Adobe moves to Creative Cloud, Cancels Creative Suite

[keylight]

My opinion is that this is the best way to fight piracy. I"m not that tech savvy about software piracy but I think it's a lot harder to pirate software on the cloud than to crack a download.

I"m sure there are other business considerations and they may make more money from the cloud than straight up sales, but I have a feeling the number one driver of this is stopping piracy.

The cloud model doesn't work for me. Rather than stick with CS5 or something I think there are plenty of other options available for what I need. I'll just use something else, and if the cloud makes adobe money and works for other people, that's great.

Well, the software isn't actually in the cloud. It's still download and install. The only difference between CC and CS6 in terms of licensing is that CC has to phone home every so often to verify the license. If it can't do that, it'll eventually stop working. As has been said here and elsewhere, who says it needs to phone home to a real authentication server? Only a matter of time before someone creates a fake server that runs on the user's local machine. Or figure out a way to set the license verification interval to something like every 9,999,999 days. CC may add a new kind of protection, but like pretty much every other piece of software out there, if one person (or company) can protect it, someone else will eventually figure out a way to break the protection.

 

[Gillvane]

Well, the software isn't actually in the cloud. It's still download and install. The only difference between CC and CS6 in terms of licensing is that CC has to phone home every so often to verify the license. If it can't do that, it'll eventually stop working. As has been said here and elsewhere, who says it needs to phone home to a real authentication server? Only a matter of time before someone creates a fake server that runs on the user's local machine. Or figure out a way to set the license verification interval to something like every 9,999,999 days. CC may add a new kind of protection, but like pretty much every other piece of software out there, if one person (or company) can protect it, someone else will eventually figure out a way to break the protection.

The point is not will it stop piracy, but is this the reason Adobe is adopting the cloud model?

These articles seem to indicate that yes, one of the primary motivations is stopping piracy, not just more revenue versus a purchase, etc.

http://gizmodo.com/will-adobes-move-to-the-cloud-finally-keep-the-pirates-493172511

http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/21/ad...-isnt-a-cure-all-refuge-from-software-piracy/

What I got from the techcrunch article is that you are right, software can still be pirated even with the cloud model. However, it is harder, and this is just the first iteration. Step one is move to the cloud. Then other provisions can be implemented over time to prevent piracy that could not be used without the cloud model.

If you read the techcrunch article you will see that Adobe has successfully disabled certain functions of the software for pirates. They just plain don't work and so far have not been successfully pirated. The core program has been pirated, but it's missing many additional functions. If you keep adding those functions that cannot be pirated, eventually the value of the pirated program is not worth the effort to pirate and install it.

Adobe isn't saying the cloud model is about piracy. Fighting piracy is not a great selling point, so it's all about updates and value for the consumer, yadda, yadda, but I think this is mostly about fighting piracy.

 

[Razz16mm]

Sure its about Adobe making more money. Pushing 1 million cloud subscriptions now vs typical annual suite sales under the old model of less than 180,000. The only serious objection I see to the model is loss of use without the subscription. But as far as expense goes, I don't see any real difference in overall costs over time if you bought the suite and did annual upgrades. It is actually cheaper.

 

[Gillvane]

Sure its about Adobe making more money. Pushing 1 million cloud subscriptions now vs typical annual suite sales under the old model of less than 180,000. The only serious objection I see to the model is loss of use without the subscription. But as far as expense goes, I don't see any real difference in overall costs over time if you bought the suite and did annual upgrades. It is actually cheaper.

What if you don't do annual upgrades, but instead you upgrade when you need to? That is not an option with the cloud.

The people that don't do annual upgrades will have to just suck it up and pay more, or go elsewhere.

 

[alaskacameradude]

What if you don't do annual upgrades, but instead you upgrade when you need to? That is not an option with the cloud.

The people that don't do annual upgrades will have to just suck it up and pay more, or go elsewhere.

You got it. There are some customers (like me) who do NOT do annual upgrades. Under the CC,
we don't have that choice anymore. We pay Adobe regardless instead of waiting until WE think that
the new features deserve us giving them more money.

 

[keylight]

You got it. There are some customers (like me) who do NOT do annual upgrades. Under the CC,
we don't have that choice anymore. We pay Adobe regardless instead of waiting until WE think that
the new features deserve us giving them more money.

Exactly!

