Creative Cloud 2018 out!!!

[Les Olson]

we are not perpetual so why should we need a perpetual license

The first reason is to avoid finding out what happens if you stop paying the subscription.  At present the program will still open so you can access your files but not work on them, and you have 90 days to download your files from the cloud to your own machine, but that could change overnight. 

The second reason is cost.  Adobe has moved to the subscription model because their profit is greater.  Since development and distribution costs are the same whether it is a subscription or a perpetual licence, the fact that they make more money from the subscription model means that at least some people are paying more for the same program. 

The people who are paying more are the people who used to buy a perpetual licence and keep using the same version for years. For example, I am still using Photoshop Elements 11, which came out in 2012 and for which I paid $80 - $15 a year and going down.  I upgraded to Lightroom 6 this year to handle D500 RAW, but as far as actual processing capability is concerned I was perfectly happy with LR5, which came out in 2013 and cost me $80 - $20 a year.  The cheapest subscription I can get to LR is 144 euros a year.   

Sure, if you were buying big PS for (IIRC) $700 and getting each new version as it came out the subscription model is no more expensive, and the subscription model suits professionals' accounting needs.  But for casual users it is a poor deal.     

[RobOK]

If Adobe decides they do not want these customers anymore, someone else will step in.

I think the issue is too many customers (future customers not current) are picking Google Photos or Apple Photos. There are a lot of moving parts in the photo space but one thing is constant is the exponential growth of mobile editing and cloud storage. Adobe is not inventing this, Adobe is reacting to Dropbox, iCloud, google-everything. It's probably a matter of time that Amazon doesn't buy a photo editing tool and put it into their cloud (the only delay is probably Bezos is not that into photography!).


There are a LOT of new and maturing entrants on the photo editing side. Someone else stepping in on a Catalog based editing system that cloud syncs but doesn't force cloud.... I'm not sure anyone IS stepping into that space? You have browser based space occupied by PhotoMechanic and others. Maybe Capture One or On1 are moving there?

[CS]

Many disagree with Adobe's business moves, but not all. I'm not going to take sides in this save to say that I'm going to be paying somebody for the use of their software. What's important to me is that I get the biggest reward for my money, and that includes a UI that I like.

Frankly, I don't see a significant difference in perpetual licenses and subscriptions if one intends to stay at the forefront of technology. Technology moves fast, there is no end to updates, upgrades, new versions, new competitors, etc. YMMV

[Ilkka Nissilä]

If one wants to have the latest tech and if one needs a lot of features then yes, paying for the subscription is sensible. But a lot of people just want the tools to do the basic photo editing work, and not a lot of advanced features. Let’s say a photographer in India makes 500€/month. They may be shooting portraits and weddings with a D40x. Why would they want to pay a monthly fee for frequent software updates?

Adobe is doing it because it is easier to persuade people to pay in moderate but frequent pieces rather than in large chunks. But I doubt it is in the best economic interest of less affluent photographers or occasional shooters.

As for competitors, I am sure there are many. But Adobe have a dominant position nonetheless. E.g. Apple dumped Aperture even though they are the world’s most profitable business (and could easily have kept it) and Nikon/Nik’s Capture NX2 was terminated as well. I guess any of Adobe’s smaller competitors could just bite the dust and so people would not get updates for new OS versions etc. There needs to be a more balanced situation in the photo editing software market IMO, with several equally strong competitors.

[gryphon1911]

Many disagree with Adobe's business moves, but not all. I'm not going to take sides in this save to say that I'm going to be paying somebody for the use of their software. What's important to me is that I get the biggest reward for my money, and that includes a UI that I like.

Frankly, I don't see a significant difference in perpetual licenses and subscriptions if one intends to stay at the forefront of technology. Technology moves fast, there is no end to updates, upgrades, new versions, new competitors, etc. YMMV

+1

[Akira]

I'm not really against the subscription.

The two biggest bummers are that the security of Adobe website is sloppy (my older account was hacked), and you cannot unsubscribe the account online.  You have to call the support to unsubscribe.  What an inconvenience!

****End of rant****

[Michael Erlewine]

Adobe becoming a utility is old news by now. Before the subscription, because I used most of Adobe's products for other things, like video, Illustrator, Audition, and on and on, buying the Master Collection, which I had to, was probably more expensive and not updated as frequently. Like the water bill, now there is the Adobe bill. LOL.

I appreciate Adobe being there for me. It let's me do things I want to do, like this.

[charlie]

As for competitors, I am sure there are many. But Adobe have a dominant position nonetheless. E.g. Apple dumped Aperture even though they are the world’s most profitable business (and could easily have kept it) and Nikon/Nik’s Capture NX2 was terminated as well. I guess any of Adobe’s smaller competitors could just bite the dust and so people would not get updates for new OS versions etc. There needs to be a more balanced situation in the photo editing software market IMO, with several equally strong competitors.

