The Grid: The Grid: Episode 95 – Discussing Adobe Creative Cloud


The Grid is a live talk-show about photography, Photoshop and other industry-related topics. Each week features a different guest (in-studio or online) and viewers are encouraged to chime in on the Liveblog here on or via Twitter by adding #TheGridLive to their tweets.
Show Homepage
Westcott Platypod

Episode Summary

Scott and Matt discuss the controversial decision by Adobe to move its products to a subscription model only. They give their thoughts on the changes, as well as clarify some of the misinformation that's out on the internet. Scott also offers his own suggestions for Adobe on how they could combine elements of Photoshop and Lightroom to create a single product tailored for photographers.

Links from the show:

This Week's Sponsors:

Wacom | mpix | B&H Photo | Kelby Training | NAPP | onOne Software | Peachpit | Squarespace | Expo Imaging | Intel

Audio-Only version

Download Audio Only
(In order to download this file directly to your computer, right-click (Control-click on Mac) on the Download link and choose the Save As option.)

The Grid Episodes

Show Discussions

post a comment


  1. Just to let you know, if you want to go to the single app PsCC and have a student version of CS3 or higher, you DO NOT get it for $9.99/mo for the first 12 months. You have to pay the full price of $19.99/mo. It would be good if you disseminate all the info.

  2. Amanda Souter says:

    Thank goodness we have Scott and his gang to stand. Up for us. I have been to a lot of camera clubs full of keen retired folk and pro-ams and no way will they be able to afford this. This new subscription service will cut the very living heart out of photography. We all need to stand up to Adobe pro and aims alike because only then will we convince them to come up with something fairer than this.

  3. Terry Sanders says:

    Scott doesn’t mention the many people using 2 or 3 apps (Photoshop and Illustrator, for instance) that will have to pay basically the same as for the entire, USELESS, suite.

  4. dan says:

    Sorry for the delay in responding, but I’ve been trying to take time to process this new move of our cheese, and I just finished a big project which means I’m a couple weeks behind on catching up on my favorite kelbytv shows.

    In response to your “what if” section… What if Nikon went to a rent only mode… At first that sounds great, latest gear, less price.. But what if they could force you to change to their latest and greatest gear and you couldn’t do anything but use that… Even if their replacement didn’t work correctly and caused your production flow to crash. Would you still be a fan? Not everything “new” is improved.

    That’s what the CC is going to do to Adobe users… Some of us who have been doing this a while, have learned that early adopters to any new version is another way of saying beta tester… Without the ability to stay with what works, the CC is a major problem for those who need to know our software will work upon demand.

    CS6 will give us a safety net as long as it works, but after that???

    I appreciated your comments, but this is one area that you didn’t mention, and I thought it important enough to share.

  5. John Novotny says:

    I use the both the Creative Cloud and a perpetual licence product. IMHO its a very bad idea to remove perpetual licensing. It’s seems about a year ago Adobe was looking to restrict upgrade options on older versions of their software looking to increase their bottom line at the expense of their users in the middle of a recession. Now this. By all calculations I’ve seen this will not be a less expensive for those who skip updates and it will force everyone to buy into a perpetual upgrade model that benefits Adobe most.

    That said, having used Creative Cloud I like it but, I think the restriction of choice is a bad idea. At least they could offer a perpetual license as a 2nd tier product, some form of compromise might be wise.

  6. John Novotny says:

    27:08 Sounds like there are a lot of boot lickers on the advisory board. Thanks for standing up for proletariat guys.

  7. Ben says:

    As an existing Creative Cloud user my cost go’s from $29 a month to $49. That’s quite the increase.

    For me it means that I no longer get to have a Kelby training subscription as that chunk of money is now going to Adobe. So whilst I realize that you do need to pander to Adobe to a degree I think it would be interesting to see what the impact is that it has on your business.

  8. Bill Buchanan says:

    I too am a retiree living on a fixed income. I purchased my first copy of Photoshop in 1995. It was the first piece of software I bought because I saw the dawn of a new photographic revolution going from film to digital. Through my years of employment I kept a jar near my nightstand where my quarters were dumped as my Photoshop Upgrade Fund. I never had enough quarters to make the upgrade purchase but it helped.

