FORUMS: list search recent posts

Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
David Lawrence
Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 7:22:50 am

Lloyd Chambers is pro photographer, Mac developer, and expert in high-end Macintosh performance optimization. I've been reading his blog for years and have learned much from his online guides.

I was curious about his take on Adobe's CC announcement so I just checked his site. He has a number or articles posted and they're all worth a read but the one that really stood out to me was his dissection of the Creative Cloud's Terms of use.

Highlights:

1) Adobe can change terms at any time
2) Adobe assumes no liability for service reliability.
3) Prices can be raised at any time without notice
4) Adobe can terminate service at anytime for any reason

Bottom line - as a Creative Cloud user, your rights are very limited. Food for thought if you plan to build your business around these tools.

More here:

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2013/20130508_1a-Adobe-legal-agreement....
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130508_3-Adobe-Cloud.html

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 8:07:29 am

Those terms aren't very unique or surprising are they? All companies reserve the right to change things w/o notice. Google, Amazon and Apple reserve the right to remove content (including paid content) acquired from their stores from users' devices. No one guarantees 100% reliability, especially when it comes to cloud-based services where there are so many potential points of failure like 3rd party hosting services, internet backbones, ISPs, last mile, end user problems, etc.,. Should Adobe really be liable if a storm on the East Coat knocks out Amazon's servers which means a guy in LA can't access his CC online storage? If you read the EULAs for Dropbox, SkyDrive, Google Drive, iCould, etc, they all state they are not liable for service reliability and are not liable for any lost or damaged files.

I'm sure if we went through the EULAs and ToS agreements for all of our commonly used software and services wer'd finally similarly scary sounding language.




Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 8:31:40 am

[Andrew Kimery] "Those terms aren't very unique or surprising are they? All companies reserve the right to change things w/o notice."

Of course. But what got my attention was this line:
19.3 Termination or Suspension of Services. Adobe may also terminate or suspend all or a portion of your account and/or access to the Services for any reason (subject to Additional Terms for certain Services). Except as may be set forth in any Additional Terms applicable to a particular Service, termination of your account may include: (a) removal of access to all offerings within the Services; (b) deletion of Your Content and Account Information, including your personal information, log-in ID and password, and all related information, files, and Materials associated with or inside your account (or any part thereof); and (c) barring of further use of the Services.
These terms also apply to access to any work produced with these services.

Are you comfortable with that? I'm not.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index


Frank Gothmann
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 9:24:49 am

If the content is sitting on their servers and not your local drive, what else are they supposed to do with it? They'll give you a grace period to download it and then delete it. Same would apply to your website if you cancel your hosting with them.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 9:39:17 am

[Frank Gothmann] "If the content is sitting on their servers and not your local drive, what else are they supposed to do with it? They'll give you a grace period to download it and then delete it. Same would apply to your website if you cancel your hosting with them."

You're missing the point. If they decide to terminate your service or ban you from membership (which these terms allow them to do at any time for any reason) you will not be able to open any of the files on your hard drive created with their service, because the software that opens them will not run.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Frank Gothmann
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 9:55:05 am

The project files, yes. An avi or mov or tiff or png or whatever you create will open just fine in any other application.
But yeah, your project files won't open because the apps that created them won't open. But... I mean... how else is that supposed to work? You stop paying and the apps still work?
As I have said, I would prefer a one-payment upgrade as well but there is nothing here that is surprising or unusual within the concept of a subscription model.

------
"You also agree that you will not use these products for... the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."
iTunes End User Licence Agreement


Return to posts index


Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 9:40:45 am

These things are always pretty disturbing to read.

When I started out on my own a few years ago and signed my first production contract with JWT, I thought the Terms had been drawn up with the sole intention of screwing me over at any moment of their choosing.

I guess at some point you have to trust that if you keep your end of the bargain, the other party will keep theirs.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 1:24:54 pm

David-

Is there any pro level software that you pay for and use that has a terms of service that does not absolve the creating company from change?

I am generally curious as it seems impossible to me.

If I took to heart every terms agreement, I would suffer serious injury from simply turning on my shop vac.

I'm all for equal rights, but I can't imagine Adobe writing terms where they'd have to check in with each and every user before making a business decision. It would be stagnating. At some point, as Sandeep says, you have to let it go and hope that they keep up their end of the bargain?

And if they don't, don't we have to find another entity and start the whole process over?

Craig Seemen has talked about trust. I agree with him, there's no way you can fully trust any of these agreements. The cards are not stacked in our favor. But. We also have to get some work done. If Adobe does change policy by jacking up prices or whatever dooms day scenario comes to mind, can't we make the decision at that point to pay or play?


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 3:01:35 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'm all for equal rights, but I can't imagine Adobe writing terms where they'd have to check in with each and every user before making a business decision. It would be stagnating. At some point, as Sandeep says, you have to let it go and hope that they keep up their end of the bargain?"

I agree. Reading those terms, it just struck me as CYA legalize for Adobe so that you can't turn around and start a class-action for every little stupid thing.

Very similar to how there were uproars over legal agreements from a host of online services, none of which panned out to anything in the end.

I mean, ultimately, how different is it from the agreement that came with the boxed copy of CS6? I bet it's hardly different.


Return to posts index


Gerald Goldman
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 3:16:33 pm

This Southpark episode was on again recently. Good for a laugh:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382781/business-casual-g-men

Gerald Goldman
Director of Post Production
Grace Creek Media
http://www.gracecreek.com
http://www.sportskool.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 3:17:48 pm

[Gary Huff] "I mean, ultimately, how different is it from the agreement that came with the boxed copy of CS6? I bet it's hardly different."