I get what you're saying, and every camera I know of comes with software to at least do minor editing and convert RAW files to jpg or tif. I don't suspect that will ever bite the dust. Why could these hypothetical Indian portrait photographers not use this software then convert to tif and do further editing in an older version of photoshop that suits their needs?

[Ann]

Impressive Integration:

I charged-up my old iPad (a Series 2, I believe?) which runs on iOS 9.3.5 and found that the new Lr CC does run on it even though Adobe's listed platform-requirements firmly state that it won't.

The iPad took a while to pull my images from the Cloud (I have 60,000 or so of them sitting on the Cloud!) and all of the editing tools in Lr CC are fully operational on my iPad should I ever want to use it.

I edited a photograph on the iPad; synced it back to the Cloud; fired-up Ps CC 2018 . . .
and there is the image (which I had only just edited) sitting on the Start-up/Welcome Screen and also in the Search Panel.

Click on it and it opens in ACR with all of the ACR Sliders already in place to show the image in exactly the way that it looked in Lr CC on my iPad.

Then I opened Lr Classic CC.
Same thing: file has been updated and the Sliders are all set in the right positions to display the photograph to match the changes which I made in Lr CC (iPad).

THIS is the level of "Integration" that many people need!

And the edited image is immediately available for use in all of the other Adobe programs which I use.
------

There is no requirement to subscribe to or purchase any particular brand of software

IF you choose to buy an Adobe Creative Cloud Subscription you get four different programs and ways to process your RAW images; and you can use them interchangeably whenever you want to — depending on what is most convenient at the time.

In addition, the optional Cloud storage gives you access to any of thousands of your images from wherever you may be on the Planet at that moment.

The data stored on the Cloud is very compressed (basically a Smart Preview and the text in the metadata) so it uses about 1 MB per image. For the basic $10, a subscriber gets (in addition to the use of the software) 20 GB of free cloud storage which is sufficient for a lot of 1 MB images and will probably be sufficient for most people.

If you use Lr Classic CC, you would choose which particular files you wanted to Sync to the Cloud if you needed to stay within the 20GB limit.
(Put the selected files into Collections and Sync just those particular Collections to the Cloud.)
-----

Concerning "Indefinitely": that means for an undefined period of time.
Anyone who construed "Indefinitely" to mean "Infinitely" was being un-realistically optimistic!!

[MFloyd]

....
The data stored on the Cloud is very compressed (basically a Smart Preview and the text in the metadata) so it uses about 1 MB per image. For the basic $10, a subscriber gets (in addition to the use of the software) 20 GB of free cloud storage which is sufficient for a lot of 1 MB images and will probably be sufficient for most people.

If you use Lr Classic CC, you would choose which particular files you wanted to Sync to the Cloud if you needed to stay within the 20GB limit.
(Put the selected files into Collections and Sync just those particular Collections to the Cloud.)
....

I have 21'000 images sitting in the cloud through Lr Mobile (smart previews only) and it takes 6 GB from my 20 GB allowance. 

[Thomas G]

I'll probably give something else a try. Luminar Windows Beta? Downloading....

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I get what you're saying, and every camera I know of comes with software to at least do minor editing and convert RAW files to jpg or tif. I don't suspect that will ever bite the dust. Why could these hypothetical Indian portrait photographers not use this software then convert to tif and do further editing in an older version of photoshop that suits their needs?

The problem is that in a few years current OS versions will probably not run older versions of PS or LR (if Adobe won’t patch them to be compatible). That means that in 5-10 years, subscription is the only option that will work on a new computer. The clock is ticking.

Another problem is that internet access is not a given in many of the poorer parts of the world. And that presents difficulty for use of subscription use let alone cloud based services.

Camera manufacturers’ software is typically of very poor quality and usability.

[RobOK]

I have 21'000 images sitting in the cloud through Lr Mobile (smart previews only) and it takes 6 GB from my 20 GB allowance. 

I read that SmartPreviews did not take up space allocation in the new scheme. I think I read it on PetaPixel, maybe in the comment thread.

[Frank Fremerey]

Adobe becoming a utility is old news by now. Before the subscription, because I used most of Adobe's products for other things, like video, Illustrator, Audition, and on and on, buying the Master Collection, which I had to, was probably more expensive and not updated as frequently. Like the water bill, now there is the Adobe bill. LOL.

I appreciate Adobe being there for me. It let's me do things I want to do, like this.

phantastic image, Michael!!!

[Frank Fremerey]

I feel Adobe offers a fair deal for the many people who have been unsing Adobe software illeally.

That is why they can now offer a subscription for sub 10 Dollars. Broaden the revenue base.

Metaphorically: 50% of jobs worldwide are informal (no tax, no social security, no worker protection, no environmental standards, no supervision by public experts) today, projected to become 90% of jobs in the course of the century. If we want a more just world, not only 10% of people should pay taxes. We should broaden the financial base and every body will have to pay less.

Adobe shows how this model works: legalize illegal users (I am quite positive these were more than 50% even in the money making industry, not just the hobbyists) and make them pay. Now the states should learn and follow.

Adobe makes more money, states should get more taxes