FORUMS: list search recent posts

Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad

COW Forums : Adobe Creative Cloud Debate

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Florian Sepp
Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 18, 2015 at 4:42:45 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-17/adobe-beats-estimates-by-...

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/adobe-reports-strong-q1-fy2015-financial-r...

Well, interesting,

what do you think?

Good or bad?

best regards
Florian

Florian Sepp visual arts
http://www.floriansepp.com


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 18, 2015 at 5:00:24 pm

There will have to be more incintives, raising the cost of rent could drive some to looking at other options. Going to remain neutral. Some good things but a price increase (in terms of rent) is not one of them. Time will tell.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 18, 2015 at 5:19:01 pm

No matter what anyone thinks of the numbers, if you are basing your opinion of Adobes success or lack of it on what Wall Street says, I present to you the following passage from the Bloomberg link:

"Adobe has introduced cloud-based marketing and creative-design tools as part of its push to generate more sales from subscriptions instead of software installed on computers"

They still don't understand what true cloud software is and why what Adobe calls "cloud" software is generally not, and still don't bother to do their homework when analyzing the offering. Amazing.


Return to posts index


Ricardo Marty
bundling changes
on Mar 18, 2015 at 7:30:01 pm
Last Edited By Ricardo Marty on Mar 18, 2015 at 7:31:36 pm

Adobe will be doing some bundling changes and promotions to offset the disapointing results.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/adobes-slowing-creative-cloud-growth-worri...

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: bundling changes
on Mar 19, 2015 at 12:26:28 am

[Ricardo Marty] "Adobe will be doing some bundling changes and promotions to offset the disapointing results."

I agree - a possibility. After blowing off even loyal CC subscribers when asked for a lower priced bundle option, I'll bet they may try to correct trends in subscription numbers with package fiddling.

This is the most non-customer driven process I've think I've ever seen.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: bundling changes
on Mar 19, 2015 at 2:52:41 pm

abode just added a new cloud based on documents. they took acrobat out cc and added it to a new app purchased. its basically going to compete with google docs. so maybe they can add some more subscribers and call adobe cc a total succsess.

they might divide cc by offering a video bundle at maybe 10 or 20 bucks less but who is to tell that they wount rebundle things again.

ricardo marty

keeping my fingers crossed for resolve and fusion.


Return to posts index


Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: bundling changes
on Mar 19, 2015 at 4:36:20 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "they took acrobat out cc and added it to a new app purchased"

Just for clarification: Acrobat Pro is still a happy part of the CC family of Adobe apps and I would be surprised if that was to change in their "Complete" package.

However, the new offering is much more that just pdf - it is about document management and storing signed documents in the cloud.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 18, 2015 at 6:14:20 pm

Hey Florian,

Although subscriber numbers are not on target, earnings passed expectations, which indicates that Adobe have a good foundation to expand from.

Question will be how to balance the output of the development teams, whilst enticing customers current and new to join the CC.

Cost of subscription may go up, or it may indeed go down. The Photoshop CC with Lightroom from £8.57/month incl VAT is a great offer in comparison to the previous cost of continued ownership of the latest version of those. From Adobe's point of view, when they have signed on a user who is spending less on them, than the cost of utility and cable/netflix bills, then that is good regular income. Even if you only have 2 million Ps-Lr CC subscribers, that still makes £210,000,000 a year worth of revenue...

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Billy Payn
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 19, 2015 at 8:28:52 pm

I would upgrade my software every 2 years - at a cost of £600 and maybe more frequently if the updates were attractive. That's £300 per year, and happy that I can make a choice.
A million people like me and they could make another £300,000,000 - alongside.



Return to posts index


Ricardo Marty
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 19, 2015 at 8:49:17 pm

yes, they dont want our money.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 19, 2015 at 9:16:35 pm

[Billy Payn] "I would upgrade my software every 2 years - at a cost of £600 and maybe more frequently if the updates were attractive. That's £300 per year, and happy that I can make a choice.
A million people like me and they could make another £300,000,000 - alongside."


Taken into account that as an example the Production Premium upgrade from CS5 or 5.5 to CS6 is over £700.00, then what you are offering to Adobe would be a bad deal for the company - even at every 2 years.

If you are already on CS3+ then you could have CC for £320.00 with VAT in the first year, then climbing to £457.32 + VAT/year.

Question is: If Adobe offered you a CC suite including PPro, AE, Photoshop, Speedgrade and Audition for £25/month, would you take it?

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Billy Payn
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 19, 2015 at 10:51:43 pm

Given that with the current model, I won't be renting software from Adobe, they are putting themselves in a position where as a customer, I represent a bad deal for them. Actually, as a consumer, I don't look at a product and really consider whether it represents a bad deal for the company, I rather look at it as whether or not it is a good or bad deal for me, and I reserve the right to decide where I spend my money no matter what the opinions of others may be.
As to whether I would buy a package from Adobe based on a more selective group of products - at reduced cost? that depends, if they would allow me to keep using the product, without the ability to upgrade, should I decide to opt out of paying for the upgrades. If they budge on this, I may reconsider.
I would say though, I no longer trust this company, they have changed and now in my opinion lack integrity. The customer services are not geared to providing service to customers in a way that makes me want or be prepared to have anything to do with them. The idea of electing to install something new and then maybe have to deal with this arm of the organisation is in itself enough to make me baulk.
I have an old camper van, I own it, I love it, I have an old house which I also own, and I wouldn't swap it even though both these things require work and patience to keep in good condition. I can look at lovely images of new cars with wonderful new gadgets and not feel the need to rush out and sign up. I still get from A to B just fine thanks. Likewise I can still shoot, ingest, edit, composite and export using CS6, and will be able to for the beyond foreseeable future.
Yes, I like the Adobe products, they work and I've invested in them over the years, yes, I am interested in how this debate turns out, yes I'm also very interested in alternatives and am willing to bin the Adobe investment including the software, plugins and learning if something else turns up that works. Yes I think that's a shame, and No, I won't rent software on the current CC basis, no one is going to change my mind on that.