While I haven't read the agreement on CS6, the one difference is that if they pull the plug on everything you still have CS6 to open previous work.

We've also seen whether a company folds its cards or EOLs software, at some point the activation server shuts down. Thus you may not even be able to move the old software. Even then there are ways to keep it going even if just to revive old projects. And yes some may resort to cracking in that case. Of course at that point the company may not be all that concerned because either the company or the product is gone from the marketplace.

As a business, I have to cover my derrière as well.



Return to posts index

James Taylor
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 3:33:34 pm

I'm genuinely interested in what TV stations or other large production companies think of the cloud. Will they be willing to build a system based on a rental model? Do they prefer this type of model? If so, PP should really pick up market share. If not, does that leave Avid as the winner?

JT


Return to posts index


Gary Huff
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 5:10:20 pm

[Craig Seeman] "e've also seen whether a company folds its cards or EOLs software, at some point the activation server shuts down. Thus you may not even be able to move the old software."

And Adobe, to their credit, provided an activation free copy of CS2 when they did that, so there is hope.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 8:57:19 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Is there any pro level software that you pay for and use that has a terms of service that does not absolve the creating company from change?"

My concern is not about change, it's about the explicit right to terminate service for life.

I don't own any software - either professional or consumer - where the vendor has the right and the ability to cut off my access to my files. That's the difference with Creative Cloud.

Here's an example of the consequence from NBC News:
http://nbcnews.to/YxgoYV

It's one thing when something like this happens with consumable media. It's another thing entirely when it's your life's work and your ability to keep working.

It's easy to write this example off as an outlier, but with over 10 million users worldwide (for Photoshop alone as of 4 years ago) being forced into the Cloud, problems like this are inevitable.

I do feel better knowing there's backward compatibility with CS6. I'm very glad I own a perpetual license for it.

I agree with you and Craig that trust cannot be a factor. We've all learned that the hard way. That's why I will continue to let Adobe know my feelings about the need for more flexible licensing options.

My point in raising this issue is also to flag the fact the we're a minority here on the COW. Photography and design users far outnumber those of use who use CS tools in post. I'm trying to get a sense of of how this radical change is viewed outside our particular bubble and from all I can gather, it is not going over well at all.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 10, 2013 at 12:44:21 am

[David Lawrence] "My concern is not about change, it's about the explicit right to terminate service for life."

Again, and I am just playing devil's advocate, how can a company guarantee that they will be successful for your entire life?

[David Lawrence] "I don't own any software - either professional or consumer - where the vendor has the right and the ability to cut off my access to my files. That's the difference with Creative Cloud."

I guess I see it as you don't have access to open your (not Adobe's) files on the computer(s) that you have lapsed payment + grace period on a CC license.

You can take your files with you to a valid station and use them, without penalty, and Adobe does not own your files.

I have software that I lease. When I don't pay, the service is cut. It's not that far of a jump, nor do I feel that my rights are violated.

I knew this going in, though. We are right here at the cross roads with Adobe. The red pill or the green pill or CS6 forever.

[David Lawrence] "My point in raising this issue is also to flag the fact the we're a minority here on the COW. Photography and design users far outnumber those of use who use CS tools in post. I'm trying to get a sense of of how this radical change is viewed outside our particular bubble and from all I can gather, it is not going over well at all."

Yes, $20/mo for new a version of Photoshop is a lot to ask and a big price difference in buying the occasional update.

--

A heavy design agency just left the edit suite.

They're psyched about the Cloud.

*shrug*

Jeremy


Return to posts index


David Lawrence
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 10, 2013 at 1:18:17 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Again, and I am just playing devil's advocate, how can a company guarantee that they will be successful for your entire life?"

They can't. That's exactly why I don't want to depend on their activation servers for access to my files.

[Jeremy Garchow] "You can take your files with you to a valid station and use them, without penalty, and Adobe does not own your files. "

Right. I just don't want to depend on Adobe for validation.

It's really simple:

Current model -

I pay Adobe a big chunk of money all at once. Adobe provides software product I can use as long as I want without any further payment. 3, 5, 10 years, as long as my hardware runs it, it still works. My cost is fixed.

New model -

I pay Adobe a small chunk of money every month. Adobe provides software I can only use as long as I keep paying. If I stop paying, the software and access to my files goes poof. My cost is unlimited.

I understand why agencies might like this model. I notice that most advocates for the Cloud seem to be attached to agencies or facilities. If I was in that camp, I probably would feel different too. But speaking as a freelancer, Creative Cloud doesn't make sense and is not a good value for me. From what I'm seeing online, there are many others like myself who agree. I still want to give Adobe my money. I would even pay a fair premium for perpetual use. There are lots of ways Adobe can create a win-win if they're really listening.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 1:35:48 am

[David Lawrence] "I understand why agencies might like this model. I notice that most advocates for the Cloud seem to be attached to agencies or facilities."

David,

I think there may be a real divide on reaction to this.

As I've stated before, I suspect for agencies and facilities the CC model will actually work out to reduced cost.

For independents, educational, and arts users the CC model is, I suspect, an announcement of increased cost.

Further - because in spite of Jeremy's narrow view this is not only about money - those two groups have a different relationship to the work they do.

For agencies and facilities, the work only exists as a means to economic viability. Tools can be assessed purely in light of ROI.

Educators, independents, and artists tend to have a very different relationship to their work and its future. They'll assess tools differently in light of those values.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 2:49:00 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Further - because in spite of Jeremy's narrow view this is not only about money - those two groups have a different relationship to the work they do."

That saying "it's not about the money, but its about the money" is what a mentor of mine says a lot.

