Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adobe To Run Some Of Its Creative Cloud Services On Azure (zdnet.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the collaboration dept.

Adobe will offer its Adobe Creative Cloud, Marketing Cloud, and Document Cloud hosted on Microsoft's Azure, the company said today, as part of a deal with Microsoft. ZDNet adds: Some of Adobe's subscription services for creative professionals currently are hosted on Amazon's AWS. It's not clear from Microsoft's announcement of its new Adobe deal whether Adobe's Creative Cloud, Marketing Cloud, and Document Cloud will run on any other cloud backbones, with Azure as a secondary option or choice. I've asked Microsoft, and heard back from a spokesperson that today's deal is not exclusive, but that's all I know at this point. Work is underway to move these services to the Azure cloud, a spokesperson confirmed, with more information on this coming in the next few months.

17 comments

  1. And Yawn! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I have to give a big so what. I know we suppose to hate Microsoft and I have no love for Azure. But so what, it is Adobe who will need to deal with the consequences more than the users of the services.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:And Yawn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What consequences exactly?

    2. Re:And Yawn! by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I have to give a big so what. I know we suppose to hate Microsoft and I have no love for Azure. But so what, it is Adobe who will need to deal with the consequences more than the users of the services.

      Exactly.

      Besides, maybe with a little luck, MSFT will nickel-and-dime Adobe hard-core along the way, and they become victims of the same rental scheme they've inflicted on their own customer base. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company, really.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:And Yawn! by hey! · · Score: 1

      A properly designed system shouldn't be highly dependent upon any kind of persistence layer, although if you follow the provider's example programs you'll tend to spread dependencies through your code. But a smart designer hides that all away deep down in some kind of abstraction.

      A demonstration of exactly how little you are dependent on a vendor is probably a very good thing, if you're a big customer. Oh, we'll run *this* part of our product on the other guy's cloud service and boom. It happens. Shows the vendors who's boss.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:And Yawn! by Tesen · · Score: 1

      What consequences exactly?

      Yeah I am waiting for that myself; I run services on Azure quite fine with out any consequences.

    5. Re:And Yawn! by RDW · · Score: 1

      Besides, maybe with a little luck, MSFT will nickel-and-dime Adobe hard-core along the way, and they become victims of the same rental scheme they've inflicted on their own customer base. Couldn't happen to a more deserving company, really.

      I'm also hoping Affinity will eat their lunch with reasonably priced software with perpetual licenses. So far they have excellent Photoshop and Illustrator alternatives for Mac, with a DTP and DAM package to come. Windows versions are on the way, with Designer (cf Illustrator) already in beta: http://affinity.serif.com/

  2. acrobat reader dc, for those that want... by w3bd4wg · · Score: 1

    want software to work right, anyone else like the cloud shoved down their throat? Glad they are teaming up with another company doing the same...

    1. Re:acrobat reader dc, for those that want... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking about this a bit...

      I toy around with CG and artistic software, but aside from a (now-ancient) copy of Photoshop, I usually do not bother with Adobe's products anymore precisely because of The Cloud (cue angelic chorals and a deep majestic voice enunciating every syllable...)

      Not that I hate the whole cloudy thing per se - it has its use cases... but digital artwork ain't one of them, especially for the hobbyist.

      Renting render farm time? Okay, that's a good thing to have. OTOH, Fiddling with pics and CG stills that only your family or some small business will see? Not so much. I already have hella powerful machinery and oceans of storage space at home... the hell do I need to clog up my bandwidth (and in my case, bandwidth allocation thanks to Sat. Internet) just so that Adobe can rent their software instead of buying it?

      Just a rant, I guess... but it's astounding how many shops just sucked down the party line and continued shoveling money towards the whole enterprise.

      I mean, seriously - the cloud is nothing more than someone else's computer - yet it became one of the biggest buzzwords of the past 10 years... feck.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:acrobat reader dc, for those that want... by Junta · · Score: 1

      It's an inefficiency that is very intentional.

      The software industry realized that for a lot of their users, they couldn't extract upgrade licenses from customers readily because they had already done *too* good a job. Functionality wise, a lot of people don't need anything newer than Photoshop 6 (released 16 years ago). A lot of people could use Office 97. Of course some things have slowly evolved technology wise that *ultimately makes people need updates and there's some forced updates (e.g. fun incompatibilities in ms office formats), In general though, update revenue became a big uncertainty.

      So the solution is to switch to rental models, subscriptions, et al. Licenses that terminate when you stop paying, rather than the 'old' way of transactional purchase that has indefinite usage rights.

      Now a software company can much more efficiently milk their userbase for money without really having to figure out meaningful value add beyond what they already do.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:acrobat reader dc, for those that want... by quetwo · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you still run all the Adobe software on your local computer -- the only thing that makes it "the cloud" is that it includes a document management and file storage piece. Oh, and I think /some/ settings are shared across installs of the software.

      When they switched to this model, they also changed it so you rent the software instead of purchase it. The advantage is that they push updates more frequently, but you are paying a monthly fee for it.

    4. Re:acrobat reader dc, for those that want... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I already have hella powerful machinery and oceans of storage space at home... the hell do I need to clog up my bandwidth (and in my case, bandwidth allocation thanks to Sat. Internet) just so that Adobe can rent their software instead of buying it?

      You don't. This is so people don't have to shell out for "hella powerful machinery" and "oceans of storage space" just to do these things. It's even better for companies because they don't need to maintain hardware and buy highend desktops and laptops. They have a subscription for the software (rather than re-purchasing annually) and a decent internet connection and then they can use that software on pretty much any system and aren't tied to the systems to which the software is licensed.

      And I totally get that it might not be for you, it isn't for everybody. But it's more convenient for their biggest customers in the industry and even for the education industry. The main place it doesn't work is for the very occasional users, those that want to just use an old version because it works for them. In that case you should probably switch to something like The GIMP, sure it isn't as fully featured as the industry incumbents but for the very occasional users it should do just fine and if it lacks something you need you can build it yourself or pay somebody to do it for you, that's the open source way.

      I'm one of those very occasional users that used a copy of CS2 so I don't have a subscription and I've transitioned to The GIMP for those times when Aperture (which is now discontinued) isn't enough.

    5. Re:acrobat reader dc, for those that want... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software industry realized that for a lot of their users, they couldn't extract upgrade licenses from customers readily because they had already done *too* good a job. Functionality wise, a lot of people don't need anything newer than Photoshop 6 (released 16 years ago). A lot of people could use Office 97.

      Hang on. That assertion is at odds with the "proprietary vendor lock-in" view. If what you are saying is the case then those people could just easily switch from their ancient proprietary software to modern FOSS. I'm always reading here that the reason people stick with proprietary software is not simply because an old version is adequate but because they are stuck in an upgrade cycle to keep compatibility with everybody else and that is how those vendors keep making money. If Office97 or Photoshop6 is adequate then on the chance that these people might need to upgrade they would be much more likely to go to LibreOffice or Gimp for free than to pay subscription.

      Even if these people you speak of represented any significant userbase I don't think they are the target for this change.

  3. dies this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We might get dome decent interop between microsoft products and pdf?

  4. Wow by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    This news feels like a Demotivational Teamwork poster come to life.

  5. Re:And Yawn! open that mouth for my NIGGER DICK by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    This excerpt from the 2016 presidential debate has been brought to you by Eli Lilly & Co, the maker of CialisTM.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need someone with server/cloud experience to handle their work. Apple is incapable of building that infrastructure.