Return to posts index


Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 19, 2015 at 11:24:58 pm

[Billy Payn] "Actually, as a consumer, I don't look at a product and really consider whether it represents a bad deal for the company, I rather look at it as whether or not it is a good or bad deal for me, and I reserve the right to decide where I spend my money no matter what the opinions of others may be."

That is a fair point. However, the deal you put on the table of £300/year is still less than what Adobe would have been making if they had continued as is, unless your upgrade path was every 3 years?
Where as now they have a customer base on which they can budget for a proper cash-flow with a decent R&D budget, rather than randomness forecast of "Is this the year where Billy Payn will be upgrading?".

[Billy Payn] "I would say though, I no longer trust this company, they have changed and now in my opinion lack integrity."

Where as other companies would drop products like a lead-balloon, Adobe in all fairness is still today selling CS6 both a full software and as upgrades from earlier versions + they are still supporting it with fixes and support. So I don't think that anyone can accuse them of lacking integrity. And I am guessing that as long as they are selling CS6, that they will continue to support that platform for the foreseeable future.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:17:55 am
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:36:14 am

I have to disagree.
I was a friend of Adobe for decades.
I used the software nearby every day.
I trusted in, and had the idea of a serious company.
They delivered good software and fair contracts, I paid good money.
"Making excellent products and get payed for this"

Now I see them on a level with companies, I would describe "Making most money out of products"
(Like Cell providers f ex)

Since May 2013 I´m nearby ashamed seeing any startup screen with the "A".
Terms like "Moving users aggressively into the cloud" may be usual in marketing, but they are not customer oriented.
I can understand, that they want a continuous income.
From my side they had. For a very long time. For every update they offered.
Forcing a new business-model - as a nearby monopolist in many fields - is different from making my product that attractive, that people will buy it.
That misleading named Cloud with a fair exit strategy for those who need it, would make the deal for many (I personally think for the most).
As it was before they cut any choice.
(Choice if I want all or nothing, choice if I want all fast delivered updates for all products, choice to follow hardware requirements or not,…)
I can´t see any nameable necessity (from customers side) why they had to.

So, the background for their deal was clearly self-interesst.
None of all the arguments here can convince me, that they don´t want to force a dependency of users to Adobe products.
They sell their complete package to all - if you need it or not. (Don´t come up with point products. Nearly everyone in the creative branch needs more than one of the mix.)
The fact, that they don´t offer permanent, unlimited file access (after the cloud) for those who need & pay for it (and don´t need all the fast delivered updates).
The fact that they still offer CS6 isn´t satisfying (why not CC1, CC2,… Do you really think, that´s a problem? And iff - that there are no users paying for the efforts?)
No given guaranty for the future price of access to my archive (full editable).

Nop.
I also see a lack integrity.
The fact, that they offer a lot for the money doesn´t change this.
(Price isn´t the main concern of most here)
I can´t see them as the company they were before.
And as far as I can sum up what I heard: Most of users do.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:46:36 am

[Rainer Schubert] "Nop.
I also see a lack integrity.
It´s not seen as the company it was before.
And as far as I can sum up what I heard: Most of users do."


That is your opinion.
But what you are bemoaning is that you don't like the structure of the new (improved) product. However, you are not recognizing that you are able to purchase/upgrade and use the old version, which has all the attributes of ownership that you so desire.
You can speculate all you want about the reason for CS6 still being on sale, but you cannot argue that they are not supporting the CS platform, and that they have left you down. Because it is still working and it is still being sold. Not only that, on the Adobe website you can download updates produced going back to 2004 - so loads of legacy support for those who is happy on current versions of CS.

Let's sum it up as per my post in reply to Billy: This issue is as much about product cycle and how often users wants to pay. Adobe have made a choice to move that product cycle onto a subscription plan, as many other digital companies are doing. Personally I favor the bold and believe that the CC, with over a 1,000 updates, have an excellent future, which can only be of benefit to the end user.

"Most of users do" - as we have already identified, you have no numbers for who "most users are" - this is pure speculation and spin. You seem to forgetting the 3.9 million users who have already signed up, so please stop trying to voice opinions for an alleged majority that you have not heard from, and don't know for sure if they even exist.

As said again, I respect your opinion for not migrating.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index


Rainer Schubert
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:05:51 am
Last Edited By Rainer Schubert on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:17:47 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Most of users do"
I wrote "And as far as I can sum up what I heard: Most of users do."
I wasn´t talking of that as a fact - it´s my personal experience. Voices of people/users I know and talking to. My sight of things.
Think it´s legal to do so.
(And: In this post I already have given a relation what 3.9 M users - of which only roundabout 61% are on full product - mean compared to the roundabout 13 M of CS perpetual licenses, whats strengthen my sight of things)
[PS.: At May 13 (Investor handout) they wanted to reach 4 M Subscriptions till the end of 2015. BUT (!) excluded the Enterprise Term Licenses. And there wasn´t even an idea of a PS 10 Bugs subscription at that time, which will make 30% of total subscriptions today - who knows]

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "which can only be of benefit to the end user."
If I now argument: Why it´s seen different by many? - Will you answer: By the 10 Anti-CC-fellows one can find here (Your sight of things?) ;)

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "That is your opinion."
Jop.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 20, 2015 at 1:15:00 am

[Rainer Schubert] "If I now argument: Why it´s seen different by many? - Will you answer: By the 10 Anti-CC-fellows one can find here (Your sight of things?) ;)"

No, but I had hoped that I had inspired you earlier to use the number of nearly 50,000 people who have petitioned against Adobe's licensing for CC - not forgetting to add the +10 to the mix.