It can translate differently for different situations, and body language has alot to do with the delivery of the message so it might not read well on a web page.

As a complete coincidence, check out the first question to Adobe's CEO:

http://mashable.com/2013/05/06/adobe-ceo-interview-creative-cloud/

I will ask for clarification, though, before responding.

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Educators, independents, and artists tend to have a very different relationship to their work and its future. They'll assess tools differently in light of those values."

So if its not about the cost of the tool for educators, independents, and artists, what is it about?

By the way, as far as I can tell, educators are getting the rawest deal I've heard so far, but I've also heard conflicting reports.


Return to posts index


Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 3:15:51 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "As a complete coincidence, check out the first question to Adobe's CEO:"

Jeremy,

I'm not sure if you're suggesting "Mashable" as some sort of representative voice (of what?), so I'm not sure what significance you would attribute to their "first question". Shantanu Narayen seems very concerned about channel partners, the financial model, performance metrics. I don't know how that's relevant to my post.

[Jeremy Garchow] "So if its not about the cost of the tool for educators, independents, and artists, what is it about?"

I'll respond with a question.

Do you think that post facilities, freelancers, educators, students, and artists assess tools in the same way? (Is that ROI?)

If you want good examples of the wide range of approaches and views on software, editing, and craft, I know a good forum I can refer you to.

It gets a bit intense sometimes, though.

And if you're looking for a simple answer, it might just be easier to trust that money is the thing.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 3:28:35 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Do you think that post facilities, freelancers, educators, students, and artists assess tools in the same way? (Is that ROI?)"

Asses for what?

Getting work done?

For profit? For nothing? For cheap? For Expensive?

For being able to build a curriculum around it?

Building workflows?

Connectivity?

Besides the people for which money is not an issue, what is the first question going to be?

If not the first, the second or third?

[Franz Bieberkopf] "I'm not sure if you're suggesting "Mashable" as some sort of representative voice (of what?), so I'm not sure what significance you would attribute to their "first question". Shantanu Narayen seems very concerned about channel partners, the financial model, performance metrics. I don't know how that's relevant to my post."

It's relevant to you saying I had a narrow view.

I was just pointing out its not narrow so much as its true. I wish it wasn't true.

They did have access to the Adobe CEO and asked directly about the direction of CC. I thought it was relevant.


Return to posts index

Franz Bieberkopf
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 3:33:39 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I wish it wasn't true."

Jeremy,

I hope you get your wish.

Franz.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 3:45:42 am

I won't.

It doesn't work that way, unfortunately.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 6:21:09 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Educators, independents, and artists tend to have a very different relationship to their work and its future. They'll assess tools differently in light of those values."

[Jeremy Garchow] "And colleague to colleague, if the Cloud really doesn't make sense, GTFO of there and find something else that does make more sense."

Well said, Franz.

That's when I bristle at the suggestion if I don't like Adobe's new licensing model, I should GTFO. Sorry, but no. That's a defeatist attitude. I want something better.

Sure, I'll absolutely be keeping my eye on every competing option. I'll also continue to use my existing Adobe tools. And for the first year before they double the price, I'll check out the Cloud to evaluate Premiere Pro. After the year's up, I'll decide what to do next. Meanwhile I'll continue to let Adobe know how I feel. This is a far bigger issue to me than just one companies' business model. I believe software rental goes against the core values that created the personal computer to begin with.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 7:59:38 am

[David Lawrence] "That's when I bristle at the suggestion if I don't like Adobe's new licensing model, I should GTFO. Sorry, but no. That's a defeatist attitude. I want something better.
"


I think making noise is worthwhile if you feel moved to do so. So, I definitely not in the GTFO crowd. The thing is, I do see a point to the managed-rental model, though I don't know yet the degree to which I agree with it. So, much thinking must ensue.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 8:07:00 am

[David Lawrence] "That's when I bristle at the suggestion if I don't like Adobe's new licensing model, I should GTFO. Sorry, but no. That's a defeatist attitude. I want something better."

If CC was $20/mo indefinitely, would it ease the transition?

We all want something better.

With all due respect, defeatist is a strong word. I'm a guy who likes a software that's 100% incompatible with just about anything else at the moment, and I'm pretty much A-OK with that as it's worth it to me.

It just seems that CC isn't it worth it to you. If it isn't worth it, why waste time on it?

[David Lawrence] "This is a far bigger issue to me than just one companies' business model. I believe software rental goes against the core values that created the personal computer to begin with."

I would like to hear more. Please explain.


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 11:45:10 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "If CC was $20/mo indefinitely, would it ease the transition?"

Ease? Maybe, but it doesn't address the main issue.

[Jeremy Garchow] "With all due respect, defeatist is a strong word."

Compared to GTFO? Really? ;)

[Jeremy Garchow] "It just seems that CC isn't it worth it to you. If it isn't worth it, why waste time on it?"

The software is totally worth it to me. My problem is with Adobe's radical new business model.

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would like to hear more. Please explain."

Sure. I have a pretty long view on the digital revolution. I wrote my first program in grade school in the 60's. It was a simple Fortran loop that output a picture in ascii characters to a line printer. I programmed it with punchcards and it ran on a mainframe.

I remember seeing a demo of the IMSAI 8080 at a homebrew club. How the guys described hand loading BASIC by flipping the toggle switches on the front. I was fascinated.

I read Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib/Dream Machines" and dreamed of world of infinite creative possibility through digital media.

Back then, the only way to access to real computing power was on a mainframe.

What inspired guys like Woz and Jobs?