    My view of Photoshop is like Crack Cocaine. Once you have used it, you’re hooked (I don’t do drugs) And now, the Crack Dealer, Adobe, has just changed the rules. It looks like my CS6 will be my last purchase.

    I am a devoted user of Lightroom and see a time that I’ll be using the latest version of Elements and Lightroom.

    One of my deep concerns is will I be able to use all those wonderful plug-ins like NIK, Alien Skin, On One and Portrait professional in future versions.

  9. carlos zaldivar says:

    What was wrong with the prize now $29.99 a month for adobe creative cloud. Just do not understand I think Adobe is getting selfish. They do not care about photographers but with out us they would go out of business. Just a idea how about Lightroom and photoshop for $15 dollars a month with a life contract.

    Carlos Zaldivar Wedding photographer

  10. C wilson says:

    I bought PS as a student and now no longer qualify for that program. The student version of PS doesn’t qualify for the the $10 discount.

    That may cause me to rethink going to CC. It would be nice if I was treated as a valued customer.

  11. Phli says:

    One of the main problems with Adobe’s announcement is how they did it. Like a pie in the face to loyal, long-time users. They should have announced it as a definite plan with a years lead time so people can absorb it and make decisions. At the very least they should allow you to keep using the program after you’ve completed a two year commitment or something. Adobe’s attitude is half the reason people are so pissed. And yes, it is the money; they double the price now? God only knows what the price will be in the future. This whole thing is really, really bad.

    • Russ says:

      Exactly Phil, I couldn’t agree more or have said it better myself. Scott’s sarcastic approach to the viewer who asked if he could continue to use his product if he stops subscribing doesn’t help matters either. To ask Matt if he can keep his website if he stops his subscription after Matt doing the advert for Square Space is ridicules to say the least, he isn’t even comparing apples to apples. Adobe should either keep the Status Quo or at least offer subscribes a reasonable opt-out option which allows them to continue to use the product without further updates of new features, even if it involves a reasonable one off opt-out fee. The current proposal is no different to in the past they had prevented you using your version of Photoshop once a new version is released.

      I live in the UK so i am covered by EU law as well as UK law. To be honest I cannot see Adobe getting away with this new model how it stands at the moment in Europe, in my book it would come under what the European courts call “Abusing your dominance in the market place.”, especially as they are not giving consumers any choice. Both Intel and Microsoft have fallen foul of this in the past here in Europe. They both not only have had to change their trading practices but have both had hefty fines imposed by the European courts. Microsoft have to offer consumers choice of web browser during installation of Windows, and not install their e-mail client, they have also had to pay fines totalling around 2.2 Billion Euros. It may not be instant but I can see Adobe falling foul of this law if they do not change it so as users can opt-out in some way so as they can continue to use the software without updates. If they do I may then think about subscribing.

  12. Great show and thank you for all the explanations !
    I love the “lightshop” idea. Lightroom covers 80 to 90% of my workflow and I use photoshop for a couple of things:
    1- Pano stitching
    2- Wide angle corrections and miscellaneous perspective corrections
    3- retouching
    4- blending images and composition
    That’s about it.
    I would go a step further than you though:
    Why can’t this just be part of Lightroom itself so we don’t have to switch back and forth.
    Hell I’m willing to pay twice what I paid for lightroom if it includes the photoshop-light functionality I described above

  13. Susan Scharenberg says:

    Great, great show guys. For those who are objective and open to learning something, the show was full of well-distilled info and context to wrap around it. Keep doing what you do!

  14. jlua says:

    I have worked din IT for decades, and I know for a fact that most professional-grade software companies use the “maintenance model”, under which while you pay an annual -hefty- “maintenance” fee, you get technical support and all upgrades. If you stop paying, all that happens is that you stop getting those two benefits, but you get to continue using what you have until that moment. Why in the World has Adobe chosen to use the “subscription” model instead? Can some of the Adobe folks here explain? Bad. Very bad

  15. Lee Zeitelhack says:

    I honestly don’t know what options I’ll go with, but I’m grateful for Scott’s and Matt’s insights. I’m a serious amateur with LR 4 and CS6 and will not worry about the Creative Shroud (uh, cloud). Sooner or later, I know I’ll decide to go with the Shroud, just as I finally decided to go for CS6. Adobe is just doing what any business with the top product would do. I may wish it were different, but that’s life. The three-year-olds throwing tantrums and blaming all the wrong people for their perceived problem, need to calm down and listen. If they do, they will be happier and the rest of us can get on with it without all the noise.

