Adobe and America go from an ownership to a rental economy

| Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
| fee to "rent" its use.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
files."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...cloud_pricing/

As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
"in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
on all content.

The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
only Photoshop can open.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
| fee to "rent" its use.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
files."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...cloud_pricing/

with an article titled

Adobe price hike: Your money or your files, frappuccino sippers

you know it's going to be completely objective.

not surprisingly, they get a lot wrong.

the way it works is if you let your adobe creative cloud subscription
lapse, you can't use adobe creative cloud apps anymore. that's all. no
real surprise there.

your files are still on your hard drive and can be opened by *other*
apps that can read/write those formats. you just can't use the apps you
are no longer paying for.

for photoshop users, that means you can use photoshop elements, apple
preview and many others. the photoshop .psd format is documented, so
there can't ever be a lockout.

photoshop users can also save in tiff, jpg, png, pdf, etc., which can
be opened with pretty much anything.

As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
"in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
on all content.

more misinformation. google and yahoo mail do not and i highly doubt
anyone else does.

The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
only Photoshop can open.

of course they don't say how, because it's complete bull****.

there is no custom proprietary type or copy protection or other tinfoil
hat nonsense. the files are *yours* to do whatever the hell you want
with them.

adobe doesn't prevent anything other than not using the apps you aren't
paying for. you are more than welcome to use any other apps that
read/write the formats.

On 2013-05-13 06:58:37 -0700, "Mayayana" said:

| Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
| fee to "rent" its use.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
files."

That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
(preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
proprietary file formats.
I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
"Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
Suite on at least one work station. Those who will be at the mercy of
Adobe will be those new to the game and those involved in part time
design work. I would recommend those part time designers and students
sitting at "Creative Cloud" work stations, also store their work on a
portable drive, or Dropbox.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...cloud_pricing/

As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
"in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
on all content.

The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
only Photoshop can open.

I believe it means preventing access to files stored in the "cloud".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013051308265516807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-05-13 06:58:37 -0700, "Mayayana" said:

| Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
| fee to "rent" its use.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
files."

That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
(preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
proprietary file formats.
I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
"Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
Suite on at least one work station.

All users will have hard installations. The software will request a
monthly check-in and will die only if three months go by without a
successful check-in. I don't think that Adobe has any desire to
maintain enough server capacity and bandwidth to let people run Premiere
over the net on servers operated by Adobe.

Those who will be at the mercy of
Adobe will be those new to the game and those involved in part time
design work. I would recommend those part time designers and students
sitting at "Creative Cloud" work stations, also store their work on a
portable drive, or Dropbox.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...cloud_pricing/

As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
"in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
on all content.

The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
only Photoshop can open.

I believe it means preventing access to files stored in the "cloud".

Adobe has clearly stated their policies on this. Your local files will
remain local files--if you have a non-Adobe application that will open
them it will still open them. Files stored in the cloud will be
acceesible for a grace period whose duration I forget. Once that grace
period has elapsed they will still grant you something like 2 gig of
free storage in the cloud--they did not state how they would determine
which 2 gig of your cloud-stored content they would make available to
you if you had more than 2 gig stored when the grace period expired.

On 2013-05-13 09:09:22 -0700, "J. Clarke" said:

In article 2013051308265516807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2013-05-13 06:58:37 -0700, "Mayayana" said:

| Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
| fee to "rent" its use.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
files."

That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
(preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
proprietary file formats.
I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
"Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
Suite on at least one work station.

All users will have hard installations. The software will request a
monthly check-in and will die only if three months go by without a
successful check-in. I don't think that Adobe has any desire to
maintain enough server capacity and bandwidth to let people run Premiere
over the net on servers operated by Adobe.

I understand exactly how the "Creative Cloud" and the implementation of
the call home for the "rental" software works.

You have misunderstood, or misread my premise. There are going to be
many current users of the CS6 suite or individual modules of the suite
who have purchased DVD editions of the software. They are being pushed
to the "Creative Cloud" model to obtain the latest upgrades beyond CS6.
If they fail to maintain their monthly payments, more than the failure
to "call home" their ability to use the downloaded software will cease
once the "call home" confirm that the "rent" had not been paid.
The long established design businesses, individuals, schools, or
corporations who have been using the software of the Creative Suite,
almost certainly own the DVD editions of CS6 which can be installed on
their work stations as a lifeboat for the rental hard copy.



Those who will be at the mercy of
Adobe will be those new to the game and those involved in part time
design work. I would recommend those part time designers and students
sitting at "Creative Cloud" work stations, also store their work on a
portable drive, or Dropbox.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...cloud_pricing/

As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
"in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
on all content.

The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
only Photoshop can open.

I believe it means preventing access to files stored in the "cloud".