It was the idea that instead of renting time on a mainframe, you could buy your very own computer. A "bicycle for the mind". A consciousness amplifier. A personal computer.

The rest is history, right?

I bought my first computer, an Apple//e in college and learned everything I could about it, programming in assembly language and building custom hardware I/O to make art. It became my medium instead of painting or sculpture. One of the reasons Lucasfilm was interested in me was because my degree was in art, not computer science.

I still have that //e, btw. And it still runs everything.

So this is where I'm coming from.

Personal computers transformed industries and society by enabling the individual to own means of production that previously were completely controlled by centralized powers. You buy a computer, you buy the software, and you do whatever you want with the system because it's your system.

Software rental flies in the face of this notion. Once again, the central powers want to own the key part of the system and rent it back to you. It's ironic that Adobe - the company that single-handedly transformed the publishing and pre-press industries by making the means of production own-able by anyone - are leading the charge back to the old days when you had no choice but to rent.

Even Microsoft thinks it's too early for such a seismic shift:
http://bit.ly/12jQoRy

Computers are useless without software. If you don't own the software, you don't really own the system.

While the argument that you never really "own" software may be technically true, in practice, ownership is recognized, even by Adobe. For example:

http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/transfer-product-license....

If you don't own it, why do they let you resell it?

I want to use the best, industry-standard content creation tools available. I believe Adobe continues to make these tools, just as they have for decades. I want to pay them for those tools. After I've paid a fair fixed price, I want to be able to use them as I please without them going poof. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. From the many hundreds of comments I've read online all over the net, I'd say 90% of the people commenting seem to agree.

Adobe has many options for a win-win. We know their engineering teams listen to their customers. Now we get to see if management does as well.

Do you own a laptop? Or a personal computer? If so, why did you buy it instead of leasing it? Software is no different.

I know you like to say it's all about the money. While that may be true for you, it's simply not true for everyone. For some of us, there are much bigger issues at play here.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 1:46:35 am

[David Lawrence] "Compared to GTFO? Really? ;)"

I'll have a longer response later, but to be ultra clear: I did not mean to suggest to GTFO of here, it was to GTFO of there

I meant for you to GTFO of a "crappy" situation.

I am sorry of it came across any differently.

Thanks so much for writing up the response.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 2:19:20 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "I'll have a longer response later, but to be ultra clear: I did not mean to suggest to GTFO of here, it was to GTFO of there

I meant for you to GTFO of a "crappy" situation.

I am sorry of it came across any differently.

Thanks so much for writing up the response."


No apology needed, I understood exactly what you meant.

You're welcome, and I hope my response sheds some light on why I would consider walking away from Adobe defeatist right now. I've already walked away from Apple. Walking away from Adobe would be a lot harder. I love what they're doing with software. My problem is with the licensing model - something that can be fixed with the stoke of a pen. I think if enough customers like myself put pressure on Adobe, management will eventually listen. I keep saying this because it's true - they have may ways of making a win-win.

I look forward to your response and more dialogue later.

--dhl

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 4:23:36 am

David, as usual, a fantastic post. The PC revolution has absolutely changed my life, and you've very eloquently explained how.

I'm not really accustomed to disagreeing with you, but I do see this a bit differently. I think there's a big element at play here that I think your analysis is glossing over: the Internet, and the way it connects people and resources. The PC revolution is over; the network revolution is here.

Connectivity, social, and mobility are as transformative today as personal computing was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A computer without the Internet isn't a general-purpose computer anymore; it's an appliance, a glorified calculator sitting alone on a desk. Sun Microsystems was twenty-five years ahead of their time when they declared "The network is the computer" in 1984. Equally appropriate today is their observation from 2007 that "As everyone participates, everything changes."

You can't own the Internet. You can't own social. You can't own connectivity. These things are not products you can put in a box, or on a disk, or in an installer with a serial number to sell once, forever.

Jeremy is fond of saying "It's not about the money, but it's about the money." I think he's on to something. With this latest swing of the pendulum, the power of networked resources is affordable enough for mere mortals to access, and we're seeing a shift away from the desktop and back to shared systems, like mainframes before PCs. Maybe there never would have even been a PC revolution in the first place if shared computer time had been cheap and accessible enough in the 1970s.

If Creative Cloud is just a new way to pay for Creative Suite, it'd be a disappointment. If it's a reflection of the philosophy in Adobe's open letter to creative users [link], though, the network effects would be transformative.

I don't know exactly what that looks like yet, but I can imagine some of the possibilities, and it's exciting.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 9:14:54 am

[Walter Soyka] "You can't own the Internet. You can't own social. You can't own connectivity. These things are not products you can put in a box, or on a disk, or in an installer with a serial number to sell once, forever. "

Thank you, Walter. I agree with everything in your post and I too am excited about the possibilities of the connected future. But I don't think that's what Adobe is selling. Yet.

I find the syncing/social features in the current Creative Cloud offering shallow and of little value to me personally. Anywhere looks to be transformative, but it will be a while before it's available outside of enterprise. As far as I can tell, there is nothing intrinsically connected about the functionality of the current CC suite.

Until the network is an inextricable part of the software experience, I would say it's premature to call it a service.

Right now, the only reason the network is required is to make sure you've paid your monthly rent. All other network functions are optional. It's really not a service, it's software that phones home every month for an authentication check. I don't see the added value.

I think Adobe would have a better marketing case for Creative Cloud if their networked vision was more fully realized and its value intrinsic and undeniable. Until then, there's no reason why they couldn't continue offering perpetual licenses along with Creative Cloud.

