you’re not in business of making photography.

    You’ll go out and spend more than that beer this week, won’t you? And, as you’re drinking it, you’ll bitch and moan about “corporate dictatorship” and “fatter margins for corporates”. Nice one.


    • 137.1) raischub
      September 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      Xtremly short thought.
      It´s absolutely not the 20$ a month (would have paied double or tribble if there would be an buy-out or real compatibility to competitors).
      It´s losing access (full) to your files after quitting, It´s losing software after quitting, It´s about a must follow hardware dictates, It´s take all or nothing, It´s about losing clients files in case of not longer beeing able to pay or cloud-server troubles, It´s about changing software market in total and a lot more of arguments.
      Can´t understand, why there are people, who accept that that easy.
      A (sounding) small price seems to be the non plus ultra for some.
      May be sometimes it´s better to drink less.

      • 137.1.1) Steven
        September 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm

        Haha. Kudos on the drinking quip.

        There’s a lot of concern about “what ifs” after quitting. But are you really planning to quit?

        Other concerns are around hardware/software updates. But are you really planning to run a business on outdated hardware/software?

        Would it be correct, then, that what this is really about is people’s desire to have the freedom or make their own choices?

        Even if the choice they’re likely to make would be nearly the same that Adobe currently “forces” them into?


        • raischub
          September 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm

          Not a question if I plan to quit (today).
          May be there once will a situation where I must quit (may be financial causes)
          And yes – why not? If there appearing real competitors (like they are in video- and web-business). And why to take the CashCow for all Apps if I like to edit with Avid or Apple?
          Running business with outdated SW? Yes. Never installed newest Versions on all MACs here.
          There where so many issues to wait (broken PlugIns etc., buggy Updates espec. Adobe).
          Can´t speak only for me: Yes, I want freedom of choice. The price is the one of the last lacks I´m thinking of. I want a foreseeable future and own the lifelong right to use the software I bought. I don´t want to wake up with a few ten thousands files of my clients, that I can´t edit any longer when I decide to use n other software.
          And no – Adobe is not the only choice. After May 6th we are doing all new projects with competitors of Adobe. Or with good old lifelong license of CS6. Works well with Web, Video and Graphics. Only Photoshop is hard to replace. But I think, when CS6 goes “old” – there will be competitors also, who took their chance.
          And I don´t think, it´s always necessary to have all the latest features.
          Good Luck on your cloud.
          I like a clear horizon & blue sky.

  138. 138) Rudy
    September 15, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    I think that Adobe came to the realization that they had hit the ceiling on CS. By that, I mean that they saw their task becoming harder and harder to provide enough innovation with each update to entice people to upgrade. Therefore, they had to come up with some other model that would continue bringing in revenue – a subscription model that forces consumers to pay in perpetuity if they want to continue working with their Adobe proprietary files. Me? I’m staying with CS6. It will hold me for several more years as long as Apple doesn’t break it with any new OS updates. I also will not update CS6 from here on out – no doubt Adobe will throw us malicious updates in the future in an attempt to force us over to CC.

  139. 139) Frank Jr.
    October 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm

    Adobe reported an attack on its computer network, gaining access to both customer information and source code related programs. Hackers allegedly accessed a source code repository sometime in mid-August 2013, after breaking into a portion of Adobe’s network that handled credit card transactions.

    Source Articles:

    • 139.1) Frank Jr.
      October 3, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      This is why I am not a fan of apps in the cloud.

    • 139.2) EW8500
      June 21, 2014 at 12:22 pm

      And every other computer company retailer or not is immune from this type of attack. Interesting.

  140. 140) Mono
    October 6, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    Nice analysis on the costs. Adobe just want to see how much of a monopoly they are. If they can pull this, they can pull any pricing in the future.

    Adobe probably calculated that the average user only uses 2 apps. They only pay about $200 a year or less on upgrades. They hope to force users into $480 a year and even tempt them into $600 a year. Why not make their profits ten times greater? It does not cost them anything to bundle more apps. It’s about FORCING users. That’s why they offer no alternative. They believe they have locked users into their system, like a monopoly, and even hope to expand it with such bundling of multiple apps. But users do not like being forced into buying. Users will strike back and Adobe will have to revert to selling software.