;-)

BTW: There are nothing illegal in having an opinion, any kind of opinion.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Billy Payn
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:25:29 am

The upgrade cycle was not an even frequency, and sometimes the upgrades were not attractive enough to tempt me to 1 spend the cash or 2 spend the time uninstalling then reinstalling software, and if I did, working out why it was doing things differently, like conformimg audio ~ some versions, losing sync cs4 was a mess in my opinion, I wasted so much time. Sometimes I have multiple projects on the go at once, and dont like changing versions mid project, I have a raid tower attached to the system half full of data and dont necessarily wish to have to do a platform reinstall necessitating laying all the data off then setting that up again.
Im busy, I work on all kinds of shoots, shoot my own things, often dont get time to edit for a few weeks, often I do jobs for no remuneration, in between my system sits unused for periods of time, then I might thrash it for weeks and it makes me money.
With regard to integrity, you can call it what you want, I chose to call it a lack of integrity, and it wasnt an accusation, what I said was ...in my opinion they lack integrity, and thats what I feel, that is my opinion. In the months before going subscription only Adobe led me to believe that they would not stop selling the software on a licensed basis, then they made the move to the current system. To me, doing what you say youre going to do is having integrity, and not doing what you say youre going to do is having a lack of integrity, in my opinion. The fact they did what they did shows that they are focusing more on what might be better for their shareholders (obviously including the upper management) than what is good for the customers.This shows a lack of foresight and causes me to question their integrity. You may say 'but they are still selling licenses, you can still buy cs6' Yes, I think because they want to keep one foot on dry land, how much of their current income comes from those sales?
Aggressively persuading people to switch to the cc model of subscription? Integrity? Making it very difficult for people to cancel subscription? Automatic locked in renewal? Now weve mentioned not dropping software? Encore? Prelude? AME? Backward compatibility with Premiere? I bet theres a rose tinted filter in there somwhere.



Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 20, 2015 at 12:58:55 am

[Billy Payn] "Adobe led me to believe that they would not stop selling the software on a licensed basis,"

[Billy Payn] "You may say 'but they are still selling licenses, you can still buy cs6' Yes, I think because they want to keep one foot on dry land, how much of their current income comes from those sales?"

You are correct, that is exactly what I would say. However, in the opinion of integrity, you don't seem to recognize that they have not dropped CS6, neither have they stopped supporting it. Which suggest, that you should be able to carry on just fine, with or without CC. So you are not left with nothing; you have exactly what you paid for - which is a major issue in the discussion on this forum about CS v CC.

[Billy Payn] "In the months before going subscription only Adobe led me to believe that they would not stop selling the software on a licensed basis, then they made the move to the current system."

You need to find that statement and ask for your money back. If you have been mis-sold and or given a product not fit for purpose, then you have every right to ask for your money back. However, as per the facts on Adobe's website today, they are still selling CS6, and it sounds like that you are still using it?

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 4:53:41 am
Last Edited By Chris Pettit on Mar 24, 2015 at 4:54:05 am

[Billy Payn] " In the months before going subscription only Adobe led me to believe that they would not stop selling the software on a licensed basis, then they made the move to the current system. To me, doing what you say youre going to do is having integrity, and not doing what you say youre going to do is having a lack of integrity, in my opinion"

Adobe presented a dishonest front at NAB 2 years ago, announcing new features to the tools, without saying anything about mandatory subscriptions to get the tools, knowing full well that they were about to pull the plug on PL's and said nothing at the show to avoid making the PR disaster even worse. They waited until right after the show to announce.

Lack of integrity defined.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 11:19:38 am

Hey Chris,

I am not an employee of, or sponsored by Adobe. However, I am concerned about the large amount of misinformation used on this forum that has the potential to scare future clients away - although as Adobe CC is taking hold with millions of subscribers, this scenario is increasingly unlikely.

[Chris Pettit] "Adobe presented a dishonest front at NAB 2 years ago, announcing new features to the tools, without saying anything about mandatory subscriptions to get the tools, knowing full well that they were about to pull the plug on PL's and said nothing at the show to avoid making the PR disaster even worse. They waited until right after the show to announce.

Lack of integrity defined."


If you purchased your CS6 at or after NAB 2013, then I would agree that you should ask for your money back - unless you have earned money from using the software, in which case you could not claim to have lost revenue as a result of choosing CS over that of CC. Not forgetting that Adobe is still supporting CS6.

I was not at NAB 2013. However, I have done a quick search on Adobe NAB 2013, and here are the results which clearly defines CC as being a subscription. It also provides links to Adobe NAB presentations, where it is clearly stated that CC is so much more than CS.

Here are some of the top links from the 541,000 results:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201304/040413AdobeN...

http://www.provideocoalition.com/hdslrshooter-at-nab-2013-nab-2013-adobe-af...

Even here on the COW:
https://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/NAB_2013-Adobe/1
Debra Kaufman wrote in the introductory part: "Video professionals in North America will be able, up until April 19, to join Adobe Creative Cloud for $29.99 a month for the first year, 40 percent off the regular annual membership price."

And:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/adobe-at-nab-2013/adobe-creative-cloud-for-video-...

Which part of the words "$29.99", "monthly" and "subscription" to mention a few, did you choose not to investigate any further at NAB 2013?

I don't think that you have defined integrity in the context of NAB 2013 as anything but Adobe was shouting out that the use of CC would be a major leap forward, and the way the user pays for the privilege, would change too.

You can not claim that Adobe said nothing at the NAB 2013 show.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 3:02:41 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] " However, I am concerned about the large amount of misinformation used on this forum that has the potential to scare future clients away"

What part of my post is in anyway "disinformation"??

It real simple.

NAB 2013 was from April 6 to 11 in Las Vegas. At that show Adobe promoted it's new functionality "coming soon" including Cineware for AE. NO mention of eliminating the option of upgrading or purchasing PL's to get the new upgrades was made at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAB_Show

But then they announced on May 6th (after NAB) that they would no longer offer anything other than subscriptions for the new versions of the flagship products.:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/06/adobe-goes-all-in-with-subscription-based-...