Why not offer both? If renting truly is better, the service will sell itself. I think the fact that we're not being offered a choice is a clue to what's really going on.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 4:27:07 pm

[David Lawrence] "I find the syncing/social features in the current Creative Cloud offering shallow and of little value to me personally. Anywhere looks to be transformative, but it will be a while before it's available outside of enterprise. As far as I can tell, there is nothing intrinsically connected about the functionality of the current CC suite. Until the network is an inextricable part of the software experience, I would say it's premature to call it a service."

I agree. Adobe has a chicken-and-egg problem here.

The same thing happened with Creative Suite itself. The first version was pretty much a new way to buy the old products. It took some time before the new philosophy of product integration bore fruit, but it ultimately led to better-unified interfaces, better cross-app collaboration, shared components across applications, and dynamic link.

CS1 laid the groundwork of syncing product release cycles and getting the product teams working more closely together.


[David Lawrence] "I think Adobe would have a better marketing case for Creative Cloud if their networked vision was more fully realized and its value intrinsic and undeniable."

I agree, but they can't realize that vision until after development adds new features and people have started using them. Again, the chicken-and-egg problem.


[David Lawrence] "Why not offer both? If renting truly is better, the service will sell itself. I think the fact that we're not being offered a choice is a clue to what's really going on."

I think what's really going on is Adobe is working on their next generation of tools.

Maybe they can figure it out, but I can understand how the goals of CS and CC are different enough that splitting effort to produce both would satisfy neither.

Somewhat ironically, I think that Adobe has muddied the value proposition of CC by selling it for the last year as CS: Rental Edition. Now they are positioning themselves to make CC into much more than rented CS, but that's hard to see because that's not what it was last month. Maybe the transition was too soft.

For whatever it's worth, I like that Adobe is going to stand behind CS6 for some time to come. You do still have a choice, even if it's not the choice you want.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 8:11:07 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I think what's really going on is Adobe is working on their next generation of tools.

Maybe they can figure it out, but I can understand how the goals of CS and CC are different enough that splitting effort to produce both would satisfy neither."


No doubt they're developing their next generation of connected tools. I can't wait to see what they come up with. But that's in the future, we're talking about now.

Ironically, Adobe is going out of their way to assure potential customers that you *don't* need an alway on internet connection to use Creative Cloud. Talk about a muddled message! When you tell your customers the only reason they need the internet is to make sure they've paid the rent, don't be surprised by the reaction.

From a development standpoint, there's no need to split efforts between perpetual and rental. It's absolutely trivial to implement and the foundation already exists. Here's just one way it could work:

Right now when you sign up for Creative Cloud, you have two options:

1) 30-day trial
2) Activate membership

All Adobe needs to do is add a third option:

3) Full license (or whatever the marketing people want to call it)

In all cases, you enter your credit card number. If you choose option 1) you get to try the software for 30 days, then after 30 days you return to the activation dialog and can choose from options 2 and 3.

If you choose option 3, you're presented with a dialogue that allows you to enter a serial number from a previous version of CS. Your price for the upgrade depends on the serial number. You then have perpetual use of the software in its current state. You account is flagged so that you do not get any upgrades as they roll out. A year later, you again return to the activation dialog and can choose from options 2 and 3. If you choose 3 you pay the upgrade cost and catch up.

At anytime, you're free to sign up for Creative Cloud membership from your perpetual license if a compelling feature is rolled out and you want it now.

In each of these three cases, development is exactly the same. In each of these three cases, download is exactly the same. The only difference is a single one-bit flag on the users account that determines whether they get feature updates during the year.

It's absolutely trivial to implement.

Honestly, this is exactly how I thought they would roll this out from everything we heard during the year. I'm blown away by how they could get something so simple so wrong.

What would make Creative Cloud worth it to me? True networked collaboration features. Adobe Anywhere offered as a service, hosted by Adobe. That's the kind of value I need to buy in. That's not what they're currently delivering.

[Walter Soyka] "For whatever it's worth, I like that Adobe is going to stand behind CS6 for some time to come. You do still have a choice, even if it's not the choice you want."

Yes, true and if I was exclusively a Photoshop/Illustrator user, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The design tools are mature, robust, and do every thing I need. I'd stay with CS6 and that would be that.

You can be sure a lot of people are thinking that way.

My problem is I need Premiere Pro. And more specifically, I need this Next version of Premiere Pro that addresses all the major workflow bottlenecks.

So I'm looking at all my options. And I'll continue to speak out to Adobe.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 9:20:28 pm

I hope you continue to speak out to Adobe and all of us, David. You're making more sense than anybody I have read on any of the Forums concerning the Creative Cloud issues. Your options 1, 2 and 3 are right on the money. If I can use the word "money".

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 9:27:32 pm

[David Lawrence] "No doubt they're developing their next generation of connected tools. I can't wait to see what they come up with. But that's in the future, we're talking about now."

At some point, you have to do the work now to prepare for the future. They couldn't make awesome new CS7/CS8/CS9 releases while simultaneously developing an awesome CC in secret and unleashing it fully-formed. They also couldn't throw out a few crummy CS7/CS8/CS9 releases because they were focusing all their energies on CC.

At some point, there needs to be a break. This clearly isn't ideal (otherwise we wouldn't have so much anxiety), but I think the transition was vastly better thought-out than FCP7/FCPX.


[David Lawrence] "Honestly, this is exactly how I thought they would roll this out from everything we heard during the year. I'm blown away by how they could get something so simple so wrong. "

I understand where you're coming from. I had advocated for perpetual licensing plus maintenance, which I think would have met your needs nicely.

I really like the Adobe toolset, and I want to see Adobe do well. If CS was bad business for them, then I'd eventually suffer if they continued with it.