  16. Scott and Matt, not sure you guys are gonna read it, but, I’ll try :-)

    It’s a paradigm change, so it requires “digesting”. Photoshop was a product and now it became a service (what is not the case for Squarespace, which was always a service!).

    I was discussing the question with Frank Doorhof the other day and the point of dislike (so to say) was the fact that you don’t keep anything from the “product” after you cancel the “service”. Our conclusion goes along the lines of Dan Donovan’s comment (here below), it would be nice to have something like “after 24 month of contract (or 36, or a magic number chosen by Adobe), if you cancel the subscription, you keep a frozen version of your software running”. Like you would with your CSsomething if you don’t upgrade it anymore.

    On the pricing. On European prices for a brand new user, the subscription would start getting more expensive than the product license after 5 or so years, keeping prices for full and upgrade versions as of today. Unless I made some huge miscalculation on that :-)

    On the “hate”. Scott Bourne did a great blog post on it, really in his style “I’ll try to be nicer, if you try to be smarter” hehehehe

    LightShop, or PhotoRoom, would be a nice product. Or they could really include it all in Lightroom somehow!

  17. Kevin Purcell says:

    Thanks this was helpful. I didn’t know about the cheaper Photoshop only. Still isn’t best solution to Adobe’s problem, but helps. I’d love an a la carte subscription. Say a min. of $10/$20 a month for upgrades/new and then add $5 per program up to $50 or add $2 for educational buyers.

    Also as a spouse of a teacher I get the full cost suite for just $30/month.

  18. Rich E. says:

    I am a subscriber to the Adobe Cloud and it has worked great for coworker and I since it lets us keep up to date on the programs we use and try out the ones we might never have tried out. Our main programs are Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign. I am using Lightroom a little. I think some people still don’t realize that the programs are resident on your computer and as lone as you subscribe you can use them. I still have our old version of CS4 to fall back on if needed but I think the price is reasonable.

  19. Darran says:

    Well this had a very serious tone, I found this very uncomfortable to watch. The last time I watched the Photoshop Guys it was all fun/ Jokes/laughter.

    It was like watching someone in a court room pleading for his innocence.

    Adobe have really screwed up BIG TIME, loyal customers will look elsewhere including me

  20. Qube says:

    Adobe won’t make a separate Photoshop for Photographers program.
    The way application architecture is developed, it isn’t cost effective to develop a separate app.
    What is normally done is just the disabling of components.
    e.g. the current ‘regular’ Photoshop still contains the 3D etc of “Extended” but they are just disabled based on the product key you put in. It’s just as big and bulky as Extended.
    It’s also why Elements is such a monstrously large program.
    The solution and cost effective approach is to simply add and enhance features to Lightroom to make it “Lightshop for Photographers”.

  21. alex says:

    I need surface blur, I use it a lot to remove noise in the out of focus background (bird photography). Makes it easy to mask out the main subject.

  22. Quin says:

    I freaked out when I first heard about CC but that was because I misunderstood the concept – I thought they were turning all their apps into browser based services a la Photoshop Express.
    When I checked into it and got the straight info, I thought it was a really great deal, and a great way for people to be availed of professional tools without having to make the large up-front investment.
    If you’re not even earning $240 a year with Photoshop, then you don’t need Photoshop. If you aren’t making any money with Photoshop, then you are en enthusiast or hobbyist and can use Elements, Lightroom or Gimp or any number of other photo editor apps.
    I think you rightly summed it all up with the term “professional business tool”.

  23. Mats Jansson says:

    Great show.
    Thanks for explaining the pricing.

  24. Klaus says:

    Sorry for all the tough love you got about your blogpost and knew you would be getting some heat for it.