There is nothing inaccurate in my post. Creative Cloud as a subscription option existed for a full year before the announcement, we all are perfectly aware of that fact. That has nothing to do with the timing of the announcement of the elimination of the PL option.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 3:33:26 pm

Chris,

My comment above my response was a general comment about the forum, although I don't understand your need to quote me out of context?

The word used was misinformation, not disinformation.
The difference between the two is that of one being unintentionally, or the other as you would like to suggest: intentionally.

You can add to my previous posting: the misuse of facts as another reason for me having a go.

With regards to NAB 2013 I note that you have not stated when or whether you have ever been mis-sold any of the Adobe packages that you own?
And, that you have completely ignored all of the press releases, articles and indeed Adobe's own presentations from the NAB exhibition - as per my last post.

[Chris Pettit] "NO mention of eliminating the option of upgrading or purchasing PL's to get the new upgrades was made at that time."

Not true, even today Adobe is offering a very competitive price for anyone wishing to move from CS to CC - which some may look as being an upgrade, where as others will look at it as being a rock around their feet going into a deep pond - each person, their viewpoint.

Did Adobe at NAB 2013 say that they would offer the new package as a PL?
Or did they continuously say, as per all the reports that I listed for you, that the new thing in town would be a subscription based service?

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 4:49:15 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "The word used was misinformation, not disinformation.
The difference between the two is that of one being unintentionally, or the other as you would like to suggest: intentionally."


That was a typo. Nothing more


[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "[Chris Pettit] "NO mention of eliminating the option of upgrading or purchasing PL's to get the new upgrades was made at that time."

Not true, even today Adobe is offering a very competitive price for anyone wishing to move from CS to CC - which some may look as being an upgrade, where as others will look at it as being a rock around their feet going into a deep pond - each person, their viewpoint."


Are there PL's available for CC? The answer is no. More red herrings. I'm wasting my time.


Return to posts index

Chris Pettit
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 8:22:08 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "[Chris Pettit] "That was a typo. Nothing more"

In the context of integrity, I am not so sure. May I suggest using the COW's excellent feature of the shortcut "CTRL + Q" to avoid future typos."


OK, so now I'm lying.

I tell you sincerely, I have no need to twist your or any one elses words, I'm perfectly confident in my own positions, with no need to mis-characterize the positions of others. I simply mis-typed the word. But since my word is not good enough for you there is nothing I can do to further this discussion.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 24, 2015 at 8:59:33 pm

[Chris Pettit] "OK, so now I'm lying.

I tell you sincerely, I have no need to twist your or any one elses words, I'm perfectly confident in my own positions, with no need to mis-characterize the positions of others. I simply mis-typed the word. But since my word is not good enough for you there is nothing I can do to further this discussion."


No, I didn't accuse you of lying - If you thought that, then please accept my apologies.

But you did use the word of integrity in relation to the NAB 2013 launch of CC, and is so far using every excuse to not look at the factual evidence, which in my opinion suggest otherwise.

But content with closing the discussion here.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Marco Catania
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 25, 2015 at 10:40:29 am

I’m following the Adobe Creative Cloud Debate very interested for a long time. And I would like to make some comments. I cannot understand, why a lot people from the pro CC side seem not to accept, that the contra CC side has no intention to take something away from them who like CC. We only want the choice. On the other side you seem not to allow us the wish to have the choice to continue with PLs. What I can tell from my point of view about the reason, why I will never rent software, has nothing to do with costs (at least it is far to be the most important reason) but a lot with the control over my files and -I can imagine it sounds weard- to have something in my hands at the end of the day when I paid a lot of money. When I buy a license for a software package, in my opinion it is not only a service like cable or phone, it is a tool. A tool in which you invest not only money, you invest a lot of time, effort , enthusiasm, motivation and love to learn all these tools. With the scope to express your creativity. And for me, the tools itself also become a beloved hobby, a beloved product. And here is the point: By renting your tools (yes, tools, and not service…a pencil i.e. is not a service in my opinion) you pay forever, but at the end of the day, if you don’t want or can’t afford anymore to rent the software, you will be left with nothing. And all your work, your files, are junk on the harddisk. Even if you can open or import them in a other program and even work furher in a limited way: it is not the same freedom and flexibility how it’s supposed to be in my opinion with your own work. And it happened to me, that after a few years I had the wish to start an old computer from my basement again and open old files with a old fashioned software and really enjoyed it. For what ever reason!  No one can take me away this kind of joy with a PL. At least not so quick. For those who like to rent and it is perfect for them: please feel free to do so! But why do you feel so attacked and get partially so malicious joyed when there are people who think different?
That’s it. And please excuse my English


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 25, 2015 at 3:04:41 pm

Hey Marco,

I do think that you have a fair point.

[Marco Catania] "We only want the choice. On the other side you seem not to allow us the wish to have the choice to continue with PLs."

Oh yes, you do currently have the choice to continue with PL under Adobe - it is called CS6.

[Marco Catania] "When I buy a license for a software package, in my opinion it is not only a service like cable or phone, it is a tool. A tool in which you invest not only money, you invest a lot of time, effort , enthusiasm, motivation and love to learn all these tools."

Absolutely spot on - whether you want to purchase or subscribe. However, would it be fair to say that a PL tool like CS6 will always offer you what you have today, and that this doesn't necessitate the need for you upgrading to the CC?

[Marco Catania] " if you don’t want or can’t afford anymore to rent the software, you will be left with nothing. And all your work, your files, are junk on the harddisk. Even if you can open or import them in a other program and even work furher in a limited way: it is not the same freedom and flexibility how it’s supposed to be in my opinion with your own work"

I don't agree with that, as there ways and means around the issue of using legacy files - it is all about how you build your archive. And even if one doesn't agree with that, Adobe is currently allowing you to jump on the platform on a cost effective monthly basis by app, student and/or charity/not-for-profit, rather than a punitive long term contract.