Which is why everyone should expect to see LESS Adobe evolution and innovation as time goes on, rather than more. If your customers are locked in to paying you, why spend the R&D? Before they had an incentive... getting people to upgrade.

I used to edit Avid. Did that for years. A few years ago I took a look at Premiere, liked it's integration with other Adobe products, and started using it. More and more. Stopped upgrading Avid. Finally stopped using it.

Guess what I did a month ago.... Bought the upgrade to Media Composer. Now I'm using MC7. Did I mind spending $800 for the upgrade of a single product? Absolutely. But it's worth every penny. I'd forgotten how fantastic it really is.

Personally, I won't be subscribing to CC.

 

[hscully]

Right... and elsewhere I will go! Love the product, do not love the subscription.

 

[keylight]

What I got from the techcrunch article is that you are right, software can still be pirated even with the cloud model. However, it is harder, and this is just the first iteration. Step one is move to the cloud. Then other provisions can be implemented over time to prevent piracy that could not be used without the cloud model.

If you read the techcrunch article you will see that Adobe has successfully disabled certain functions of the software for pirates. They just plain don't work and so far have not been successfully pirated. The core program has been pirated, but it's missing many additional functions. If you keep adding those functions that cannot be pirated, eventually the value of the pirated program is not worth the effort to pirate and install it.

Adobe isn't saying the cloud model is about piracy. Fighting piracy is not a great selling point, so it's all about updates and value for the consumer, yadda, yadda, but I think this is mostly about fighting piracy.

The techcrunch article was a good find. Thanks for sharing it.

But the piracy angle doesn't ring true. Another way of looking at moving features to the cloud is that the more they move, the less stable and reliable the software becomes. Move any real function of the software to the cloud and Adobe will have problems. Imagine if they moved Photoshop filters to the cloud. Want that lens blur filter? No internet connection, no filter. Want a font that exists only in the cloud? No internet connection, no font. So they have to keep all that stuff locally to ensure the software is stable and reliable. And if it's local, it can be pirated.

By the way, some cloud features like syncing settings across computers can already be done without the cloud. Not automatically, but certainly doable. How much work would it take for someone to write a little program that can automate the gathering up of all the various settings and then copy them into a DropBox folder. The same program could monitor the DropBox folder for changes to the settings and then bring them back into the software. If Adobe had created this kind of add-on product and sold it as a low cost subscription, how subscriptions would they have sold? Probably not enough. Add updates to core features that actually enhance the software to the subscription - things that simply can't live in the cloud - and you'll sell more subscriptions. But still not enough. Take away perpetual licensing? Now you're selling a lot of subscriptions. But to the big guys, not the little guys.

Again, it's all about $$$.

Back to piracy, since that's what your post was about. Frankly, piracy was costing Adobe very little. Who were the pirates? Mostly students or people who would use something else before they paid Adobe a penny. Moving to the cloud will net Adobe approximately nothing in revenue from former pirates. One caveat to this of course - pirates (mostly of the student type) who learned on Adobe products often ended up becoming paid customers later on. Can't say that's going to be true going forward specifically because of the subscription model.

But again, little guys = little $. Big guys = big $$$. Adobe doesn't care about the little guys. Not where their revenue comes from anymore.

 

[Lance Bailey]

If you like the products and are making money off of them.... then this is not that big of a deal. The paradigm is shifting on how this industry works. I for one don't want to keep shifting/learning new packages from scratch, just because I'm pissed off. Adapt or find a solution that works for you. I know all this grassroots complaining is hoping for a groundswell to get them to change, but I am sorry to say that this is where it is heading.

 

[keylight]

If you like the products and are making money off of them.... then this is not that big of a deal. The paradigm is shifting on how this industry works. I for one don't want to keep shifting/learning new packages from scratch, just because I'm pissed off. Adapt or find a solution that works for you. I know all this grassroots complaining is hoping for a groundswell to get them to change, but I am sorry to say that this is where it is heading.

I agree that if you're making money, like the products, trust Adobe, and don't mind paying Adobe for the rest of your creative life, then by all means subscribe.

For me at least this is not about grassroots complaining. It's about owning what I pay for - the software and all of the work created with that software. I can't invest in a product that threatens to my limit access to work I've put hundreds... thousands of hours into.

And I can't trust a company that says to all of it's customers, "Our way or the highway."

 

[Wesley Byram]

It's about owning what I pay for - the software and all of the work created with that software. I can't invest in a product that threatens to my limit access to work I've put hundreds... thousands of hours into.