Adobe has clearly stated their policies on this. Your local files will
remain local files--if you have a non-Adobe application that will open
them it will still open them. Files stored in the cloud will be
acceesible for a grace period whose duration I forget. Once that grace
period has elapsed they will still grant you something like 2 gig of
free storage in the cloud--they did not state how they would determine
which 2 gig of your cloud-stored content they would make available to
you if you had more than 2 gig stored when the grace period expired.

Which is one reason I maintain my own redundant archive and do not
depend on the vulnerability of cloud rental space. Regarding "cloud"
storage, I use Dropbox & Pogoplug. With Pogoplug I use a Pogoplug
device to which I have added my own 1TB HDD giving me my own reasonably
large "personal cloud".
The only reason I might use the Adobe service would be for
collaborative work within an organization. However, my personal CS use
is limited to Photoshop, and I have no intention of migrating to the
"Creative Cloud".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
across it at TheRegister:

"One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you
allow your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your
old files."

That seems strange, and probably only applies to processed files stored
in Adobe's "cloud" since once the files are processed and saved
(preferably to a HDD archive as well as the "Creative Cloud") There are
plenty of graphics editors which will even open current Adobe
proprietary file formats.
I also suspect that the Creative Suite users who migrate to the
"Creative Cloud" are still going to have a hard installation of the CS6
Suite on at least one work station.

All users will have hard installations. The software will request a
monthly check-in and will die only if three months go by without a
successful check-in.

creative cloud checks approximately every 3 months for annual customers
and every 1 month for monthly customers.

however, he's saying that creative cloud users might *also* maintain a
non-cloud version of cs6, just in case.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 09:58:37 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
: | Adobe is going to put its software in the Cloud and charge you a user
: | fee to "rent" its use.
:
: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I just came
: across it at TheRegister:
:
: "One colleague has indeed checked with Adobe and been told that if you allow
: your subscription to drop then you'll not actually be able to open your old
: files."
:
: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05...cloud_pricing/
:
: As I understand it, the subscription version is also not
: "in the cloud". It gets installed locally. Which makes sense.
: Editing giant photos over the Internet would be a slow
: process. All taken together, Adobe's move can be seen
: as not only a step toward rental rather than sale, but also
: a move to define any work done with the tool as a part of
: their service, just as webmail companies claim co-copyright
: on all content.
:
: The Register article doesn't say how Adobe would prevent
: accessing one's files -- whether they just mean that one's
: online storage would be locked down or whether they intend
: to start using some sort of custom, proprietary file type that
: only Photoshop can open.

At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
real-world probabilities ever get.

Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

At least that's one question I'll never have to answer. The probability that
I'll ever use any piece of Adobe photo editing software is now as near zero as
real-world probabilities ever get.

Sorry if I offend you, nospam, but that's how it is.

it doesn't offend me in the least.

use whatever you want.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I have no intention to subscribe, but I would still recommend Elements
to anyone interested in a powerful but inexpensive photo editing
program. For all but a few amateur photographers, it is as powerful a
program as the CS versions. The features in CS, but not in Elements,
are features that almost all amateurs can forego without loss.

that's adobe's strategy. creative cloud for pros and elements for the
enthusiasts/hobbyist market.

Unlike nospam, I can't infallibly predict the future offerings of
Adobe,

more twisting from you.

i'm not predicting what they'll do nor am i infallible.

i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
again, the idea is ludicrous.

not surprisingly you twist this into something else.

but I think that Adobe will continue to add features to
Elements.

of course they will add new features to elements, just as they will add
new features to the rest of their apps.

the only one that won't be getting new features is cs6. it is at the
end of the road. the only changes will be bugfixes and security fixes.

In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

what for, when lightroom already exists?

a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
minimizing the need for a second app.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

i'm simply stating they aren't going to add ads to paid software.
again, the idea is ludicrous.

You don't predict, but you state that they will not - in the future -
add ads.

they're not going to put ads in paid software. the idea is ludicrous.
the backlash would be huge. this is common sense, which you seem to
lack.

not surprisingly you twist this into something else.

You would make more sense if I *would* twist your words. It's
repeating what you say, as you said it, that makes you look foolish.

you aren't repeating what i say. you are repeating what you wish i said
so you can argue. you even come up with some crazy **** like talking to
dead people, which makes *you* look foolish.

In fact, I think we might be able to get some future
version of Elements with a decent organizer module similar to
Lightroom's "Library" without the "Develop" module.

what for, when lightroom already exists?

Because there are people who like the method of editing offered by
Elements who would like a better image cataloging/keywording system
than Organizer provides without using, and buying, two separate
programs.

a more likely path is add a lot of elements functionality to lightroom,
minimizing the need for a second app.

That would, essentially, accomplish the same thing: combining the
Elements style of editing with the Lightroom cataloging/keywording
system. Whether they put layers and layer masking, for example, in
Lightroom or Library in Elements, it's same thing.

But, who am I to predict? Obviously, you should be the one to tell us
what Adobe will and will not do.

there you go twisting things again, which you said you don't do. that
means you lied.