    Premiere Pro is nice but Lightworks is not bad and it’s free for many codecs and only $5 a month for one with more.

    Audition is mediocre. One can use a free app like Wavosaur to work with single files, and the $60 Reaper which is closer to Prootols than Audition and allows music production.

    Photoshop does many things, but most people will be very happy with Gimp which is free.

    We have free RAW developers that have some good editing. Lightroom does more, but many people do not care for that.

    There are free tools that work with Acrobat Files and low cost alternatives.

    Speedgrade is fun but Resolve has a very nice 1080p-limited free version. It only misses some very advanced features such and 3D and network support.

    I can’t thing of a good alternative to the other apps, but I’m sure some exist, if not free, for a comparable cost with old Adobe pricing.

    Adobe are not powerful enough to pull this scheme. if Microsoft decided to force users into buying Word every single year, the millions who are not frequent upgraders (such as lawyers and writers) would seek the free alternatives. Being locked out if you do not pay for the year is simply unacceptable.

  141. 141) Mono
    October 6, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    One problem is that Adobe will have no incentive to improve the software. Why improve when the money is coming anyway? You don’t have to convince anyone to upgrade. If this succeeds, competition will be weak anyway.

    And this brings us to the second problem. Bundling is a monopoly practice. When you see a new app that is better than the Adobe one, you know that you are already getting the Adobe app for free. It’s hard to compete with free. The same happens when you get interested in something else, like coding for the web, or audio, or video, for the first time. This is a barrier to entry in this market and it will stop innovation. It’s an exploitation of Adobe’s current position on the market. It’s not likely that the US department of justice of trade department or whatever it’s called in the USA will do something about it though. They have tolerated and even supported Amazon.

    Why does it takes 1 hour to do a complex search and replace operation in Microsoft Word? Why does it take Adobe Acrobat 6 hours for some operations? Why do both operations lead to a crash sometimes after all the wait? Because they are badly coded, with hundreds of serious bugs and elementary mistakes, and they also use only one of the 4, 8 or 12 cores of the CPU. And why is that? Because they are in the position to not worry about improving the software.

    It’s ironic that Microsoft and Adobe both used piracy to get in that position. They were not the better apps in their category. They just got more users to use their software by allowing the spread of pirated versions, and including virtually no copy protection. The new way to expand is offering apps with serious functionality for free. But it’s too late in some markets.

    • 141.1) Troy
      May 16, 2014 at 3:41 am

      There is a guarantee of regular updates and improvements. In my short time with CC have had multiple upgrades/updates. You do not know anything about this. Clearly you do not use the CC. Your misinformation and conspiracy theories prove it.

  142. 142) MItchell Brooks
    January 7, 2014 at 9:10 pm

    It’s infuriating that Adobe is “offering” what is essentially a con job. What they are doing is extremely shortsighted by arrogantly taking their customer base for granted, and doing what they think will up their cash flow. And you will note that they are not offering a choice in the matter because they know that Creative Cloud would lose out in a competition with traditional packaging.

    And of course they are selling this confidence game by telling us it’s the “Latest thing” and it’s “Cutting edge.” It’s a familiar Big Lie that any change represents progress, that if it’s new, it’s the greatest. CC represents regression. It represents a sharp degradation in customer service.

    I’ll never, never, never buy it. I WILL find alternatives. There WILL be many new alternatives to fill the sudden vacuum that will be caused by this insolent attempt to put a Happy Face on a total rip off.

  143. January 14, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    I’m pretty sure this’ll be buried but I figured as a student I should chime in:

    I LOVE it. I pay €20 a month for the whole lot, and it’s the most useful thing I’m spending my money on at the moment. Between the improvements to the software (it’s not as incremental an upgrade as you make it out to be, at least with the applications that I use) to the features that come bundled with it.

    My website was developed in Muse, which is then hosted by Adobe Business Catalyst for free since I’m a CC Sub (I guess not entirely free, but it’s worth €8 a month normally).
    They sort you out with the full works with Behance, which is nice, but nothing compared to the BC deal.