[Marco Catania] "No one can take me away this kind of joy with a PL. At least not so quick. For those who like to rent and it is perfect for them: please feel free to do so! But why do you feel so attacked and get partially so malicious joyed when there are people who think different?
That’s it. And please excuse my English"


I respect your opinion, and I do think that you have put it in a nicer way than some people have (including myself). There are absolutely nothing wrong with your feelings on the subject.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Marco Catania
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 26, 2015 at 8:13:10 am

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Oh yes, you do currently have the choice to continue with PL under Adobe - it is called CS6."

Mads, I respect your opininions, but it is exactly this argument I would call "to belittle" and I think it is also a bit condescending. We should argument like it should be between adult persons. We all perfectly know, that we can still buy a PL called CS6. And actually i have CS6 since the beginning and I am perfectly fine with and this will surely last several years. (Especially due to the fact, that Adobe decided not to inspire me and a lot of other people to buy their products in the future). But we also all perfectly know, that technology is evolving on hardware and software basis and sooner or later we will not be able to install/start or use CS6 on a new computer. And we are also cut off from new functionality and evolution of the tools since this decision. So this argument is not fair at all in this discussion. The problem of no choice is here, even if we were granted (a pretended) period of grace. And therefore, the discussion about choice has to be made now, even if one can still buy CS6 now.
And should I trust Adobe that they will maintain CS6 in a way that it will also work with let's say Windows 13 and resign to search another software solution? Probably better not.

This debate is not only about Adobe and is not Adobe bashing. It's about how software will be distributed in the future generally. If those who do not like this "subscription only" model (for reasonable reasons) give in this development, we will be addicted our long life to a lot of software companies at the end of the day and better pay all our monthly bills, for services we never asked for, or we will lose access to our property files.

But anyway, glad to discuss here ;-) At least one thing we all have in common.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 26, 2015 at 10:40:52 am

Hey Marco,

[Marco Catania] "Mads, I respect your opininions, but it is exactly this argument I would call "to belittle" and I think it is also a bit condescending. We should argument like it should be between adult persons. We all perfectly know, that we can still buy a PL called CS6. And actually i have CS6 since the beginning and I am perfectly fine with and this will surely last several years. (Especially due to the fact, that Adobe decided not to inspire me and a lot of other people to buy their products in the future)"

I don't agree with your use of "to belittle", but you are entitled to that opinion.

However, I do think that your post is very concise and spot on what the real issue is. And you did that without exaggerating the numbers of dissatisfied users and bashing away at Adobe - well done! And thumbs up from me!!

Setting aside the discussion of Adobe CS -v- CC and all the emotions that raises. I think that the point that you are raising at the end of your post is very interesting:

[Marco Catania] " It's about how software will be distributed in the future generally. If those who do not like this "subscription only" model (for reasonable reasons) give in this development, we will be addicted our long life to a lot of software companies at the end of the day and better pay all our monthly bills, for services we never asked for, or we will lose access to our property files."

Would it be fair to define the two different models as follows:
Permanent License (PL): Sold by supplier to be used by buyer in perpetuity without any promises of upgrades or improvements. Effectively: Sold as seen.

Subscription: Offered by supplier to customer as an ongoing supply of services and/or updates as pat of the subscription. Effectively: Subscription can be cancelled by either side at a given point without any further demands.

Both of those models have in common, that if the supplier does not offer reasonable maintenance and ensure that the software will continue to work, that the customer will seek other suppliers.

Why would any supplier want to go to a subscription model, rather than selling boxes?
1) Cash-flow. If you know your income, it is easier to manage your outgoings.
2) Loyalty. Subscription based models, like that of utilities, have a lower churn rate. Which again benefits the economics of the supplier.
3) Cost of development. No longer is the supplier required to release one perfect box, but can at will publish out new features and updates.
4) Distribution. By being digital only, the supplier can reduce costs in the distribution chain.
The combination of the above points should manifest itself in either a vastly improved product and/or a lower cost point to the subscriber over that of a permanent license.

Taking Microsoft Office365 as an example. At home I can have 5 different users using it across desk- and lap-tops and on an additional 5 mobile devices. Each user in addition to the Office software, have 1TB OneDrive Cloud storage and 60 minutes of free Skype calls - all at the low annual cost of £79/year. This a much cheaper package than purchasing office on a PL, paying the likes of DropBox for cloud storage, and the minutes used on Skype.
So in return for my loyalty, Microsoft gives me a much better deal.

Am I happy with seeing money be taken out of my account every month. No. But as I am getting a better product and financial deal, that I would otherwise have had, then I am content with it.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Herbert van der wegen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 26, 2015 at 4:59:44 pm

[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Would it be fair to define the two different models as follows:
Permanent License (PL): Sold by supplier to be used by buyer in perpetuity without any promises of upgrades or improvements. Effectively: Sold as seen.

Subscription: Offered by supplier to customer as an ongoing supply of services and/or updates as pat of the subscription. Effectively: Subscription can be cancelled by either side at a given point without any further demands."


Based on more than 25 years of software experience, I would amend both:

Permanent License (PL): Sold by supplier to be used by buyer in perpetuity, with the promise of providing one or more patches to resolve serious bugs for no additional fees. When a full point upgrade is published, buyer is entitled to an update at a reduced price (typically 50% or less). Supplier retains the right to stop development, and withdraw from the market at their own discretion, without any legal commitment towards the user. Effectively: you get what you are promised as outlined by the product's features, with the right for a full money back guarantee within a week (or according to a country's consumer law).

Subscription: Offered by supplier to customer as an ongoing supply of services and/or updates and patches as part of the subscription. Parts of these services may be cancelled by the supplier at their own discretion, without any legal commitment towards the customer. Effectively: Subscription can be cancelled by either side at a given point without any further demands, and may incur extra costs for the customer when/if a long-term contract was signed.

I think this is more in line with reality. Adobe has pulled the plug on various services in the last two years, without much of a regard towards its customers. Examples are: DPS Single Edition, Brackets, various applications were down-sized in terms of important features (Flash, Dreamweaver), and others.