    I am not an Adobe customer and found it very clear and comprehensive. It is interesting to know that I may be able to rent Photoshopf if I ever need to.

    Can we all please get off the cloud and get back to shooting ??

  25. DR Chevalier says:

    I am watching the recorded version of the Grid episode where Mr. Kelby is understandably frustrated with the treatment he received as a result of his blog post trying to make sense of Adobe’s Creative Cloud decision.

    I did post to the blog and am happy to learn that what I said is in fact what Mr. Kelby says on this show. I regret that the flaming was so vocal that Mr. Kelby has decided not to try to simplify things like this in the future but I surely understand the decision.

    I don’t like rental software and thus the CC is not for me. I prefer the perpetual license model. Apparently others do as well. The anger and frustration should only be directed at Adobe. It should not be directed at Mr. Kelby. He has a business to operate that is bound to Photoshop. He must find the best he can in what Adobe does.

  26. Vivian says:

    Those of us who paid for licensed copies of Photoshop do not appreciate being excluded from the updates that are being made to the program and only released to Cloud subscribers. I am a hobbyist – a retiree – who saved up for my copy of CS6 and the idea of paying for a subscription when I don’t make an income from my work is out of the question.

    “LightShop” sounds like a good concept. There are a lot of features in Photoshop that are not necessary for photographers but I don’t think every filter should be removed.

  27. jlua says:

    I tool a big breath, and I appreciate the effort. Here are my comments: 1) On the “new” idea, I am not crazy about it. I think you just re-invented Elements, which has its own place, 2) Don´t keep talking about the $10/month deal, because I expect to live another 50 years, and the $10 is good for only one year of the 50, so that type of “bait” is of no use to me, I only care about the permanent price for the next 50 years, which at current prices is $360/18 months, or $480/24 months, which is TWICE as expensive as we pay now at every version refresh cycle, 3) Here is my constructive idea: offer a Photoshop + Lightroom subscription bundle for $15/month, which come out to be $270/18 months, or $360/24 months, which is about what we not pay for both products at every refresh cycle. That I would be willing to pay. But I won´t subscribe to Photoshop at $20/month. And I am very clear about that. Even though I have been using Photoshop for more than 20 years, since version 3, and upgrading religiously until now.

  28. Johnathon says:

    There is this negative feeling with subscriptions right now. I think people still want to feel like they own something and subscriptions take that feeling away.

    I work where I answer phones all day and so I speak with people about subscriptions allot. Anytime people bring up getting music for free or illegitimately, I tell them about spotify. I say look at it this way, if you buy one cd a month, just one, you would pay for spotify which has an entire catalog of music. which will probably include that CD you bought. Their response is usually, “yeah but if I stop paying….”

    It makes no sense at all. It’s Irrational on a certain level. If the subscription continues to cost a fraction of what you would pay to own it then I personally don’t have a problem with it.

    I don’t think adobe should make a Photoshop lite. I think it’s waste of resources and man power. The countless meetings that would be wasted figuring out a way to not devalue Photoshop while giving value to Lite would be better spent making the two better programs.

    What I would do is what everyone wishes would happen anyway. Set the Price for Photoshop. Sell yearly and bi yearly subscriptions. BUNDLE Lightroom in with the yearly and bi yearly subscription and find a price the amateur can afford.

    I have always appreciated all the free content you and your group provide. Thanks for taking the the time to read this.

  29. Steve Davis says:

    Scott & Matt, I just wanted to say a big thank you for your discussion of the Adobe shift to the cloud. While I was originally ticked (at Adobe not you), I know that things are always subject to change in life and rarely do we as human beings accept that change willingly. At any rate I know that you are always up front and square with your NAPP members and it is greatly appreciated. So thanks again and ignore all the negativity on this subject.

  30. Joe komar says:

    Great idea on Photoshop Light. Maybe call it Photoshop LR ?

  31. Paul Deveaux says:

    I just listened to the program and must commend you guys for dealing with this issue so well.

    Thanks for taking the heat.

