Why do you fear subscription software?
Dec 22, 2017 05:07:39 #
JD750 wrote:
The Adobe Photographers Plan has reaped huge profits for Adobe (making a profit is what businesses are supposed to do) and gives better service to the customers in the form of real timrbtyñ. Customer costs are about the same as buying paid uldates.
What is not to like?
What is not to like?
Yes, I wish I could buy gas for my car this way, no matter how much or little I use it I would pay only $10 or so monthly.
But since a good deal like that is not available in any subscription offers of any kind I prefer to pay for only what I need and use.
Dec 22, 2017 05:41:05 #
Why should you do it???? To keep Adobe floating in HUGE profits!!!
Longshadow wrote:
I'm still using Quicken 2007, Word 2003, and last year I upgraded to Elements 14 from 4. Two years before I upgraded Photo Impact Pro (after about six years).
What I have meets my needs. Why should I keep purchasing software that might do things I really don't need?
I'm still using Quicken 2007, Word 2003, and last year I upgraded to Elements 14 from 4. Two years before I upgraded Photo Impact Pro (after about six years).
What I have meets my needs. Why should I keep purchasing software that might do things I really don't need?
Dec 22, 2017 06:12:48 #
The home user market is smal potatoes compared to how many of us in the professional design world use Adobe products. I’m a full creative suite user at work and love that I can now stay on the edge of software development quite easily than before the time of subscription. What I don’t like about the subscription, is that it seems like when adobe does a major update, it doesnt work closely with some of the major third party plug-in developers, thus causing issues with making plug-ins not work properly for a while until they catch up.
Dec 22, 2017 06:13:28 #
Dec 22, 2017 06:20:18 #
JD750 wrote:
The Adobe Photographers Plan has reaped huge profits for Adobe (making a profit is what businesses are supposed to do) and gives better service to the customers in the form of real timrbtyñ. Customer costs are about the same as buying paid uldates.
What is not to like?
What is not to like?
I don't fear subscriptions, I just hate constant payments. I have no real need to upgrade CS6 its paid for yrs ago and still works fine. That's all NO FEAR!!!!!
Dec 22, 2017 06:47:04 #
rjaywallace wrote:
I have absolutely b no fear /B of subscription... (show quote)
Your hostage of photos comment is what is a misnomer in the Adobe Plan. With the LR Classic plan your Photos DO NOT LEAVE your computer, if you decide to quit the Adobe LR program the only thing you lose is the ability to continue to edit your photos. Everything that you have edited before quitting is still on your computer.
Dec 22, 2017 06:49:28 #
rjaywallace wrote:
I have absolutely b no fear /B of subscription... (show quote)
Before you make bold statements (Like Adobe holding your photos hostage) you need relook at how the package works. It works identically to the older versions of Adobe Lightroom/Photoshop. All images are stored (in their original RAW/NEF/JPG or whatever) state on your C: D: or what ever local drive you decide. All of your sidecars and adjustments are also stored locally. YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF YOUR PHOTOS just as before. What you lose access to is the ability to make adjustments and corrections to those image in an Adobe environment. I can still open everything in Nikon Capture NX, Nikon View NX, Portrait Pro or ANY of my other photo manipulation programs. I just can NOT use the Adobe. The file structure is the same... I have an F: location that is a large drive with all of my photos arranged by dates (2015-1-12 for instance) with all of the photos taken on that date. I can go into any of those folders with a non-Adobe product and make adjustments. The only issues are that NONE of my Adobe adjustments will appear because they are in "untouchable" sidecars".
Yes, I had Adobe 5 (and still have it stored away) but because my Lightroom CC is ALWAYS up to date, I haven't needed it. It is installed on the D:drive of my computer and I can ALWAYS go back to it if I need to... And yes, it will not recognize any of the updated edits done by Lightrooms that are newer than that version but my Photos are NOT lost or even misplaced. Yes, I would lose a lot of the time that I spent editing those photos, but as we've all said, Adobe is NON-DESTRUCTIVE.
Oh, and by the way, having worked in the IT field (my degree is Electrical Engineering/Computer design and I worked from 1978 until Jan, 2002 in that field) I totally understand that you DON'T own any software. Try reading the EULA on them. You are only renting them and the producer makes no promises as to their functionality.
So, personally, (and as someone who paid $100 or so to Adorama or B&H, don't remember which, for Adobe Lightroom 4 and again for Lightroom 5 (hmmm that's roughly $200 or two years or so of Lightroom rent) before I subscribed to the cloud. Yes the Adobe Cloud for Photographers is $9.99 per month and yes it does come to $119.88 per year. But, what do you get for your $120 per year? You not only get Lightroom, but you ALSO get Photoshop, ACR and Camera RAW. You also get 20gb of storage on their cloud, constant updates to the latest and greatest, and the ability to install those programs on as many computers as you want, as long as only two (2) are logged into the Adobe Cloud at any given time. I have it installed on 2 desktops and 3 laptops. You can also use that 20gb of Cloud storage to pass your work from one computer to another for further work. This lets me pass photos to my wife if I want her to fine tune a photo that I've processed in Lightroom or she can pass something to me if she wants me to work it in Photoshop. The really big thing for me is that I can take my camera, laptop and equipment to a hotel or motel on an assignment, take the photos and upload them (I also have a large WD Cloud Chassis and drive) to my WD cloud (I could use the 20gb of Adobe Cloud but my WD is larger and is located in my house and keeps my Adobe clear for other things).
My point is that everyone panics about the software rental.. You really "ONLY RENTED" Windows 7, or APPLE (whatever version) Heck even the Apple Lisa OS was rented. Apple Dos, IBM DOS all were rented. You only seemed to "own" it. Try reading the EULA disclosure on the packaging. So, Adobe only formalized it and you are freeking over something that never changed. The only difference is that Adobe is giving you access to several thousand dollars worth of software for $120 per year and even more software for $50 per month or roughly $600 per year.