And a number of PL companies work under a model where updates are free for years and years of new versions: Pixologic (zBrush) and Scirra (Construct 2) are such examples.
The customers are understandably ecstatic and a model like that can drive sales enormously (up to a point, of course).


[Mads Nybo Jørgensen] "Why would any supplier want to go to a subscription model, rather than selling boxes?
1) Cash-flow. If you know your income, it is easier to manage your outgoings.
2) Loyalty. Subscription based models, like that of utilities, have a lower churn rate. Which again benefits the economics of the supplier.
3) Cost of development. No longer is the supplier required to release one perfect box, but can at will publish out new features and updates.
4) Distribution. By being digital only, the supplier can reduce costs in the distribution chain.
The combination of the above points should manifest itself in either a vastly improved product and/or a lower cost point to the subscriber over that of a permanent license."


(2) Especially when the supplier creates artificially induced conditions to simplify the subscribing process, and complicates/convolutes the unsubscribing process. (Adobe's forum is littered with users complaining about the unnecessary complexity of opting out.)

(3) This can be the case whether software is released under either model.

(4) Again, many PL software developers used this model before the advent of subscription models. It works for both to reduce distribution costs.

And:
(5) software updates are no longer the primary driving force to upgrade anymore. Less pressure is put on the supplier to provide new features to drive sales.


I also feel (my personal opinion) that the balance tends to shift from actual value to perceived value for subscriptions. Your anecdote related to your Office 365 subscription seems to be a good example: "free 60 minutes of SKype minutes!" and "Free 1TB cloud space!".

From a rational viewpoint 95% of users would be perfectly happy with Libre Office (or Open Office) and Google Docs, and that 790 pounds (ten years of subscription) could be spent on other things.

Microsoft's marketing realizes the power of perceived value, and adds in fluffy pink ooloured cloud services to sweeten the deal.

A 1TB external mini HD would be a less expensive alternative - as well as mitigating the issue of upload speeds: my upload speed in Vancouver is abysmal. Cloud storage of larger files is inaccessible to me. Saving my files on a 1TB drive is quick and fast, and no internet connection is required (and I am on the go all the time).

Google Docs/Drive, however, works quite nicely, also for online storage of smaller files. I download all the files locally, and archive those for use in Libre Office. Or upload Libre Office documents to Google Docs. And Google Docs allows for seamless collaboration with my clients and students.

All for free. No need for a subscription. No need for the "FREE with your subscription! 1TB cloud storage" - when this is already easy and free in the first place. No need to be wowed by 60 minutes of free Skype calling, when so many other alternatives are readily available nowadays. Even Firefox now has free calling built-in.

Anyway, I am digressing. As long as we have a choice between PL and the digital serfdom, it is fine.

/*----------------------------------------------------*/
System: Win7 64bit - i7 920@3.6Ghz, p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb (6x8gb RipjawsX), ATI 7970 3gb, EVGA 590 3GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560x1440, HP 1920x1200 in portrait mode


Return to posts index

David Mathis
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 26, 2015 at 7:51:30 pm

Of all the posts on here, this one is fair and spot on. My biggest fear of rental only is the risk that a product offering or service will be cancelled, sometimes without prior notice. Also, there can be a price increase. Not saying this will happen, but there is always a possibility. Hence, my reluctance to subscribe. That and no full control over project files. Just my two cents.


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 26, 2015 at 9:28:47 pm

apparently q1 has not been good to adobe, its stock has plunged from 80 to 72.
this can be temporary but since q4 adobes stockhas been in a rut. stuck in between the high 60's and low 70's going up fo a while but returning down.

looks like somone is playing with it trying to prop it up but not able to sustain itself. could be that clients have caught on, or maybe its a fluke.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 26, 2015 at 10:46:42 pm

Hey Herbert,

I too think that was a great post - thank you.

Couple of comments to add to that:
(3) It has been suggested by others that required SEC filings are different for subscription models and that of PL. Making the supply of a subscription easier to manage. I don't know whether this is actually true?

[Herbert van der wegen] "(5) software updates are no longer the primary driving force to upgrade anymore. Less pressure is put on the supplier to provide new features to drive sales."

From a theoretical point of view, that may be true. However, the reality is that if the supplier does not stay ahead of the competition, then the customer will eventually seek elsewhere. The somewhat explosive move from mobile phone to smart phone is a good example of that, both for hardware, software and data/network provider.

[Herbert van der wegen] " Saving my files on a 1TB drive is quick and fast, and no internet connection is required (and I am on the go all the time)."

That is true. But have nothing to do with cloud storage and you are hardware dependent on making that work, and for good reasons too. Whether on Google docs or OneDrive (I'm on both - should mention Adobe CC in that sentence too) you can log in via any device connected to the internet with a html compliant browser. This allows me to travel to clients, and them not having to ask IT to allow my drive to sit on their network - which is a no, no.

[Herbert van der wegen] "Google Docs/Drive, however, works quite nicely, also for online storage of smaller files. I download all the files locally, and archive those for use in Libre Office. Or upload Libre Office documents to Google Docs. And Google Docs allows for seamless collaboration with my clients and students.

All for free. No need for a subscription. No need for the "FREE with your subscription! 1TB cloud storage""


I am on Google Drive with docs and use it regularly for some of my projects. However, I "only" get 12GB on Google Drive which also includes the space for my GMail. Also, I have friends who, rightfully or wrongly, believe that there is a catch and that the data that you give up to Google for using their services is far more valuable than paying for a subscription with Dropbox etc. The cynics may suggest that anyone selling anything online, or giving it away for free, will want your data...

In any case, you did a good post that raised some really interesting questions.

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 27, 2015 at 5:04:12 am

[Herbert van der wegen] "Google Docs/Drive, however, works quite nicely, also for online storage of smaller files. I download all the files locally, and archive those for use in Libre Office. Or upload Libre Office documents to Google Docs. And Google Docs allows for seamless collaboration with my clients and students."