    I have been using Lightroom since the first beta and credit it (at least partially) for getting me back into photography. I appreciate the Lightshop idea, but what is the difference between this and OnOne’s Perfect Photo Suite? I have not done a detailed analysis but it seems as if most of the functionality you guys were talking about is already in there – including great b&w. I currently use Perfect Photo Suite and have found it meets my needs for processing my photos when Lightroom falls short. Admittedly Elements is a cheaper option, but OnOne hooked me with the free Perfect Layers.

    Thanks again.

  32. Nick says:

    Hey Scott
    Please don’t give up! I believe you are as popular as you are in the world of Photography because you are the voice of and for the people. You must know the majority of comments only come from people who like to complain, and I believe you said it was somewhere around 400ish people, in the grand scheme of things they are but a fraction of a percent of the general public. Do people who aren’t bothered by change ever write you to say hey look at these great changes thanks for being our voice? Well I’m here to say THANKS for being our voice and please continue to be. I can only imagine what a large CORP like Adobe would do pricing/product wise without you to be the check/balance for the general public. Keep the fire burning buddy, and forget the haters!

  33. Allan Aylard says:

    I currently use Lightroom 4 and PE 10. I will undoubtedly upgrade to Lightroom 5 when it is released. Not sure about upgrading to PE 11. The upgrade costs are too high, it’s cheaper to buy a full new copy.
    I hate using PE, it is very awkward to use and not very intuitive. I’ve been struggling since I moved from an old version of Photoshop to PE 10. Adobe has dumbed down PE to the point that is painful to use.
    I like the idea of a photographer version (Lightshop) and agree that a $150 purchase price would be about right.
    I would be more than willing to pay a monthly fee if it was reasonably priced. Since the purchase price of Lightroom/Lightshop would be $300 (half the cost of Photoshop, a $10 per month fee would be appropriate in comparison to the $20/month fee for Photoshop.

  34. John Dabarno says:

    Scott, I waste alot more money buying a coffee every other day. So $10 a month is just great for me, I don’t have to put out $200 everytime there is an upgrade, and I also have the Extended version which I never would have bought because of the higher price and would have no use for it. But now that I have it, I have been following Corey’s course on Kelby Training and I think it is pretty cool.
    Sorry you are taking all this crap, people I speak to have no idea how the creative cloud and that is too bad for them.

  35. Glen says:

    Will watch the show on the commute home 2nite… Scott & Matt how do you see this move impacting authors like yourselves? Currently you release a book called “PS CS6 for Photographers” for example, but the future there is only PS CC no version. the 18month cycle works for authors, but if Adobe releases new enhancements as they say they will, how do you stay current. Do you release a book with a best before date, or do you go to a subscription model too??

  36. Steven Smeltz-Zapata says:


    To say “Don’t shoot the messenger!” doesn’t even cut it in your case; rather, people are just resistant to change and for some reason are letting out their frustrations on you! No worries, you are very clear on your reasoning and explanations.

    Thank you and Matt for breaking it all down!!

  37. TimR says:

    I feel we have to stop comparing a product we are used to buying to service providers: cell phones, web site hosting, cable TV, etc.. I know other companies are doing it, but that isn’t the normal model.
    I also got sucked in by a “cheap price for a year” model for my internet. Will I keep it when they jump it jumps 66% at the end of the year? Probably not. but they are known to cut a deal for those who ask for it.
    That is what is going to happen to those who jump in at the $10/mo deal now as Adobe is currently stating. Yes, they might change in the future. Not likely, though.
    I also know plenty in my photo guild who are using CS3, 4, 5 because they don’t want to pay the upgrade. They get to buy once and keep it. That option for those just jumping in is no longer be possible. To me, that is the biggest rub.
    As for $600? That’s crazy. I would take a class at a local tech school and get the student discount and probably still come out ahead. The thing that really makes me happy is this will be motivation for other companies to step up and get more serious about filling that slot. Competition will be good.
    Guess my overall feeling is I’m trying to cut as many of these “its only $10, $20, $30…3 Lattes a month” items out of my life as possible. Those add up to $100s of dollars a month.

    • TimR says:

      My apologies for all the typos. Obviously I need to type out long comments in a word processor where I can read the whole thing in one window. I did too many edits.

    • Ganga says:

      For those who want to stick to cs3/4/5 aren’t bothered about the latest functionality.