Of course, if CC is bad business for their customers, then Adobe will suffer, which would lead back to me suffering. I don't want to suffer, so I hope this works out, or gets worked out!


[David Lawrence] "So I'm looking at all my options. And I'll continue to speak out to Adobe."

I think you absolutely should speak out if CC doesn't work for you. I'm not trying to wave away your valid and serious objections, and I'm not trying to sell you on CC if it won't work for you. I'm just pointing out the good parts I see. I hope that constructive dialog like this is a good thing for everybody!

I also totally understand your stance on this as a rights issue.

Personally, I think the questions of digital rights go way beyond licensing, and I have made a few suggestions on how to open up project data so that your projects aren't tied to the product at all.

For my business, CC is a better practical choice than staying on CS6 indefinitely, and CC is also better than no Adobe products at all. My excitement about the new development philosophy trumps my concern that Adobe is trying to pull a fast one on me.

That said, we're both in favor of making the CC offering better so it works for more people. The more feedback, the better. Let's talk about it here, but let's also not forget to send it where it actually gets tracked:

https://www.adobe.com/go/wish/

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 9:47:56 pm

[Walter Soyka] "At some point, you have to do the work now to prepare for the future. They couldn't make awesome new CS7/CS8/CS9 releases while simultaneously developing an awesome CC in secret and unleashing it fully-formed. They also couldn't throw out a few crummy CS7/CS8/CS9 releases because they were focusing all their energies on CC."

Agreed. But my point is they don't have to make separate releases to have a perpetual license. A perpetual license would simply give you unlimited use of the applications you purchase frozen at their current state when you download them. No feature updates for a year. If you want the new features rolling out thru-out the year sooner, join the cloud. This isn't rocket science.

[Walter Soyka] "I understand where you're coming from. I had advocated for perpetual licensing plus maintenance, which I think would have met your needs nicely. "

Absolutely!

[Walter Soyka] "I really like the Adobe toolset, and I want to see Adobe do well. If CS was bad business for them, then I'd eventually suffer if they continued with it.

Of course, if CC is bad business for their customers, then Adobe will suffer, which would lead back to me suffering. I don't want to suffer, so I hope this works out, or gets worked out!"


Yes, me too! I want a win-win for customers and for Adobe. I'd much rather be telling everyone how much I love Adobe's software than how much I hate their business model.

[Walter Soyka] "That said, we're both in favor of making the CC offering better so it works for more people. The more feedback, the better. Let's talk about it here, but let's also not forget to send it where it actually gets tracked:

https://www.adobe.com/go/wish/"


Indeed!

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl


Return to posts index

Jim Wiseman
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 9:36:40 am

[Franz Bieberkopf] "Educators, independents, and artists tend to have a very different relationship to their work and its future. They'll assess tools differently in light of those values."<

[David Lawrence] Personal computers transformed industries and society by enabling the individual to own means of production that previously were completely controlled by centralized powers. You buy a computer, you buy the software, and you do whatever you want with the system because it's your system.

Software rental flies in the face of this notion. Once again, the central powers want to own the key part of the system and rent it back to you. It's ironic that Adobe - the company that single-handedly transformed the publishing and pre-press industries by making the means of production own-able by anyone - are leading the charge back to the old days when you had no choice but to rent.<

Sorry I missed this thread. It happened when I was sleeping out here in the Pacific. I even posted earlier today (still the 10th here) about the articles Lloyd Chambers had written and the implications of the EULAs on the Creative Cloud debate Forum.

I have to say I am very much in tune with the two statements above. I do believe that artists especially have a different relationship to their tools than those whose ambitions are more mercantile. My background and degrees are in video art, 1972, CalArts BFA where I studied with Nam June Paik and built his video synthesizer which I performed with, also Gene Youngblood whose classic "Expanded Cinema" foretold most of the video revolution. Then my MFA at the Art Institute of Chicago in 1974 where I worked with Dan Sandin and his Image Processsor while also interning at WTTW, PBS Chicago as a producer and AD on what became Soundstage. I say all this to try to explain that it required a great deal of passion to do this in those days. You literally had to go to the masters and build your own tools. I still have the synthesizers here in working condition. In the '70's when this was the coming thing, my work was shown in museums in the US, Europe, and Asia.

I could no more consider these tools as rental objects than I can the software and computers I work with now. To think that a tool like Photoshop that I have been learning since v.1.0 could be ripped from my reach for any reason, especially one like the rental model of Creative Cloud, makes my guts churn. I was just getting into Premiere. David is right. This is the antithesis of what the personal computer model was meant to be.

I was lucky to make my living doing commercial work at One Pass Video in San Francisco, the first video film style company in the US, perhaps the world, and here in Hawaii as the Avid and Media 100 dealer. So I have seen both the commercial and artist's side of things. But now that I am in the position of finally concentrating on my art again, it is more than disconcerting to see the progression toward models that seem to be more about taking tools out of our hands than putting them in them, regardless of the marketers siren call. Pay up now and forever, or find another tool. That is like telling a painter like Van Gogh to move from oils to watercolors because someone has bought the rights to the former, and you will have to meet their requirements to use them. If you don't like it, well, it is still a form of painting. It just isn't right.

I truly hope that Adobe, the company with more digital tools for artists than any other, realizes that there are enough artists and independents that recoil from this rental model that they will be required to provide realistic alternatives that will never force us to give up our tools and our work unless we wish to.

And Walter, I have been interested in the possibilities of networks since the early 70's. Realtime artistic creation of visual and sound works with artists participating from all over the world in realtime. I wrote about that for my MFA. I thought it would be by satellites then. The internet will make it possible. But that is another discussion.

