As a photographer who writes photo software, I do not think it would surprise me.
If you really need to move a bridge to the other side of the shot, or replace one person's face with another, then yes, you need Photoshop. But the vast majority of photo edits can be done in Lightroom.
Right, because at 1KB a pop, I'm sure your network will be brought to its knees. How many megabits do you get on Game of Thrones torrents? Just saying...
If you still need Photoshop after you reach the four year "break even" point, then I don't think you'll blink at paying $20 / month for it. This is a professional tool for professionals. If you don't need Photoshop, don't subscribe. If you do, it's likely one of the cornerstones of your work or business.
You don't need to be connected to the internet to use the Creative Cloud. It's just software that's on your computer. It checks your license once every 30 days, so you need to go on the internet once per month.
I hate to break it to you, but professionals will continue to use Photoshop, and GIMP will continue to be GIMP. If daily Photoshop users could switch to GIMP, they would have already done it.
Honestly, for photo, all you need is Lightroom. Now that you can do local adjustments in LR, there's really no reason to use Photoshop for photography tasks. It's overkill.
What "control" did users have before? No, really... You still were forced to upgrade periodically to maintain your... ability to upgrade. Isn't that just a different kind of subscription? At least this is more honest.
Yeah, for light photo editing, Photoshop is overkill. And GIMP is just not very convenient to work with due to the interface. My strong suspicion is that online photo editing tools will pick up the slack left by people abandoning old versions of Photoshop.
You still get to choose when to upgrade... I think people misunderstand the way Creative Cloud works. It's basically the same as it was, but now you can download updates over the internet. It's not very cloud-y.
Honestly if you can't justify $20 / month for Photoshop, then you should seek a lower-end alternative. If you need Photoshop for your work or business, $20 is nothing.
The software is not in the cloud... It's on your computer, just like it always has been. The "cloud" aspect only refers to the fact that you can download updates periodically. I actually think they botched the name. There's not much "cloud" happening in the Creative Cloud.
Photoshop Elements has just been discontinued, but yes—if you're doing light editing for personal work, you might not need the raw power of Photoshop. In fact, if you're doing photo-related work, you can probably get away with just Lightroom, which has become incredibly versatile.
I guess your work doesn't deal with many files from clients or other shops... That's lucky but unusual. Most shops have to upgrade every year or two to make sure they can handle files from outside the business.
So you had the CS6 Master Collection, or just Photoshop? Because just Photoshop is only $20/month, which is almost certainly cheaper than whatever your purchase + upgrade schedule was before.
Yes. Photoshop has accumulated many advanced features over the years that people now rely on. PS is also an industry standard in many, many different industries. Most professionals don't want to invest time learning an "alternative" tool just to save a few bucks, since it could cost them their next job.
If you only want Photoshop, it's only $20 / month, and I believe you get two installations. Any photographer should be able to justify $20 / month for one of your most useful tools.
$50 / month is a great deal for your primary work tools. It's much better than the old "Master Collection," which clocked in at over $2500 plus upgrade fees every other year. If you use more than one Adobe product, this saves you money and probably gets you more of the suite than you had before. (If you only use one app you can subscribe for a less appealing $20/month).
Also, let's get real: if people could switch to GIMP, they would have already done it. It's just not there yet. The type of user who was willing to pay $600 for Photoshop two months ago is simply not going to put up with GIMP's shortcomings and quirks.
I suspect that 90% of the "backlash" will come from people who were pirating the software anyway. These people were not customers to begin with.
If you're backpacking, that 5 or 6 pounds will really wear on you. You can check email, update blogs, and download pictures using internet cafes, which are plentiful in even smaller towns now.
Then again, you're a geek who reads Slashdot. If you want to geek out during your trip, you'll need the laptop.
So, now the obvious question: why did you buy a brand new MacBook Pro right before you're about to spend a whole year backpacking? Why not wait till you got back?
Slashdot Mirror
As a photographer who writes photo software, I do not think it would surprise me.
If you really need to move a bridge to the other side of the shot, or replace one person's face with another, then yes, you need Photoshop. But the vast majority of photo edits can be done in Lightroom.
Right, because at 1KB a pop, I'm sure your network will be brought to its knees. How many megabits do you get on Game of Thrones torrents? Just saying...
You're paying for Google and Google Docs via ads. I really don't want ads in my Photoshop.