But, if you don't want it, fine... don't get it. But quit slandering, lying and/or giving false information and scare tactics to get others (who may not know either) to follow your lead.
If you have questions about Adobe and the Cloud...(please understand that the Cloud is a misnomer. The Cloud's main purpose is a delivery mechanism and NOT A STORAGE FOR ALL OF YOUR IMAGES AND WORK). All of your images, work, and Adobe files LIVE on your computer(s).
Dec 22, 2017 06:57:00 #
Dec 22, 2017 07:00:31 #
When Adobe first came out with this plan i was not in favor of it. And still feel the same way. I don't have to nor am i going to get it in the near future. Ten dollars is not a lot of money. But for my needs i do not need it. #1 i do not like Lightroom...i do have Photoshop CS5 and i'm satisfied with it. I use Topaz a lot. I also use ON1. Between both software companies i don't need anything else.
Dec 22, 2017 07:07:46 #
Dec 22, 2017 07:09:06 #
Too many people don't read their software licensing agreement and fail to understand that you never OWN the software. You are just buying a right to use it. Eventually you will no longer be able to use it because of hardware or OS issues. But each person can make their choice here and do what they choose.
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Best,
Todd Ferguson
Bill_de wrote:
What an original topic! 
Like a leased car, when you stop paying you are cut off. People who buy cars don't fear leases, they just prefer to own, knowing when they finish paying they can choose to keep using it, even if newer models have new features.
What I don't understand is why people feel they have to be a spokesperson for renting?
---
Like a leased car, when you stop paying you are cut off. People who buy cars don't fear leases, they just prefer to own, knowing when they finish paying they can choose to keep using it, even if newer models have new features.
What I don't understand is why people feel they have to be a spokesperson for renting?
---
Dec 22, 2017 07:09:06 #
My objection to the perpetual ‘time-based’ leasing arrangement is as follows:
1. I am forced to pay subject to a ‘time’ base rather than a ‘use’ base.
To me, the value of a piece of software is in its utility (Use) not the fact it is installed on my computer.
If I had to ‘time-base’ subscribe to each of the pieces of software that I might need for only a very short period of time each month (there are about 25 separate programs. Some I use as little as 10 minutes per month, some only a few times per year.) the expense would not be cost effective. Other than my Browser (Email and Internet) nothing I have on my computer sees constant high usage.
2. Why should I be required to pay for new features that I do not need/desire and may never use.
If I have a piece of software that satisfies my every need, I do not like being forced to use a new one?
If I like the new features offered by an updated version, I prefer buying it outright.
3. I do not like being subject to any company’s whims regarding price, availability, usage, learning curve, bloat or inefficiencies.
4. Its like keeping your money in a bucket with a hole in the bottom where the money keeps leaking out!
As another example of something I would prefer not to lease on a perpetual ‘time-based’ arrangement are my handyman tools. It would just not be cost effective to pay rent on a screwdriver I may use only once a year.
BTW-I do not object to perpetual ‘time-based’ leasing for things I need and use on a regular bases, as long as the learning-curve investment is reasonable.
1. I am forced to pay subject to a ‘time’ base rather than a ‘use’ base.
To me, the value of a piece of software is in its utility (Use) not the fact it is installed on my computer.
If I had to ‘time-base’ subscribe to each of the pieces of software that I might need for only a very short period of time each month (there are about 25 separate programs. Some I use as little as 10 minutes per month, some only a few times per year.) the expense would not be cost effective. Other than my Browser (Email and Internet) nothing I have on my computer sees constant high usage.
2. Why should I be required to pay for new features that I do not need/desire and may never use.
If I have a piece of software that satisfies my every need, I do not like being forced to use a new one?
If I like the new features offered by an updated version, I prefer buying it outright.
3. I do not like being subject to any company’s whims regarding price, availability, usage, learning curve, bloat or inefficiencies.
4. Its like keeping your money in a bucket with a hole in the bottom where the money keeps leaking out!
As another example of something I would prefer not to lease on a perpetual ‘time-based’ arrangement are my handyman tools. It would just not be cost effective to pay rent on a screwdriver I may use only once a year.
BTW-I do not object to perpetual ‘time-based’ leasing for things I need and use on a regular bases, as long as the learning-curve investment is reasonable.
Dec 22, 2017 07:16:34 #
Hmmmm....seems like there are too many Adobe Stock Holders begging
Dec 22, 2017 07:17:08 #
I could not justify the price of Photoshop before. Now, I get Photoshop and Lightroom for only $9.95/month. What a no brainer. And always get the latest revisions. If I buy a new camera model, it's just a matter of a little time before a new rev appears which recognizes it's RAW files.
Dec 22, 2017 07:17:54 #
JD750 wrote:
The Adobe Photographers Plan has reaped huge profits for Adobe (making a profit is what businesses are supposed to do) and gives better service to the customers in the form of real timrbtyñ. Customer costs are about the same as buying paid uldates.
What is not to like?
What is not to like?
$120 a year for something I already have - LR6. Do I really need every little tweak that Adobe adds to LR? No, I don't. If I stop paying, I lose LR. For me, it's a choice of paying $120 a year or paying nothing. LR does all I want it to do. If I were doing processing as a business, I might be tempted. Maybe. There are now so many good alternatives to Lightroom for under $100.
Quicken is now selling by subscription. The $60 version I got years ago will last me the rest of my life. The alternative is to pay them $90 every twenty-seven months. Pretty soon, almost everything will be "Pay Forever," but I'm resisting as long as I can.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.