    I’m able to install it on two computers. So I have my applications on my laptop and the iMac in work. If I upload something to my CC storage, I can grab it in work the next day. If I change something in After Effects, like the layout, it’s reflected at home that night when I take out my laptop.
    I can even sign out of the work computer and then use the entire suite in Uni when working on projects (they currently use CS6, but only the Video Production package, which to their credit is all that’s needed 9/10 times).

    There’s also a huge freedom in it all. The other day I was doing 3D work in Blender, and needed to create a logo and export it as an SGV. Sure enough, I was able to have Illustrator up in a few mins and away I went – no barriers!
    It’s also great to get into applications that I wouldn’t have normally used, but now can’t live without. Muse, Illustrator and Audition are 3 applications that I use on a day to day basis now when working, which I owe to the freedom of being able to get the entire suite.
    I think I’ll try out SpeedGrade next, like a kid in a bloody. great. candy. shop.

    Also it’s worth pointing out that this article is leaning to one side.

    – If you stop paying for it, you have a month to do what you like before it goes dead. It’s not like the electricity bill that wasn’t paid and suddenly you’re shocked to find the lights don’t work.

    – You don’t HAVE to update at all – so a slower internet connection isn’t ever a constant problem. Personally I’ve used CS6 as well and always got the digital download because it was more convenient.

    – The updates are actually pretty great. I upgraded my Mac a few months back with a new SSD (as well as ripping out the disk drive and popping a second HD in there, not that it matters, but it’s a great set up) and then upgraded to OS X Mavericks later on. I had heard that After Effects had trouble with OS X Mavericks, but sure enough Adobe pushed out an update to fix any issues. I didn’t miss a days work and everything was up to date and fast.

    – Being able to instantly download all of my software onto the new SSD (albeit, on a pretty good internet connection) was unbelievable time saving. I then just logged into my Adobe account, and then my settings were just.. there! After Effects had my panels the way I like them, my files were ready to be accessed.. etc.

    – There are plenty of ways to open up those file formats. PSDs work across the board, and the rest do too with various applications. To say that you’ll never be able to open up your files again is a lie. Of course, files like .proj from Premiere Pro could cause serious problems – but when you have a month’s warning to pack things up or pay the fee, you can export universal XMLs from your projects for future use.
    If you’re using Muse, then export HTML.. etc.

    I felt the same way at the beginning, reluctant to move on and started looking for alternatives (having just come from FCP7, I would have been willing to make the switch to AVID or look elsewhere). However, just using it and seeing what I can do has made up for it. Going back to CS6 sounds like a headache that I don’t want to return to. I’ll say that I would like to be able to sell it all second hand, but for what I’m getting, it’s working brilliantly.

    Possibly they should create a system for people who don’t get paid using CC? I can see how a hobbyist would question spending a monthly fee on this, when they may take long breaks from it all and not care for the updates.
    As a working student though, it suits me perfectly. I don’t need €€€€s in the bank for a one off payment, and I’m making my money back and then some.

    Maybe other people in 2014 will have learned to love it? I see a lot this is from 2013, when people really hated the crap out of CC!

    • 143.1) CSI
      May 16, 2014 at 12:30 am

      It’s always easier when mommy and daddy are paying for it all. Wait until it comes out of your own pocket.

      • 143.1.1) EW8500
        June 21, 2014 at 12:18 pm

        Ever met students that work as they study?
        If you take the time to read this person is working.
        So, mister TV-SHOW-ADDICT do pay attention to what your read as it already come out of HIS pocket.

    • 143.2) Troy
      May 16, 2014 at 3:44 am

      I am having the same love of this!! CSI is a troll loser. Btw, I am tne parent, paying and get to use it on the second computer in the house. Haters and crybabies are just sad.

  144. 144) CSI
    May 16, 2014 at 12:19 am

    Something people are missing here….

    Adobe had lots of sales to amateurs and students, which was a good thing. With Cloud, they will most likely LOSE all of those sales. How does this affect so-called “professionals”? To maintain or increase the profit margin, prices on subscriptions will HAVE to go up. No casual user purchases means all that money has to be replaced somehow. It will be replaced through cloud users paying higher fees every year as casual users either never buy Adobe products, or discontinue subscriptions.