Therein lies the rub for me.

I'm currently working on a PowerPoint presentation. (I know! Lucky me!) Although I am in fact a highly trained PowerPoint ninja, there's nothing fancy about this. No animation, one font in a couple of different sizes 2 color background. Sounds like a piece of pie (chart). Perfect opportunity to flip over to Libre Office, a product and project that I BELIEVE in.

But OMG. Kerning is hideous, layout tools feel like I'm sinking in quicksand, and the final result looks more like I had my FEET on the mouse than my hand. It's driving me insane.

So I went back to PowerPoint. Yeah, it's MSFT. Yeah, it's PPT. But it dates back to 1990, and FEELS like it's had 25 years to focus itself on core tasks. The last few iterations have been huge leaps in power, refinement, and ease (even with the damn ribbon, even stewarded by MSFT). It feels solid.

Leaving me with the basic question: how much power, refinement, and ease of use am I willing to sacrifice over deeply-held and entirely justified ideaological/philosophical issues. The answer, it turns out, is zero.

The same questions apply to Premiere and Photoshop. Sure, there are rock solid alternatives to Premiere, but Photoshop -- you gotta be kidding me. Especially not for working in CMYK, which too many of those other apps don't even support. And NONE of them are especially elegant or powerful.

I'll point out again that I don't see ANYONE rejecting Adobe for ANY reason who uses After Effects for a living. Protesting, yes, but not here. I'm happily corrected on this, but my experience from working with After Effects since long before Adobe bought it, and literally thousands of AE custmers, is that you've REALLY gotta be kidding me.

Not that you can't use Motion in particular, which has a lot of nifty stuff for sure. And little about AE has much to do with, say, Nuke, except as a feeder. Not as competition. But if you're living in AE, you really really don't have a choice.

I spent the early part of this century in an interesting position at Boris FX. On one hand, with Continuum Complete, I was aggressively supporting After Effects, going to motion graphics facilities and user groups. On the other, with Boris FX, Boris Graffiti, and, especially Boris RED, I was explicitly offering competition to AE. On SOME stuff. But c'mon. Honestly, that didn't even pass the straight face test, so I talked about doing DIFFERENT stuff, in a different way.

Ironically, my predecessor at Boris FX went on to lead the team that eventually created Motion. You'll notice that Motion has NEVER positioned itself as an alternative to AE. The idea is to do DIFFERENT stuff.

The fact is that the reefs are rich with the bones of those who have tried to plunder the good ship Adobe. I don't doubt that some folks have dropped overboard, but still, c'mon.

For all that I don't see a lot of (any??) full-time mograph artists here lamenting the new model, I think that THAT's the objection some people have: Adobe's apps are quite literally irreplaceable for them.

At this point in my career, I'm down to Photoshop. I pay for AE, InDesign, and Illustrator in particular a month at a time as needed. Dreamweaver may force my hand for going monthly, but I entirely recognize this has nothing to do with what most of you are considering.

(I also use Acrobat to distribute those fghking PowerPoints. For non-animated presos, Acrobat even makes for safer presentations in projectors.)

For ME, the question is, how much elegance, refinement, and smooth usage from Adobe's apps am I willing to sacrifice? For ME, the answer is none.

Not that this is intended as a "Oh, just suck it up" admonition to anyone else. Just an observation of my own experience...

...including my experience with "alternative" applications that don't come close to being viable, for ME.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 28, 2015 at 8:32:58 am

[Tim Wilson] "And NONE of them are especially elegant or powerful."

Have to disagree. If you are on MAC, Affinity Photo is a real amazing Alternative.
And it does it´s job more powerful, elegant and fast than good old (getting overpimped) Photoshop has ever done.
Give Affinity the time of one or two Upgrades, and let them translate it to Windows and there is no need to pay Adobe a lifetime for the access to your creations.


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 28, 2015 at 3:10:46 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "Have to disagree. If you are on MAC, Affinity Photo is a real amazing Alternative. "

I disagree. In just a few minutes at the Affinity forums, I came with DOZENS of real-life, absolute showstoppers that would prevent me from being able to use it AT ALL.

Even the basic insistence on modality is a massive step backwards. It's like getting in a time machine and setting it for the early 90s. The developers know not to call them "modes," because users are well-trained in the limitations of modal interfaces. Instead, they call them personas. It means the same thing in practice: a slower, more cumbersome way to work. Tools and settings that don't carry across. In some cases, tools simply not being available until the mode is changed.

No deal. The entire starting point is the wrong one.

I will however concede speed.


[Rainer Schubert] "Give Affinity the time of one or two Upgrades, and let them translate it to Windows "

I disagree with this even more. LOL That's just not how software works.

To the list of absolute showstoppers I alluded to, quite a few of those show-stoppers are things that the Affinity developers have said in their forums that they have no plans to develop. No number of beta iterations will add missing features that the developer doesn't feel the need to add.

I used Word as my example above, so I'll mention Pages as the counterpart. Mac users who are working by themselves and only need a limited set of features love it, and shake their fists at Word and curse it as the worst of the worst.

Unless you need to track changes. This is almost the simplest feature imaginable for a word processor. It's easy, right? They should fix it in a version or two, right? But no. It's as limited and unusable for collaboration as it has been from the first day. Mail merge? Forget it. Indexing? Forget it. On and on and on.

It's fine for the basics, but as a substitute for a professional? Pathetic. But that's okay. Apple has no intention of making Pages a full-featured replacement.

So that's how Photo is looking to me so far. The developers explicitly mention their disinterest in developing counterparts to many of Photoshop's core features.

Starting with Windows support. Mac users act like this is trivial, but it speaks to a core mindset regarding collaboration and interop.

Speaking as a Windows user, DEFINITELY a deal killer. LOL But I took a lot of these observations from the Affinity user forums, from people who are desperately hoping for this to be a Photoshop replacement, but finding that it's not even close.