Jim Wiseman
Sony PMW-EX1,Pana AJ-D810 DVCPro, DVX-100, Nikon D7000, Final Cut Studio 2 and 3, Media 100 Suite 2.1, Premiere Pro 5.5 and 6.0, AJA ioHD, AJA Kona LHi, Avid MC, Hexacore MacPro 3.33 Ghz 24Gb RAM GTX-285 120GB SSD, Macbook Pro 17" 2011 2.2 Ghz Quadcore i7 8Gb SSD, G5 Quadcore PCIe


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 4:44:02 pm

[David Lawrence] "It was the idea that instead of renting time on a mainframe, you could buy your very own computer. A "bicycle for the mind". A consciousness amplifier. A personal computer.

The rest is history, right?"


It certainly is. Thanks again for the write up.

I understand what you are saying when you use the term "ownership". Yes, I own computers, I have also leased them. These days it doesn't make much sense to lease them anymore. If I was guaranteed significant yearly hardware upgrades, I'd certainly think about it as it is much less risk on my part, and my cost is fixed.

It is also interesting that you used the word "rent".

Soon, I think our computers will just be terminals, or thin clients. All of the user experience and power will be in the cloud, truly in the cloud. I'm sure you have experience with some web site providers in that you can rent a virtual server from them, with complete control, to allow you to run a server as if it was local. I would imagine that as technology becomes better, as the world becomes more and more connected, this type of computing and experience will be more common place. You will be able to log in to whatever service you are paying for virtually anywhere that has a terminal, even if you don't have one in your pocket.

I am also a Google Apps subscriber, and our company uses Google Apps all of the time. It is a per user yearly cost, it is fully cloudified, and if we were to stop paying for it, we'd have to switch providers and transfer our huge email archive to something else. The service, though, is worth it. It is reliable, handy, ubiquitous (we can sign in anywhere in the world and not need our own computer), and it is constantly being updated.

Now, I agree Adobe and computing technology has a long way to go before CC is of the likes of Google Apps, a really long way to go. I also agree that the folks at Adobe also have an uphill battle in proving their worth as a subscription based software service to freelance/independents/educators. You are right in that it is a lot to ask photographers, non-revenue based artists, and educators to pony up much more than they are used to.

I know I harp on the money thing a lot, and to be clear, it is not only about the money for me or you or any other user, it is about the money for Adobe.

Adobe is looking to become a major player. As much as we'd like it to be, Adobe Anywhere is not for everyone. It is a major service for major bandwidth for major clients with major hardware. This can, will, and should cost...money.

This is professional software aimed squarely at professional users, despite Gallagher's best efforts to trash the web based marketing fluff and say that Adobe is out of ideas. While I don't necessarily agree with that view, I can see how it might look that way.

I guess what I see more of is a new way of looking at what software can do for us a content creators. It is also a surprisingly good look at what it means to be a video professional in today's marketplace, or at least a professional that uses Adobe software. Perhaps, this is even more of a gut check than what Apple did with FCP. It is true that through cost of use, Adobe is dictating some of those terms, rightly or wrongly.

Not everyone can have a business model like Apple. They have such a diverse revenue stream that is specifically tied to their hardware, that they can and will dictate price in a different way than Adobe has to, and that's what Adobe and almost any other content creation software specialist is fighting.

I'm not blaming Apple or anyone, I am just pointing out the differences.

If $20/mo in perpetuity would ease the transition, what would $10 do? At what point does CC become a service worth paying for?

Thanks, also, for pointing to the Microsoft blog thing. It is interesting to see they had success with the cloud as Adobe did last year with CS6. 25% of customers that bought Office decided on subscription. I wonder what the tipping point is for them in terms of moving to all subscription based? A decade seems like a really long time, I'd check back in three years or less. ;)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 4:49:01 pm

I should have read the rest of the thread before responding. It appears you, Walter, and Jim have covered all of this.

Apologies! I will strive to be more timely next time. :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 4:56:32 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Soon, I think our computers will just be terminals, or thin clients. All of the user experience and power will be in the cloud, truly in the cloud. "

I really hope you are wrong about that, thin clients might be great for a lot of tasks, but not for what we do.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 4:59:56 pm

[Steve Connor] "I really hope you are wrong about that, thin clients might be great for a lot of tasks, but not for what we do."

Why not?




PS, you have an F55 ,right? Do you use EOS glass on it, if so, how?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 5:07:11 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Why not?"

There's no advantage to it and when your internet connection dies or gets bogged down by the latest hack attack you're in trouble.

Also are we going to put the reams and reams of 4K data we'll all have up in the cloud?



[Jeremy Garchow] "PS, you have an F55 ,right? Do you use EOS glass on it, if so, how?
"


No we have Sony primes and we are using B4 glass with an adapter

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 5:11:13 pm

[Steve Connor] "There's no advantage to it and when your internet connection dies or gets bogged down by the latest hack attack you're in trouble.

Also are we going to put the reams and reams of 4K data we'll all have up in the cloud?"


It will take a long time to get there, but imagine if there is literally no difference in speed when dragging files to/from a local hard drive vs up to the cloud.

The advantage is that you don't have to buy and maintain hardware and it can be used absolutely anywhere. The downside is that you don't have to buy and maintain hardware and it can be used absolutely anywhere.

:)

[Steve Connor] "and we are using B4 glass with an adapter"

No sh*t? How's that working out and how does it cover the sensor? How's the camera in general?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 5:41:48 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "No sh*t? How's that working out and how does it cover the sensor? How's the camera in general?
"


It works surprisingly well, the BBC Natural History Unit use the same adapter we have and if it's good enough for them...