    Also, as in my case, government agencies often bought Adobe products on grant. Grants are fixed purchase funds, and do NOT support subscriptions in perpetuity. Most agencies only replace software every five years or so, but when they do they spend big. The inability to purchase on grant means fewer purchases. That means fewer government agencies using Adobe products… my own department now uses an alternate .pdf creation program, and will replace our aging CS with an alternative.

    • 144.1) Troy
      May 16, 2014 at 3:47 am

      You are so far from correct it is hilarious. Or is it that the world of “crack codes” you so enjoyed for free have come crashing down and you have to actually pay for the first time? Guessing that applies to most of the peopke crying here.

      • 144.1.1) csi
        May 16, 2014 at 1:19 pm

        Nope. Just that the CC concept doesn’t work for many more people than Adobe thought. They have a right to change their model, and we have a right to complain and say no. I have a right to teach alternatives to Adobe in my forensic photography classes. You have a right to be an ignorant fanboi.

  145. 145) Troy
    May 16, 2014 at 3:34 am

    Unbelievable cry baby antics people. Student discount paid a year in advance is under $17 a month for the entire Adobe CC of products. All software is upgraded regularly and for no extra cost. I am a photographer and preparing an independent film production set up. (for my personal use). So much pro software for $16.xx per month. What qualifies you as student? You might be surprised. I’ve got kids that use this software – so we share. Any of you know anyone in school (anywhere)? Thousands of dollars of software for pennies a day. I’d say you whinning fools don’t deserve to walk upright with real thinking folks with your embarrassing antics.

    • 145.1) csi
      May 16, 2014 at 1:23 pm

      Oh, by the way, did you happen to notice in the TOS that you are committing fraud by subverting your kids’ student license for your own commercial use? You admit to what is nothing more than theft, but claim some moral superiority. Really?

  146. 146) EW8500
    June 21, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    Love the negativity and the list given…

    You never own the software
    One NEVER own any software, subscription or not. You earn the right to use, read the fine print of all software packages and not only Adobe. That use can be yanked from the software company at any time. Considering what you list later on, you should be banned from using any software product and fined $250k for every software title and version you sold.
    You have no control over pricing
    And you had it before? You fix the price of the software your purchase or is it the manufacturer/retailer that does so? Just asking
    You cannot sell the software
    According to the software terms of use you are not allowed to do so. Selling your software to another user is a breach of contract as well as copyright. Penalty for this is $250k if I recall well
    You lose access when you don’t pay
    Right and so will you lose your rental dwelling… NOT an issue. I am sure folks that run into that situation are going to cry over the lost of software access when they have lost everything else. Riiiiight.
    It is expensive
    And 1k for the software is not? Sure, I trust you. Considering that the fee includes all software updates you do not pay again and again to obtain few ‘new features’ at an upgrade of what? Half price so $500. Have you ever calculated the TOO of your software, adding all the purchases together? Maybe you should.
    Pricing is outrageous for several products
    Once again… PS CC is 9.99 per month, includes LR5 now. Adding other software from the suite is not an issue for photographers and honestly if $20.00 per month is too much for you, stop going out every night to rant over Adobe while paying for a much costlier dinner.
    Adobe Creative Cloud requires high speed Internet
    And we all live in the boonies with 1200bps modem. What planet are you living in? Your argumentation becomes more and more specious
    You lose access to proprietary Adobe files if you stop your subscription
    Since adobe software does not force to save onto their proprietary format this is a non-issue once again.

    Something not on this infamous list…
    The need to connect every 30 days to ‘activate Adobe CC. THAT is also a non issue as I do not know one person using Internet who does not connect at least once a month, even when traveling. If you do, please let me know.

    I have not seen a more ridiculous post than this one. None of the argumentation make sense worse, it says the author is used to break the copyright laws by selling ‘his software’.

    There is one issue that the author does not mention and should be. Folks using a secure network that has no access to Internet for whatever reason cannot use the ‘cloud’. These folks are the ones left behind. That’s it.

    I see pros bemoan the ‘vulgarization’ of Adobe suite as they feel that now they are not ‘special’ anymore. Live with it and stop rehashing empty arguments and threats of moving to another software company. It makes absolutely no sense.