If you still need Photoshop after you reach the four year "break even" point, then I don't think you'll blink at paying $20 / month for it. This is a professional tool for professionals. If you don't need Photoshop, don't subscribe. If you do, it's likely one of the cornerstones of your work or business.
Of course it will be pirated. Was this ever in dispute? How would you make software that CAN'T be pirated?
You don't need to be connected to the internet to use the Creative Cloud. It's just software that's on your computer. It checks your license once every 30 days, so you need to go on the internet once per month.
I hate to break it to you, but professionals will continue to use Photoshop, and GIMP will continue to be GIMP. If daily Photoshop users could switch to GIMP, they would have already done it.
Honestly, for photo, all you need is Lightroom. Now that you can do local adjustments in LR, there's really no reason to use Photoshop for photography tasks. It's overkill.
What "control" did users have before? No, really... You still were forced to upgrade periodically to maintain your... ability to upgrade. Isn't that just a different kind of subscription? At least this is more honest.
GIMP is not a Photoshop alternative. GIMP is an interesting tool, but if you need Photoshop, you need Photoshop.
Yeah, for light photo editing, Photoshop is overkill. And GIMP is just not very convenient to work with due to the interface. My strong suspicion is that online photo editing tools will pick up the slack left by people abandoning old versions of Photoshop.
You still get to choose when to upgrade... I think people misunderstand the way Creative Cloud works. It's basically the same as it was, but now you can download updates over the internet. It's not very cloud-y.
Honestly if you can't justify $20 / month for Photoshop, then you should seek a lower-end alternative. If you need Photoshop for your work or business, $20 is nothing.
The software is not in the cloud... It's on your computer, just like it always has been. The "cloud" aspect only refers to the fact that you can download updates periodically. I actually think they botched the name. There's not much "cloud" happening in the Creative Cloud.
Photoshop Elements has just been discontinued, but yes—if you're doing light editing for personal work, you might not need the raw power of Photoshop. In fact, if you're doing photo-related work, you can probably get away with just Lightroom, which has become incredibly versatile.
I guess your work doesn't deal with many files from clients or other shops... That's lucky but unusual. Most shops have to upgrade every year or two to make sure they can handle files from outside the business.
So you had the CS6 Master Collection, or just Photoshop? Because just Photoshop is only $20/month, which is almost certainly cheaper than whatever your purchase + upgrade schedule was before.
Yes. Photoshop has accumulated many advanced features over the years that people now rely on. PS is also an industry standard in many, many different industries. Most professionals don't want to invest time learning an "alternative" tool just to save a few bucks, since it could cost them their next job.
If schools continue to buy it, and give students access via key servers, etc, then what is the problem? The student will still grow up using Adobe.
...so those two people were happy paying upgrade fees every year or two, but they'll scoff at paying $20 / month, which is actually cheaper?
This is actually cheaper than upgrading every few years to maintain your upgrade eligibility...
If you only want Photoshop, it's only $20 / month, and I believe you get two installations. Any photographer should be able to justify $20 / month for one of your most useful tools.
$50 / month is a great deal for your primary work tools. It's much better than the old "Master Collection," which clocked in at over $2500 plus upgrade fees every other year. If you use more than one Adobe product, this saves you money and probably gets you more of the suite than you had before. (If you only use one app you can subscribe for a less appealing $20/month).
Also, let's get real: if people could switch to GIMP, they would have already done it. It's just not there yet. The type of user who was willing to pay $600 for Photoshop two months ago is simply not going to put up with GIMP's shortcomings and quirks.
I suspect that 90% of the "backlash" will come from people who were pirating the software anyway. These people were not customers to begin with.
This is pure anti-Apple FUD. My application to be a developer took about a day and a half from purchase (it costs $99) to approval.
After submitting my app, it took three days to appear on the App Store. So I guess I'm not seeing the problem.
It's cool if you're jazzed about Android... I am too, and may develop for it. I just don't see the need to slam Apple. It's not one or the other.
If you're backpacking, that 5 or 6 pounds will really wear on you. You can check email, update blogs, and download pictures using internet cafes, which are plentiful in even smaller towns now.
Then again, you're a geek who reads Slashdot. If you want to geek out during your trip, you'll need the laptop.
So, now the obvious question: why did you buy a brand new MacBook Pro right before you're about to spend a whole year backpacking? Why not wait till you got back?
People mixing up major Asian cultures is a massive pet peeve.