Pictures from the F55 are fantastic, it's still a work in progress but we've done commercial jobs with no issues at all.

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 6:29:29 pm

[Steve Connor] "Pictures from the F55 are fantastic, it's still a work in progress but we've done commercial jobs with no issues at all."

Thank you. Is there vignetting at all from the B4 adaptor?

What do you mean by work in progress?


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 6:35:57 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Thank you. Is there vignetting at all from the B4 adaptor?"

A surprisingly small amount!

[Jeremy Garchow] "What do you mean by work in progress?"

Lot's of features missing, some of the panel controls aren't enabled yet and the High Frame rates aren't available yet

http://community.sony.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/1315i602F9F8C1B4B14E...

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 14, 2013 at 6:54:28 pm

[Steve Connor] "Lot's of features missing, some of the panel controls aren't enabled yet and the High Frame rates aren't available yet"

I can't thank you enough for that info.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 6:03:23 pm

[David Lawrence] "That's when I bristle at the suggestion if I don't like Adobe's new licensing model, I should GTFO. Sorry, but no. That's a defeatist attitude. I want something better."

I don't think you should GTFO but I guess I felt like your original post was a chicken little. My feelings probably stem in part from having gone through many "OMG do you see what this EULA says!" discussions before so maybe I'm just numb to it. I mean, my ISP, Gmail, Dropbox, etc., all reserve the right to put the kibosh on my accounts at any time. Most of them have comforting language basically saying that would probably be a last resort action but that's really just window dressing. If you have a smart phone or tablet you've agreed to let Google, MS, Apple, Amazon, HP, etc., reach out and zap your software (even software you paid for) should they want to. Do I see them finding a reason to do it at the drop of a hat? No, because that would be a PR nightmare.

The Kindle example is worrying because a glitch in the system caused the person to get locked out of their account. It got resolved in the end though but that doesn't mean an SNAFU couldn't happen under a tight deadline. I'd bet dollars to donuts thought that the number of Kindle users far out numbers Adobe users.

It's buyer (user?) beware all over the place and we all just need to do what we are comfortable with. Heck, I still get a fleeting feeling of fear using public parking garages because they have signs all over basically saying they aren't liable when someone comes in and stripes my car for parts. lol




Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 6:14:25 pm

[Andrew Kimery] "I don't think you should GTFO"

Really, it's the only solution.

Just kidding, guys. I meant it in a friendly way, to get the eff out of the Adobe situation, not out of this forum.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 10:05:32 pm

I don't know, dude. I think you are now the GTFO guy.


Return to posts index

Andrew Kimery
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 10:13:53 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I don't know, dude. I think you are now the GTFO guy."

Jeremy "GTFO" Garchow does have a nice ring to it.




Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 10:28:57 pm

Let's make T shirts


Return to posts index

Jim Giberti
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 12:03:41 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "Let's make T shirts
"


Only if they show you're back walking away...wearing a GTFO shirt...showing your back walking away...


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 11, 2013 at 1:41:00 am

GTFO Inception.

GTFO feedback.

I like it.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 10:21:09 pm

[Chris Harlan] "I don't know, dude. I think you are now the GTFO guy."







Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The Creative Cloud Divide
on May 10, 2013 at 10:28:52 pm

Now, that's what I'm sayin'.

You just second-acted, here, man. You are now Jeremy "Tarantino" Garchow.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 10, 2013 at 3:15:26 am

[David Lawrence] "They can't. That's exactly why I don't want to depend on their activation servers for access to my files."

You mean...Access to their software. ;)

[David Lawrence] "I understand why agencies might like this model. I notice that most advocates for the Cloud seem to be attached to agencies or facilities. If I was in that camp, I probably would feel different too. But speaking as a freelancer, Creative Cloud doesn't make sense and is not a good value for me. From what I'm seeing online, there are many others like myself who agree. I still want to give Adobe my money. I would even pay a fair premium for perpetual use. There are lots of ways Adobe can create a win-win if they're really listening."

I hear that.

I'm sure it's not as easy as it seems. I really do think there's some serious licensing concerns as well as development cycle issues (as I said in another thread, why does InDesign have to be ready for NAB2012 announcements?) and the CC was Adobe's attempt to wrangle the absolute run away mass of programs they create and support...but...

A smoother transition period would help.

And colleague to colleague, if the Cloud really doesn't make sense, GTFO of there and find something else that does make more sense.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 3:59:11 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "These things are always pretty disturbing to read.

When I started out on my own a few years ago and signed my first production contract with JWT, I thought the Terms had been drawn up with the sole intention of screwing me over at any moment of their choosing.

I guess at some point you have to trust that if you keep your end of the bargain, the other party will keep theirs.

"


Almost all EULAs read like this. They are notorious for it. I mean, we can argue about EULA boilerplate in general and the over-reaching lawyers that put it together--I've always found that stuff amusing/vaguely frightening--but judging Adobe's intentions by looking at it and ignoring what everybody else does seems a bit absurd.


Return to posts index

Sandeep Sajeev
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 4:06:15 pm

Sure, I remember taking the contract over to my lawyer for perusal and he didn't even blink.

It is what it is. Everyone's looking to minimize risk.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Terms of Use
on May 9, 2013 at 5:11:32 pm

[Sandeep Sajeev] "It is what it is. Everyone's looking to minimize risk."

Yes, plus there has to be reasonable expectation. I mean, Adobe could say, "We own all copyright to any work created with our software in perpetuity" in their agreement, but I highly doubt that would stand in court because it's simply not reasonable.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]