      For those who want to upgrade PsE @ $59 is a fantastic option.

      For those can’t be bothered with either then a coffee a day, a dozen designer underwear, a dental appointment and a haircut are some of the luxuries of life that Adobe’s greed has opened up for you. Enjoy :-)

  38. Ganga says:

    It is pathetic that the Grid team has to spend (waste) an hour of their valuable time defending themselves against just plain ignorance and laziness of people who can’t be bothered to do basic arithmetic. Doesn’t matter how you cut it Ps, Lr and Cs are cheaper than before. In fact in Australia Adobe had to stop the usual practice of uplifting local prices by 50% now that they’ve moved to electronic delivery with CC. Just follow Scott’s advice, choose the best plan for your needs. You’ll come out a winner regardless of where you live. Period.

  39. ButchM says:

    You know if you would have opened your blog with the preface you shared here from about minute 8-11 … you could have saved yourself a lot of grief …

  40. Dan Donovan says:

    Scott and Matt –

    I think many complaints are coming from people who have previously paid for the full version of Photoshop AND upgrades after that.

    First, the price for Photoshop is doubling for loyal users who upgrade each time, and increasing even more for casual users. Previous upgrades average out to $11 per month for consistent upgraders ($200 upgrade / 18 month product cycle). A permanent $10 per month would be fair. So, Adobe would be giving loyal users a DEAL to join the cloud version. And when factoring in people who upgraded infrequently and now join, Adobe would be making MORE money from them than their previous upgrade model!

    The second major issue: no matter how much money you have invested in Photoshop, no payments mean no using the software. How about every $200 in payments would lock upgraders into that current version and the software would not need to phone Adobe and feature updates would not download. If you want the continued new features, then you can pay more. This would give Adobe more incentive to innovate to keep people subscribing for updates. If you stop payments after $200 and want to come back later to upgrade, you would need to pay for what you missed.

    To summarize, $10 per month for upgraders and after every $200 you lock in the current version.

    Personally, I bought Photoshop in the mid-90s and have paid a lot of money over the years to upgrade every single time. I would be comfortable with the plan I outlined above.

    For new users, the $20 per month is fine and they lock in the current version when they reach $600. This would be a $100 savings off the boxed version and would offset the fact they would not own a version for 30 months. After paying $600, they would then be considered an upgrader and their monthly fee would be $10.

    I think this is a common sense solution that would be fair to Adobe and the wide variety of people who use Photoshop.

  41. Randall Hearn says:

    On spot!

    I posted these comments on another professionals site. For me I have CS6 and wanted to buy CS6-Extended.

    With Adobe’s current policies, I would have had to buy CS6E, I had no upgrade path.

    After I saw the upgrade path just announced, it was a no brainer. I have a neck injury and I want to move to photography in retirement, however I still love to do game programming. At $30 a month I get the complete suite! CS6, After Effects and all of the Flash programs needed to do any game design/programming I want to do.

    Just a note. Sometimes it is easier to pay $30 a month than it is to cough up $800 or more for all the packages.

    I have always been against paying monthly for software, but in this case Adobe got it right, at least for me.

  42. karl says:

    sorry ,
    but this show was like watching a drowning man
    very painful

  43. Mike Harvey says:

    Scott & Matt – great discussion. You both fell victim to the “shoot the messenger” reaction, but you did get the facts out there (which Adobe did not do adequately).

    As far as the “Lightshop” idea goes, why not just roll these most used Photoshop features into Lightroom?

    Keep up the good work and don’t stop being our voice!

  44. Dedicated Hobbyist says:

    #1 feature a perpetual license
    #2 feature no requirement to buy back to back versions for upgrade discounts
    #3 choice of same product with or without cloud subscription.
    #4 reasonable price for non subscription product.

    Same four features to continue with lightroom.

    That’s it.

  45. Allan Aylard says:

    I just listened to your suggestion to Adobe about a photo version of photoshop. I couldn’t agree more.

  46. Jay Abramson says:

    A non-subscription version of PS-Lite could be handled by taking what you described and essentially making it a plugin for LR. Problem solved.

    CC for those who need/want it and a standalone pepetual use LR. Especially since LR is to be available outside the CC for sometime to come.