++

This hits the nail right on the head and states the problem clearly.

 

[Lance Bailey]

I agree that it all seems abit bullying, however, I still find the cost to be a minor investment when compared to what I get out of it. These tools are worth much much more to my bottom line then what they are asking. We keep asking for more and expect to pay less. They aren't out of order to change their business model. My biggest concern is (like previously stated) when they have a broad subscriber base, how well and often will they keep up with moving their products forward.

 

[Lance Bailey]

Thousands of companies in other industries survive by leasing the equipment they use or the programs that run them. This is not new (only to our industry).

 

[alaskacameradude]

I agree that it all seems abit bullying, however, I still find the cost to be a minor investment when compared to what I get out of it. These tools are worth much much more to my bottom line then what they are asking. We keep asking for more and expect to pay less. They aren't out of order to change their business model. My biggest concern is (like previously stated) when they have a broad subscriber base, how well and often will they keep up with moving their products forward.

As stated, this depends on how big you are and how much you make. It also somewhat depends on
your attitude towards money. Of course they aren't out of order to change their business model,
they own it and they can do anything legal they want to make money.....something you may want
to think about before you tie yourself too closely. If it seems a bit bullying now, what happens in
the future when they want more money, might they dramatically raise the subscription price?
After all, the tools are worth more than they are asking right? And it wouldn't be out of line
as it is their business. I don't know what they will do, I just know its not for me. I have no
illusions that my piddling little business with its under 100 grand yearly profit means a hill
of beans to Adobe. They will do what they want to do to make the most money. I do the
same in my business. Their actions to make them more money, directly contradicts my
actions I take to make my business more money. In other words, more money in Adobe's
pocket, means less in mine. So we part ways and I travel a new path. I've learned awhile
ago that the only thing constant in this industry is change

 

[alaskacameradude]

Thousands of companies in other industries survive by leasing the equipment they use or the programs that run them. This is not new (only to our industry).

True. But that doesn't mean I want to join them. If everyone else was jumping off a cliff.......ahh never mind.

 

[adkimery]

No. Lets be very clear about this, the whole point of the subscription model is to make Adobe more money. If it was just about instant download of frequent updates so that there was no waiting or getting behind as you say, they could do that. FCP X does that without the move to a subscription based service. So lets not hide behind Adobe marketing speak. Sure they are now giving instant updates via download and that's great. But that is an entirely different issue. They are changing the way you pay to a subscription model. They don't have to do that, to offer frequent downloadable updates. It is a way for them to make more money. Cool for them, not cool for me. I get it, it's business. I'll take my personal business elsewhere.

Everything a for-profit, publicly traded company does is for money. Some companies are just slicker about it than others.

With regards to the upgrades, a side effect of the accounting regulations brought on by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act impacts how publicly traded companies (in our case, Adobe, Avid, Apple, etc.,) sell their wares. Basically, if I am a publicly traded company and I sell you a product and claim 100% of that sale as revenue I then cannot offer you a feature upgrade (bug fixes are okay) to that product as that means I sold you something that was incomplete (at least according to SOX). I can sell you a feature upgrade but I cannot give it a way. If I sell you a product and I do *not* claim the sale of the product as revenue then I can offer you feature upgrades for free because the transaction isn't finalized until I claim the revenue from it (at least that's my layman's idea of what's going on).

The prevailing assumption is that Apple is putting off recognizing revenue from FCP X sales because, well, revenue from FCP X is insignificant compared to their hardware sales. This enables Apple to release feature updates to FCP X as often as they want w/o charing customers and w/o running afoul of SOX. Adobe, on the other hand, lives and dies by its software sales so they can't put off that revenue stream like Apple can. Moving to a subscription service changes the situation entirely. Remember a few years ago when iPhone users would get iOS version upgrades for free but iPod Touch users had to pay for them? Same situation. Adobe can release new feature upgrades as often as they want to subscribers where as if they tried the same thing for perpetual license holders each feature upgrade would have to be a charged transaction.

Avid is currently doing an internal audit to make sure it hasn't violated SOX (at least that's the theory as to why Avid has delayed its mandatory filings to the SEC).

As has been said here and elsewhere, who says it needs to phone home to a real authentication server? Only a matter of time before someone creates a fake server that runs on the user's local machine. Or figure out a way to set the license verification interval to something like every 9,999,999 days.

No need to even wait for that. Just downloaded one of the full functioning, 30-day demos then downloaded a small (and long available) hack that prevents the demo from counting down and 'expiring'.

Exactly!

Which is why everyone should expect to see LESS Adobe evolution and innovation as time goes on, rather than more. If your customers are locked in to paying you, why spend the R&D? Before they had an incentive... getting people to upgrade.

Adobe still has to innovate or they'll lose customers. I don't think $50/mo is a 'lock in' price at all. I mean, people used to fork over 70-100k for an Avid setup yet the old FCP still managed to steal away many of those customers.


-Andrew

 

[Gillvane]

Again, it's all about $$$.

Back to piracy, since that's what your post was about. Frankly, piracy was costing Adobe very little. Who were the pirates? Mostly students or people who would use something else before they paid Adobe a penny. Moving to the cloud will net Adobe approximately nothing in revenue from former pirates. One caveat to this of course - pirates (mostly of the student type) who learned on Adobe products often ended up becoming paid customers later on. Can't say that's going to be true going forward specifically because of the subscription model.

But again, little guys = little $. Big guys = big $$$. Adobe doesn't care about the little guys. Not where their revenue comes from anymore.

It's Adobe's intellectual property and they can sell it anyhow they think best, of course. However, I agree with you 100%.

People pirating as students often become loyal customers in the future when they already know how to use the software and graduate to working for a professional business or own their own business.

 

[Gillvane]

++

This hits the nail right on the head and states the problem clearly.

This is a very legitimate concern. If I own the software, it's mine. I control it. If I lease, I only have control of it for the lease period and after that anything can happen.

What if for example, I decide to switch to another solution, but later I have to go back and edit something in Premiere. Do I have to start over editing from scratch? That would suck. Will I be able to rent Premiere again? Will there be a new "application fee" now? Will the new updates work with my older edit? I have no idea. I just have to hope everything will work out ok.

If I own the download, then I just boot up the old software throw in my old edit and do whatever I want. It will work, it won't cost me a dime, and there you go, no big deal.

And, believe it or not, I go to places where I can edit on my laptop and there is no internet connection. No, i cannot afford to get some crazy portable satellite connection, and there are no cell towers, but there is power. Places like that do still exist.

 

[starcentral]

I need to revisit this thread once and a while just to say, NEVER EVER will I pay for subscription to software.

A.) I think its a rip-off because if I don't want ongoing payments I shouldn't have to deal with that.

B.) I don't care if they are providing free updates in that time period. Maybe instead they should focus on better builds in the first place that don't require constant updates, patches and fixes. Imagine Sony or Panasonic shipped a camera that has serious quirks and crashed constantly out of the box?! Software doesn't need to be any different but we've all accepted it and so these guys figured out they might as well just keep the ongoing charges going because the release itself will never be "stable".

C.) Lastly, anyone who uses software (assuming 99.99% of the world by now) knows that anytime you update your software to fix one set of issues you can almost most certainly expect new issues to arise. I don't know about you, but when I find a combination of software that works (generally 1-2 releases behind) I stick with it and let the rest of the world worry about beta testing "new" releases and submitting online bug reports. No thanks. I didn't buy your product so I can test it for you. There are very few companies who can release stable software off the bat these days I understand but there are some companies who try MUCH hard than others.

*@#$% you Adobe, you will never get my money past CS6. I will move to another software platform if I have to first.

 

[firehawk]

Even if you forget about all the other bad things about this deal, just think about this:

How about when the price goes up to ~$80 /month. Isn't that what they were originally asking before they cancelled perpetual licensing and said, "our way or the highway"?
It's just a matter of time.
How about when it's $100/month? Then what do you do? You either pay up or you don't have any software and nothing to show for all your money. No way to work with all your projects, etc. You are up the creek without a paddle, at the mercy of the Adobe river and whatever rocky path it wants to hurl you into. Or else you bail out and leave it all behind, fiinding yourself on the river bank stranded with no vessel or tools.

In a very short sighted sense it may look like a good deal. Wow! only $19/month instead of paying $900 (student).
Or $XX /month versus $2400. (retail).


The piracy excuse is just that. An excuse. Those that pirate often are students and they either:
1. Will never pay for the software anyway, albeit CC or perpetual.
OR
2. Learn and become used to it and ultimately do buy the software hence turning into customers