    ‘Creative cloud’ like any internet service has its problem (interrupted services a couple of weeks ago) but at the same time it has made top notch software suite available to the rest of the world of photographers. The possible result is the extinction of Photoshop Elements that has sub-par features and becomes more expensive that the real thing in the long term.

    • 146.1) EW8500
      June 22, 2014 at 11:20 am


      The delay is 90 days before the software working altogether.
      If a longer time is needed (going to prison for a year or 2 for breaching the copyright by example) you can a contact customer rep to deal with the situation.

      • 146.1.1) EW8500
        June 22, 2014 at 11:44 am

        Stop working, sorry

  147. 147) Umair
    June 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm

    I am so glad to read this. I thought I was the only one since I had read no one else complain. I have the same problem with Microsoft’s Office 365 subscriptions. If anyone thinks they are cheap they should wake up because ever since subscriptions, 3 things happened on Amazon: 1. They didn’t reduce the Mac Office price to $70 like every year 2. The 3-user versions disappeared. 3. The average prices of Office Suites significantly went up.

    1. Without subscriptions, new features (innovation) decide whether we pay for the upgrade or skip one (or even two versions). With subscriptions, the threat of losing existing features – apps would stop working – decides that we pay for upgrades. Subscription model is, therefore, anti-innovation.

    2. Both Adobe’s Photoshop and Microsoft’s Office are extremely mature products and both have near monopoly. And if you look at, say, the last 5 years, very little significant improvements have been made. Instead of coming up with new products or working hard to get new customers, the companies decided to force their existing customer base to pay again for the same product on the basis of their monopoly.

    • 147.1) Umair
      June 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm

      When a product matures, it gets increasingly hard to add significantly to it. Result is shrinking growth. You are required to come up with something new. What Apple does is reduce price or make them free because they want to sell you something new instead. Microsoft and Adobe are choosing subscription instead of offering something low cost or free. Why is Windows not subscription? Because it is still being innovated so its new version can be sold on the strength of features giving user the option. Subscription is essentially extortion-ware. Reminds me of the viruses that encrypt the computer and ask for money for the key lol

  148. 148) NHM
    August 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    Hi All,

    It’s regret to know that majority here is kinda rejecting Adobe Creative Cloud, but I believe you’re not totally rejecting Adobe. There are pro and cons for everyone and each industries.

    For your info, there are lots of other alternative products that you may choose for various industries.

    If you are still looking for Adobe CS6 perpetual license, do not hesitate to contact us as we are still selling genuine CS6 products. Now all CS6 products are digital license (no more retail box).

    Otherwise, if you are looking for alternative products, let us know as well. We will advise you accordingly. There are plenty of alternative products that you may choose at the fraction of cost.

    Drop me an email:

  149. 149) Art Schwartz
    November 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm

    You can buy Adobe CC and pay a one time low flat price without paying the monthly Subscription fee and it will contuine working without stopping. IT IS AVAILABLE ONLY BY CALLING (305) 761-7617. The company has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau since 2001 so it is genuine Adobe Software.

  150. 150) Nicolas D'Aoust
    January 12, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Considering Adobe products are some of the most pirated pieces of software on the internet, I for one am not surprised by this move. I prefer subscriptions rather than forking over large amounts of cash for software, I know there is no real difference but I grew up with socially acceptable pirating and the feeling of paying 1000$ upfront for a program always makes me feel completely ripped off. Subscription based models help ease the pain of that.

  151. 151) bluerabbit
    January 18, 2015 at 12:42 pm

    FYI, I have CS4 on my old computer and kept that. I bought boxed Lightroom, Elements, Corel Paintshop Pro, Manga (and a Wacom tablet that included graphics software package), and a PDF maker from Dragon. I also downloaded the GIMP and Inkscape and bought books. I’m happy! There are alternatives. What will work for you depends on your needs, but most people don’t need the Cloud. I do, by the way, have a subscription to Office 365, but it’s for 5 computers/users and that makes it a good deal for our household.

  152. 152) TeeJohn the Junkyard Dog
    April 3, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Trying to get an answer to a simple question seems to be impossible. I tried a trial version of LR but it created problems with an automatic response and I want to avoid those problems if I lease LR. I don’t need to catalog document images.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *