Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

No new features for no Creative Cloud users? Tell me why?

Aug 28, 2012 9:16 AM

Tags: #illustrator #adobe #creative #cs6 #cloud #features

Adobe, please tell me why I, no Cloud Crative user don't receive new Illustrator CS6 features:

 

- Package files

- Unembed images

- Links informations

 

Why Creative Cloud users are better than users who bought box version? it's not fair.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 9:28 AM   in reply to madebypixle

    When we announced the Cloud we shared that some new features would be released as they are finished, when originally they would have been part of the next major release. In the past it was extremely rare for us to release any new functionality before the next release.

     

    All bug fixes and compatibility updates will be equally available to our Cloud or the more traditional software license customers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 9:36 AM   in reply to Scott Worthington

    Scott Worthington wrote:

     

    When we announced the Cloud we shared that some new features would be released as they are finished, when originally they would have been part of the next major release. In the past it was extremely rare for us to release any new functionality before the next release.

     

    All bug fixes and compatibility updates will be equally available to our Cloud or the more traditional software license customers.

     

    It makes it sound as if "traditional sotware license customers" are somehow second class citizens, however who just happen to pay more like first class citizens in comparison to their cloud counterparts.

     

    Why do people believe the cloud option is needed for updates?

     

    People not using the cloud have internet connections also, updates can be pushed to these applications just the same. The "Adobe Application Manager" is one example, as well as Adobe's current automatic updates of Flash Player installs across platforms, and every Adobe product can check for updates when launched if an internet connection is detected. Why does one believe the cloud is needed for frequent updates? Those that paid full price for the Adobe Creative Suits should have the same access to the latest updates as well, the only limitation to me me would be Adobe's unwillingness to do so, but the technology and available capabilities are certainly not the issue. The belief that the cloud is needed is rather ridiculous.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 10:03 AM   in reply to W_J_T

    Make no mistake W_J_T, the creative cloud costs MORE than the traditional license purchase. The non-creative cloud users are not the "Premium" users anymore. Adobe makes, on average, an extra $10 per month from a Creative Cloud subscriber.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 10:17 AM   in reply to [scott w]

    [scott w] wrote:

     

    Make no mistake W_J_T, the creative cloud costs MORE than the traditional license purchase. The non-creative cloud users are not the "Premium" users anymore. Adobe makes, on average, an extra $10 per month from a Creative Cloud subscriber.

     

    I guess my calculator must be lying then? Where can I buy one like yours is it an Adobe model?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 10:51 AM   in reply to W_J_T

    I'm not a Cloud subscriber either. But I did see some Adobe marketing materials, which were posted in the NAPP site forums, before the Creative Cloud went live. It clearly showed some lifetime values for customers and alluded to the goal being an increase in that value. (From an existing value of $30/month to $40/month via subscriptions) While the first few months of the subscription may be cheaper with the creative cloud due to introductory discounts, in the long run, the Creative Cloud is more expensive.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 11:05 AM   in reply to [scott w]

    I understand your point concerning your previous post, (well atleast before you edited it and removed most of your original comment?). But I did not agree with your comment of Cloud users pay/costs more in your first post. The numbers I am talking about are as follows:

     

    W_J_T wrote:

     

    $599   - Adobe Creative Cloud (49.99 month, based on yearly subscription)

    $2599 - Adobe Master Collection

     

    So for $2000 more, we are getting less? Plus each year (given the new annual release strategy) we will have to pay $525 (just $75 less than cloud users) to continue to have the next X.X version release for our software suite, have less features and be less up to date concerning incremental updates and releases? These hard numbers and feature offerings do not really sit well for those who have invested heavily into these professional suites and have been loyal customers over the years. "Adobe Master Collection" owners should expect to have such innovative tools given the entry point of purchase as well as the upgrade costs in comparison to "Adobe Creative Cloud" users.

     

    Given the pricing model it will take an "Adobe Creative Cloud" user 4.3 years to equal the same financial investment as an "Adobe Master Collection" owner, all the while they will be getting more features than those whom have paid more, this does not even take into consideration the additional yearly upgrade costs for "Adobe Master Collection" users given the "new" annual release strategy for CSX.x releases.

     

    Anyway it goes back to my original comment here, that the lack of updates for non cloud members is based solely on Adobe's unwillingness to do so, there is nothing holding them back technically from updating regular installs as well.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 11:42 AM   in reply to W_J_T

    I don't disagree with your sentiments. And much of what you post I was mentioning prior to the Creative Cloud going live.

     

    The sad truth is, Adobe doesn't care. Adobe doesn't care that you've been a steady, valuable, customer for years. Adobe doesn't care that you've upgraded regularly and been a steady revenue stream. Adobe doesn't care that licences you may have owned for years are now worthless because they've implemented a new upgrade rule (remember the early annoucment that upgrade qualifaction were to be only for the current version - which Adobe later recanted due to pressure). Adobe doesn't care that you are locked into whatever pricing they feed you (they actually like that). Adobe doesn't care that you can't find suitable competion in most areas (again they prefer that).

     

    Adobe cares about making money. Even $75 more is more. The bottom line is the bottom line. Adobe cares that you've only been upgrading every other version (which means you've paid less than $525/yearly for upgrades). Adobe cares that you don't immediately purchase whatever new product they've released - because with a purchased license you can choose when to upgrade. Adobe cares that they can't calculate when you will purchase. Adobe cares that many smaller users will purhcase one version then not upgrade at all, or not for several years. The Master Collection users, especially those with purchased lincenses, appear to be the very least important users to Adobe. At least that's my perception. Adobe cares about snagging that Photshop-only user and turning them into a steady revenue stream they can predict, calculate, and depend upon. What Adobe cares about is all solved by the Creative Cloud.

     

    I don't beleive (and I'm speculating here) Adobe can really implement any core feature changes without releasing new versions to purchased licensees as well due to versioning issues. Most of the new feature implementations will have to be essentially based upon internal application scripts which don't alter the core of the product. That's all the package and unembed images are - scripts which run within the application. Any core changes will have to be made avaialble to all users in order to allow AI16.1 cloud users to create files compatible with AI16.0 non-cloud users.

     

    The new features which trickle down to cloud users will all be made avaialble in CS-next upgrades. So you will get the new features eventually if you chose the purchased license path. True, you may not have then immediately, but again, Adobe doesn't care. They want you to pay for the subscription. You aren't going to mis out on anything. For purhcased lincesees the processes will still be the exact same as it's always been, unless Adobe changes something for CS7. The real difference is that by the time the CS-next products are released as upgrades, all those new features will ahve been tested by Creative Cloud user and issues resolved actually resulting in better, more stable, purchased lincese upgrades.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 12:21 PM   in reply to [scott w]

    [scott w] wrote:

     

    I don't beleive (and I'm speculating here) Adobe can really implement any core feature changes without releasing new versions to purchased licensees as well due to versioning issues. Most of the new feature implementations will have to be essentially based upon internal application scripts which don't alter the core of the product. That's all the package and unembed images are - scripts which run within the application. Any core changes will have to be made avaialble to all users in order to allow AI16.1 cloud users to create files compatible with AI16.0 non-cloud users.

    Sorry, but I find this hard to believe, given the security updates recently released for PhotoShop, Illustrator, Flash, where core application level security exploits were plugged. They can update anything they desire, when ever they desire, to think otherwise is ridiculous. They just want people to believe the Cloud is needed for such updates, which is simply untrue. Again, they are just unwilling if they don't wish to allow updates to non cloud users, there are no technical limitations just the lack of desire and unwillingness on Adobe's part to do so or make it possible, be it more cumbersome or more integrated for regular installs.

     

    But I do agree with your "Adobe does not care" comments.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 1:46 PM   in reply to W_J_T

    I'm not stating it's not possible for Adobe to provide the new features to purchased licensees. I know full well they could. But one of their tactics to try and get users to switch to the subscriptions is to purposely withhold those new items until the next box release.

     

    The security updates alter core code.. so they have to be given to all users. The new features aren't part of the app core per say but additional "add-ons" so they can withhold those.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 2:24 PM   in reply to W_J_T

    I couldn't agree more, it's a disgrace. Unless Adobe change their tactics, and offer these updates to us perpetual-license holders, I won't buy another Adobe product ever. Not too mention that Illustrator CS6 is a buggy piece of dung.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 6:25 PM   in reply to madebypixle

    I am  going to jump in with a different view point. The cloud is a community of users that share  a common interest which is to be productive.

     

    Adobe pointed out to you that there are advantages to the cloud before the cloud became available.

     

    If you already owned the Suites then the cloud is more expensive. If you are a new user and you decide to by the disk then you  might lose out that way, but you were warned and anyone from my point of view who is a new user and went for the traditional license then…well what can one say about that?

     

    I am not at the moment a  part of the cloud but probably will be in the future. I still think it is to early to switch…switch for me that is…but if you do work for people around the world then the cloud makes sense especially I you also travel.

     

    If you do not do work all over the world then the cloud makes sense for you as well because it will give a mobility to become part of the global realm.

     

    If the Apple new iPad is going to be small enough to handle like the Microsoft tablet and they both give performance that allows you store and access your files in a reasonable amount of time from anywhere on the globe and you can do real work on this tablet and you can use it with local facilities such as rental stations or hotel facitlies then it will make even more sense. The cloud can deliver but you need a laptop with you or the tablet to some degree being able to truly access it from anywhere in the world will make it more important.

     

    Adobe cn learn from Apple, at one time if you recall Steve Jobs was dead set against opening Apples Stores vbut someone suggested tht was the wrong move and look what happened.

     

    Now Adobe has to make the cloud available world wide to any cloud user more revenue and more users and it does not matter what computer you use as laong as you use Adobe and he cloud.

     

    Of course in this cse you have to pay and you have to be a member of the cloud.

     

    A different point of view.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 6:34 PM   in reply to madebypixle

    I'm not drinkin' the new Adobe Kool-Aid. That's what got me into Multiple Master fonts and so-called "Master Collections," both of which I came to sorely regret.

     

    Definitely not interested in software by subscription. Not from anybody. If Adobe wants to "penalize" me for that, that's just one more reason to use something else.

     

    JET

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 28, 2012 8:42 PM   in reply to Wade_Zimmerman

    Interesting point of view Wade_Zimmerman, but...

    The cloud is a community of users that share a common interest which is to be productive.

     

    Hasn't that been the goal of digital creative and development communities for the last decade or more long before cloud computing became the latest buzz word? (Or any business organization within the last 60 years with globalization for that matter, even before computers)

     

    ... but if you do work for people around the world then the cloud makes sense especially I you also travel. If you do not do work all over the world then the cloud makes sense for you as well because it will give a mobility to become part of the global realm. If the Apple new iPad is going to be small enough to handle like the Microsoft tablet and they both give performance that allows you store and access your files in a reasonable amount of time from anywhere on the globe and you can do real work on this tablet and you can use it with local facilities such as rental stations or hotel facitlies then it will make even more sense. The cloud can deliver but you need a laptop with you or the tablet to some degree being able to truly access it from anywhere in the world will make it more important.

     

    Doing digital work globally has been fairly standard, again for the better part of a decade or more, using laptops, desktops, perpetual licensed software, internet connections, plug/power adapters, etc... cloud computing and mobile devices were not needed to accomplish global business opportunities and in fact are still are not required. I mean if someones goal is the sit a top Mount Kilimanjaro and create the next big thing on a 7 inch device with cloud computing while networking with there colleagues around the world then great but its gonna be awhile before that happens realistically anytime soon. Otherwise in most developed areas around the globe there has been nothing stopping people from doing so for the last decade or more before the latest trends, buzz words and strategies of monetization by companies such as Adobe to push the need and benefits of cloud based computing using "Adobe's Creative Cloud".

     

    I can assure you there are plenty of agencies, independent creatives and developers around the gloabe who still have CS2, CS3, CS4, CS5, etc... perpetual licensed software installed and are currently working on award winning global campaigns or extraordinary work within there localized communities for print, web, video, audio, broadcast, interactive, 3D, (to name a mere few) for global clients along with cooperating with global partners and are going to be working and billing these types of projects without any type of need for cloud computing and will be successfully doing so for the foreseeable future, thats reality.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 4:42 AM   in reply to W_J_T

    You think I want to work on top of the mountain. Interesting misplacemt ofwhat I wrote.

     

    I wrok with clients and publishes all over the place and need to be able to get them files and their input from where ever i am and Ineed them to be able to use these files, art or photography, as soon as possible.
    My needs are quite different from what you would have like to think I wrote.

     

    Mount Kilimanjaro not likely.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 5:35 AM   in reply to Wade_Zimmerman

    Hi Wade, actually perhaps you misplaced what I said of "I mean if someones goal", had I meant you I would have just said "If you". It was a generalized statement, perhaps dramatizing a bit, but the point being that doing business globally as you indicated, sharing files, getting client feedback and approvals, or whatever ones work may entail, does NOT require using Cloud Software or Cloud Storage. These non-cloud based methods have been in place and working successfully for more than a decade as I stated in my previous post for doing globalized business.

     

    PS: I am more of a Bernese Alps person myself. ;-)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 12:47 PM   in reply to W_J_T



    In my mind,
    599.00 yearly for Creative Cloud, with no prior license status versus, 2599.00 initial investment for Master Collection, and 525.00 yearly for new releases. It will take 34.65 years to even out the cost, not 4.3 years (2599.00 / 75.00 -
    the difference paid higher each year to maintain your CC seat = 34.65) . Perpetual-licenses of Master Collection are the most expensive type of license Adobe offer, we just don't get treated like they are...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 3:09 PM   in reply to Wade_Zimmerman

    If you do not do work all over the world then the cloud makes sense for you as well because it will give a mobility to become part of the global realm.

     

    No offense, but your comment sounds very much like the Adobe marketing fluff surrounding the CS6 release....

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 3:23 PM   in reply to Mylenium

    For what it's worth... as a perpetual licence owner, I've been working remotly whenever needed for litterally years without any "Creative Cloud". The hype that it's needed is pure fluff. Buy the license, install it on a laptop, pay $30-$60 a year for web hosting... done. And no subscription.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 3:23 PM   in reply to Wade_Zimmerman

    I wrok with clients and publishes all over the place and need to be able to get them files and their input from where ever i am and Ineed them to be able to use these files, art or photography, as soon as possible.
    My needs are quite different from what you would have like to think I wrote.

     

    But seriously, you don't need the "cloud" for it, it merely adds another possible alternative. And sorry to pee on your parade - given how inadequate most of Adobe's programs technical underpinnings are to even provide us with a selective, modular and atomized workflow, I should think at this pointg it's mostly irrelevant. The cloud is not about slapping on some subscriber content or creating touch apps. I think that's the part that's missing in the whole discussion and the one thing Adobe haven't figured out yet themselves. For now it's merely a way tro make an extra buck, nothing more.

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 3:25 PM   in reply to [scott w]

    Buy the license, install it on a laptop, pay $30-$60 a year for web hosting... done. And no subscription.

     

    Amen. Or create your own server or peer-to-peer based VPN with remote desktops and al lthat old-fashioned stuff that people have used for the last 15 years. *lol*

     

    Mylenium

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 3:32 PM   in reply to Mylenium

    Yup.. and need access to the apps from an iPad or Android tablet? Then... Splashtop for $5.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 6:11 PM   in reply to Floatingrock

    Just calling the software a piece of dung is not much helpful. Tell us the issues, SPECIFIC examples. As we've seen in this forum itself, majority of users are finding performance of CS6 to be much faster, much snappier than previous versions while a few have not found that to be the case. In the absence of specific examples from you & others who are finding themselves in the same situation as you are, no one can really help much.

     

    Also I don't believe it is matter of treating perpetual license users as lesser mortals than Creative Cloud users. The VALUE proposition of the Cloud was made absolutely clear to all of us at the time when we chose to go either the cloud route vs. the traditional (perpetual) route. It was a conscious choice one made at that time. Those who saw value in the cloud offering preferred to go that route. Even now, if one sees VALUE in the new offerings being made available to cloud customers, one can switch from perpetual to CCM. Earlier one had to wait 18 - 24 months to get the features that are implemented in a new version but that isn't the case now.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 6:39 PM   in reply to CupertinoFruit

    Not sure what forums you're reading because most of what I've read on these forums as far as the performance of Illustrator is concerned mirrors my own experience. Here's an example for you, one of my main design computers is an i7 980x, running Windows7 with 24Gb of ram, a 256 SSD for the OS, a Geforce gtx 690 (4gb) video card with the latest drivers and about 4 Tb of additional (fast storage) it has a performance rating of 7.8 overall, 7.9 for video and 3D. Every other application I have on this machine some very resource intensive run flawlessly, and very fast.

     

    Illustrator CS6 (64) however, on this machine redraws like it was a pentium 60 with 256K video card. It's horrible. WIth large files, Illustrator starts out fine, but quickly degrades, forcing me to work for an hour, save the file, close the application, wait a minute or two then re-launch and do it all over again. Now you're probably thinking, it's your install, try to fix it and things should be fine, but if that's the case how do you explain that the problem exists on another identical computer as well, the only  difference in specs being that this one is running a Quadro 4000 card.

     

    I stand by my statement, adobe are shooting themselves in the foot as far as their customer base is concerned, especially with us suckers that purchased the Master Collection for the 4th or 5th time running, and illustrator CS6 is a POS.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 29, 2012 6:42 PM   in reply to Mylenium

    this is all fine and dandy and you all may be pleased with the way you are able to find this software and use it and do what you think you need to do but I am not talking about dealing with any of you I am talking about a system that helps the people i work with do this in a way the do not have to understand or set up and they can just grab files and I can show them work as i perform my work and not have to make allowances for this client or publisher as opposed to that client or publisher.

     

    It has to be a well organized system for these various users to make a common connection. You can set up a ftp server all you want but if you do not have the speed to upload it is pretty useless and for that kind of speed it costs lots of dough and the users will still not understand what to do.

     

    If I can give a client or publisher an icon on their desktop to click on whe it is say red and the files download to a place that I told it to download, no matter where I am in the world then tht makes sense.

     

    My clients and publishers can do that, i senbd files all the time all over the wrold and there are publisher and clients who can't download a link from You Send it. It has to be a system a much simpler one not that you and I can do but they can do and right or wroing they do mnot want to be told or to learn anything.

     

    So like it or not you do not get it. And whether you want to understand it or not it will be the way things are done in the future and you will all be telling people hey why don't ou just put it on the cloud. It may not be called the cloud in the future but t will be basically the same thing.

     

    The reason it sounded like their marketing is that i suggested this approach a long long long time ago I think about the time Illustrator 10 was out.

     

    It is something I think will work for me and many other users I just sent some photos to the UAE and it took like an hour to upload them to you send it.

     

    If Iwas in the field how long do you think it would take, But if I could work and be connected to something like the cloud and verytime I process an image it upload to a folder and i went on to the next image and it too was upload as soon as i finished and it had the metadata and the copyright info embedded automatically well then it is fairly painless.

     

    I know if you jump through a lot of hoops you can do this all now what a mess it is.

     

    In the old days I could get photographs and artwork to Europe of California in a few hours and i did it often, things a haven't changed that much but only if you know how, I opuld get photographic film developed in three hours ready for a printer by the end of the day you could be on press.

     

    All this stuff that is in place is not in the right place. there is where the problem and who wants to do all this organizing, what a pain.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 31, 2012 5:44 AM   in reply to Wade_Zimmerman

    @Wade

    What a bunch of babble and marketing talk for Adobe! You do realize there are other services (far better ones actually) than YouSendIt, don't you? In the YouSendIt category, try WeTransfer.com : super fast uploads and downloads up to 2gb in one RAR or ZIP file at a time.

     

    You have heard about DropBox, SkyDrive, GoogleDrive, etc. too, haven't you? Without going into the pros and cons of any of those services, I can categorically say that each one is better... and cheaper... than an Adobe Cloud sub.

     

    And since you're talking about the world, and complaining at the same time about your upload speeds, that remains the same for the Adobe Cloud or any Internet service for that matter. Adobe Cloud is NOT faster than any of the above services I mentioned.

     

    Also you should know that there are many parts of the world, including HUGE chunks of the US, where broadband Internet still doesn't exist. There are some places that may never see broadband land lines, and those communities are installing LTE instead. LTE has it's advantages... but the main disadvantage is cost. No such thing as a "true Flat rate" with LTE, and you are bound to run up against "volume restrictions" and pay extra for exheeding them. No advantage then for Cloud users: they will pay on top.

     

    I personally use DropBox and SkyDrive syncing projects and files with assorted clients every day... including huge PSD and RAW file libraries. If I have a "one off" project, I use WeTransfer with no problems. If you have a client that refuses to learn the first thing about downloading files from a link, I'm sorry for you. I mean that without sarcasm. I would like to ask though: are they actually then playing with your native files in CS? Really? And they can't even download a linked ZIP? (See my comment below about suspects).

     

    You fail to convince me in the end, that Adobe's Cloud Drive is the best choice at the moment or in the future.

     

    Considering this thread is/was about Perpetual vs. Cloud subs, no one has mentioned the main underlying fact and potential reason for Adobe to push people to Subs: PIRACY.

     

    While very possibly not prevalent in North America... I would venture to say that in the rest of the world, 75% of CS installations are against the EULA, whether multiple machine installs and/or downright pirated. BTW: I have personally ran across the "multiple machine" install countless times at more shops/studios than I care to mention.

     

    I would like to add a "twisted logic" to my personally accepting the new Adobe Subs as the way to go, and especially for new features.

     

    IF (big if!) this is to cut down on piracy and the number of studios/shops driving media design/printing prices into the basement, because they don't actually "pay" for their right to offer their services....  I'm all for it! If this also results in the culling of people that think that, with a Walmart computer and a jacked CS disk image, they are "now in business to offer professional graphic services"... again, I applaud the Cloud initiative.

     

    It surely appears that I'm bitter about the "competition"... well yes I am. Because, not only are the pirates NOT competing fairly, but I (personally) have to deal with problems they make for my clients  and the "trash" files they receive on a daily basis. It is also many of those clients that are perpetually licensed CS and EULA abiding Adobe customers, that are slowly laying off trained professional graphic/media designers as well as print technicians... because they are "too expensive".

     

    And finally to add insult to injury: I also suspect we see a number of these "pirates" and "just beginning professionals" here in these forums. The number of posts I see coming from some people that shouldn't even have CS installed, is... well... disheartening.*

     

    * Funny, how as graphic designers, we were always wishing for faster, better, cheaper, easier. How little did we realize or fail to foresee, that when the dream came true... it would also be accessible to the "I can too" crowd. Is it nasty of me to say in return, "No. You can't. And I doubt you ever will. It's not the tools, it's the talent. You have none that I can see."

     

    PS. Sorry... sort of worn out and emotional after staying up until 3.00am to "re-design" a thoroughly "#$%^&*!!!" Corel PDF! Fugly has a brand new definition, and "pro-" is followed by "-stitution". I need to shower 3 times after this one!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 31, 2012 7:46 AM   in reply to DocPixel-BMW

    @ Wade, Sorry I just don't feel your arguments justify the need for the Cloud, or that the Cloud makes current methods drastically easier in comparison as you have tried to reason here.

     

    DocPixel-BMW wrote:

     

    Considering this thread is/was about Perpetual vs. Cloud subs, no one has mentioned the main underlying fact and potential reason for Adobe to push people to Subs: PIRACY.

     

    Yes that, plus Adobe now has people that are willing to pay/subscribe to be Beta Testers and provide feedback between major releases

    DocPixel-BMW wrote:

     

    - with a Walmart computer

    - they are "now in business to offer professional graphic services"

    - accessible to the "I can too" crowd.

    - "pro-" is followed by "-stitution".

     

    Adobe is probably gonna boundle the Creative Cloud with Walmart soon to further "enhance" the creative industry.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 31, 2012 8:00 AM   in reply to W_J_T

    For you I did not justify the cloud and I am not rying to do that I am simpl stating what I need and I think the users in the near future need whether you are happy with the fact that other people have needs that are different from yours and see it differently than you is not as far as I can see an issue.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 31, 2012 8:51 AM   in reply to Wade_Zimmerman

    It seems like others sentiments on your point of view are getting lost for you. Of course yourself or anyone can do things however you wish, need or choose, that fact is not being debated, of course to each is own. What is being debated is that the Cloud is needed for such things as you initially brought up with your "different point of view" and follow up statements since. Many other members have now subsequently questioned and debated this view. The fact is your arguments, debates and or justifications in your posts in this thread, don't technically or realistically justify your requirements based on your descriptions of necessity.

     

    At least we can agree to disagree on the topic.

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points