Their lack of integration with Adobe applications is also not trivial. No
"Place" option? Dealkiller. Virtually no support for crop marks? Deal killer. No preview on export? Deal killer.

None of which matter if you don't do print. But Photoshop without print? Ridiculous.

No vector support? No export to Illustrator or an Illustrator-like program? Deeeeeeeeal killer.

Again, some of this is doable if they wanted to. But looking through the Affinity, they simply don't want to do an awful lot of things.

Noting in fairness that forums are for people having problems. Forums are typically not filled with happy people. LOL Believe me, after being around the COW and its predecessor forum for 20 years (our 20th anniversary is in June!), nobody knows this better than I do.

I've also been a software developer. At Boris FX, my duties included managing the beta program. I know exactly what the process is like. I understand what it means to temper expectations until there's a shipping product.

But you can tell a lot about a program by the NATURE of the problems that people have. And the problems that people are having is that Photo is creating obstacles, some of them insurmountable, to what they NEED the program to do.

The OVERWHELMING takeaway from the Affinity forum, very likely the most commonly used phrase on thread after thread after thread: "like Photoshop." "It should do this or that like Photoshop." "It should work like Photoshop." "I do this all the time in Photoshop." "It needs compatability with this other application like Photoshop." On and on and on.

So, somebody who just needs a limited set of what Photoshop offers? Fine.

But one user's bloat is another user's core feature, or beloved tool, or necessary workflow enabler. Stripping out bloat is often the problem, not the solution.

So for somebody who uses Photoshop for a living? Years and YEARS away from a meaningful alternative...assuming the developers actually want to go after some of Photoshop's core features, which at this point, in several key cases, they have explicitly stated they have no interest in.

Deal. Killer.


I apologize for taking this so far off topic, even by my standards. I really really REALLY have no interest in talking about Photo, except to the extent that I think it underscores my most important point. The features in Photoshop were driven there by customers over the past 25 years since version 1.0.

So perhaps we can revisit this 25 years after the release of version 1.0 of Photo...which, incidentally, has not actually been given a date. So maybe the year 2040 or 2041.


Return to posts index

Rainer Schubert
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 31, 2015 at 1:09:11 am

[Tim Wilson] "I really really REALLY have no interest in talking about Photo,"
You wrote a lot, for someone, who has no interest, to do so.
I used Photoshop from the the beginning.
I am also a print designer (70%).
90% of my image-editing jobs can be done with Photo.
And are done EXTREMELY fast - not comparable to Photoshop.
The rest is done with CS 6 or/and a handful of competitors.
Never said, PS isn´t great, but I simply like/need access to my files and don´t want to pay a lifetime to keep it. Deeeeeeaaaal Kiiiiiiiileeeeer!
May be there are some, who want Photo to be a copy of Photoshop.
There are also people, who are getting mad with Gimp (which is also no copy of PS) - but there´s a lot you can do with, that you can´t do with PS.
(Yes, It´s sometimes hard to work with… And, yes, some things are horrible slow… And sure, PS, can do things, that Gimp can´t…)
But, when I remember to the beginning of PS…. Photo did a great thing with it´s first Beta.
(I don´t read their forums like you do, or we have seen different websites - And if I have a look to all the Adobe-Forums… Hm…!?)
That you come up, and try to tell me, that Word (MS Word!?) is something glorious, takes my breath.
You will tell me in one an the same post about user-unfriendly software (Photo) and hold up an example like Word ?
Word is the ugliest thing ever seen (the whole Office is).
May be, it can do a lot, but from it´s interface and user-friendlyness it´s more a joke, in my eyes.
If my clients wouldn´t use it - I wouldn´t give it a try.
But, if you are OK with it… Enjoy.
Like I enjoy Photo.
And I can understand, that they don´t want to copy Photoshop. That they can´t replace a 25 yrs, old mature, overpimped Application with a Version 1.
To complete: I think, 90% of PS-Community are more hobbyists than professionals.
And for those, Photo is a great alternative. And a fast alternative. With a fair license. And a supreme price.
Lot´s of things can be done easier , faster and more revocable than with good old PS.
Yes, there is a lack in some professional cases. And truly PS will be the winner if one compares the complete functionality.
But: For the moment it´s the first Beta, Has some great Features like the layers, a fair license, a great price and will do it´s job fast.
Let´s wait and see.


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 31, 2015 at 7:22:35 am

[Rainer Schubert] "Word is the ugliest thing ever seen (the whole Office is)."

LoL. I disagree - but then again, I wouldn't know where to start applying Photoshop effects to Word...? :-D
However, as a word-processor, it is the only thing going. Unless you're into script writing - then Adobe Story CC is better than Word ;-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 28, 2015 at 4:17:09 pm

[Rainer Schubert] "Affinity Photo is a real amazing Alternative"

What ever happened to Paint Shop Pro?
(Saw it in my local Maplin today and thought of this discussion)

Does anyone use it?
Would you ever consider using it?

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

Ricardo Marty
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 25, 2015 at 3:45:28 pm

the only group who wants a choice for everyone at least buy or rent are those of us who will not accept the cloud all others just try to belittle us using madeup objections to permanent lic.

ricardo marty


Return to posts index

Mads Nybo Jørgensen
Re: Adobe Q1 - 2015 Good or bad
on Mar 25, 2015 at 3:54:23 pm

[Ricardo Marty] "the only group who wants a choice for everyone at least buy or rent are those of us who will not accept the cloud all others just try to belittle us using madeup objections to permanent lic."

"All others" is that the current 3.9 million Adobe subscribers? Or the millions of people who (allegedly) will not use Adobe CC because of the new license format?

I think that you will find that there are very few people around here "using madeup objections" - and if you read through previous postings, it is evidently who they are...

Me think that this post could be filed under "belittle" ;-)

All the Best
Mads

@madsvid, London, UK
Check out my other hangouts:
Twitter: @madsvid
http://mads-thinkingoutloud.blogspot.co.uk


Return to posts index

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