  47. Mike Haidley says:

    GREAT IDEA, With a price I can afford and the features I need.

    GO, LightShop

  48. Miriam Rosenthal says:

    Thanks, Scott and Matt.
    Still would need the ability to convert to CYMK. that’s why I switched from Elements to PS many versions ago.

  49. Andrew says:

    As a “hobbyist” I started looking at alternatives to PS when Adobe announced that the CS6 upgrade was only for CS5 (since I had been updating every 2-3 versions).

    I did check out the Corel line and was not happy with it (also Gimp just seemed too cumbersome to use). I do use Lightroom, but then went to a combo of Lightroom and PS Elements. For me this was the right combination. Now with the CC announcement, I know that Lightroom + PS Elements (along with my Nik plugins) is the right combination for me.

    Adobe has been on a road to push photographers (and video-graphers) off the PS bandwagon which I believe they regard as their graphic design platform. This is probably not a path that Scott and company really want to be on as it then limits PS training opportunities. As long as they keep the pricing of Lightroom reasonable and out of the subscription realm I personally do not care. If on the other hand the want to mess with the LR pricing model, I guess I will have to look elsewhere.

  50. Tom Ferguson says:

    Scott, thanks for stepping-up even though you took a lot of undeserved heat.

    What shocked me in the CC announcement was that Photoshop Standard Edition was gone, however, a product like the proposed “LightShop” would be perfect. It would be faster, easier to learn, and be probably be priced for the right crowd.

  51. William Chinn says:

    For the Troublemaker / Whiner: 1) how does an author write a how to book for a subscription piece of software (how do you update the book) ?

    For the Adobe person:
    2) Does the Indiv PS CC install on top of PS CS6? 3) Does it pick up the plugins that PS CS6 has on install or do the plugins need to be re-installed like CS6 did? 4) if Adobe advertises the next update that is the a) best bread slicer, b) obsoletes a function that no one uses except you, can you optionally not install the obsolete portion of the update but still slice bread? 5) does Adobe seriously think a Hacker won’t come up with cloning the verify subscription option? CC doesn’t check the subscription every day so the Hacker can alter the check processing.

    As a former programmer taking features out of PS will speed up the initial program loading but will not speed up the processing. It will allow users with limited computer memory to run both software titles.

    • It’s very possible to make a “cloud version” of PS work (and with absolutely the highest security in place). Look up Citrix XenApp. I currently use Citrix to access many applications and suites in a secure, production environment. There is virtually no loss of performance.

      The only problem I could see is the number of Citrix servers required to host the application for the number of subscribers.

      In the Citrix environment I work in, There are approximately thousand of servers hosting MS Outlook and the user capacity is currently over 40, 000 concurrent users without performance issues. But that’s a technical issue I’m sure Adobe (or whoever would host the environment) can figure out.

  52. Kevin Graham says:

    Scott, great show. You do not deserve all of the undue heat you have been getting.

    I like the idea about Adobe making a more photographer specific product, noting that Photoshop as it exists today has a lot more than photographers need.

    But, the #1 feature I am looking for is a perpetual license, as Adobe offered since Photoshop 1.0.

  53. B. Mackey says:

    It’s $10 for only the first year! It goes up to at least $20 or more. I don’t like company or individuals that say “trust me”. Promises not hopes…..

  54. B. Mackey says:

    While this change may very well be valuable for those who use Adobe products for business, it fails miserably for the many of us who have been loyal Photoshop users and avid amature photographers. We don’t always want or need the “latest and greatest” updates as soon as they are released.

    The new model changes the relationship between Adobe and many of their customers from collaborative to dealer/user. From now on, every single cloud customer is totally dependant upon the company, Adobe raises prices, the cloud customer has two options, pay or go “cold turkey” and be totally stripped of any/all use of the software you have invested in for many, many years. A great marketing model for crack dealers, not certain it works as well for a former customer service oriented company. Scott, I wish you had looked at this new policy from more than the narrow perspective of the corporate/business users of PS.

    Too bad Adobe has decided on only one distribution model as if maintained it will force many long time loyal customers to look elsewhere.

Leave a Reply