Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Special Photoshop/Lightroom Offer , is Bridge included?

Feb 21, 2014 4:03 PM

Tags: #promo_offer #photoshop_special_offer

I am an extensive user of the full CC, and love it. The subscription model is great as my software gets updated whenever there is an update.

AND the software is getting better all the time.

 

I am training my wife / weaning her off Nikon NX software to using Bridge, Photoshop and In Camera Raw.

I have my CC bundle installed on her PC ( 2 PC's allowed )

 

But I have 2 PC's one being a laptop.

I need my CC bundle back.

 

There is a fantastic offer at present "Photoshop and Lightroom" for $AUD9.99 per month.

If I get my wife signed up on this will she get Bridge and In Camera Raw?

 

She now is a big user of Bridge and In Camera Raw, and I would be in big trouble if

she cannot use Bridge etc. any more.

 

So, what is the solution?

 
Replies
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,829 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2014 4:20 PM   in reply to Roy Hessey

    Roy, you have MP Ed Hussic to thank for the nice price for the CC in Oz.  It was a battle but he/we won out in the end.  People in Europe are still suffering from Price gouging.

     

    Do you know you can install CC on two computers at the same time, but they should only be used by the same person.  I am not sure if your wife would qualify for the Bundle deal if she has not owned a previous version of Photoshop.  But yes the deal comes with Bridge, Extension Manager, and Lightroom.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2014 4:27 PM   in reply to Roy Hessey

    Yes, you get Bridge CC and Camera Raw. You also get the scriping toolkit and several apps geared towards web and game developers. You only have to install the apps you actually want to use.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2014 5:49 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    I am not sure if your wife would qualify for the Bundle deal if she has not owned a previous version of Photoshop.

    Adobe removed the original restriction about the PPP (Photoshop Photography Program) deal being only available to previous owners of Photoshop late last year. That restriction has never made any sense to me but I don't run Adobe.

     

    Anyhow, the PPP deal is currently open to anyone who wants to join up - but only until March 31, 2014.

    https://creative.adobe.com/plans/offer/photoshop+lightroom

     

    The closing date for anyone to join was originally Dec 31 last year but Adobe keeps extending it - for how long, who knows?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 21, 2014 6:45 PM   in reply to Roy Hessey

    If your wife qualifies for the package  yes you can  download an use the Bridge.  If she use the bridge for organizing her images IMO Lightroom library system may be a better option if she is an organized person.  For me all I need is the Windows file system and and widows file explorer for organizing my images.  I do use Bridge as a metadata editor and for selecting image with similar exposure to process then as a group in ACR.  I do not even download Lightroom for I do not need its Library system or two User interfaces over Adobe RAW conversion engine.  In fact I only want one interface. If you use Photoshop you will l be using ACR interface when you open embedded RAW objects and use Phtoshop's ACR filter.  I don't want Lightroom develop module interface. Also with Lightroom you seem to need to save 16 bit Tiff file to work in Photoshop in 16 bit mode. IMO there is no need for 16bit Tiff file when you use ACR.  If your wife use the Bridge's Output module you will find that its not included in the Bridge CC download and install.  It is a separate download on Adobe web site that you will need to download and manually extract and manually install into Bridge CC.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:03 AM   in reply to Roy Hessey

    Just to recap: your wife can certainly get a subscription to the $9.99/month Photography deal.

     

    What she cannot do legally, even now, is to use your copy of CC on her computer at all, regardless of whether she subscribes to the the $9.99/month Photography deal or not.  The software license is strictly for ONE (1) user on two computers that are not used at the same time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:12 AM   in reply to station_two

    that are not used at the same time.

    For Creative Suite software (CS6 and earlier), both copies cannot be used at the same time.

     

    For Creative Cloud software (CC), both copies can be used at the same time.

     

    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1227262

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:14 AM   in reply to John Waller

    John, can you post a link to the part of the EULA that states it?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:16 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    Pierre-Etienne Courtejoie wrote:

     

    John, can you post a link to the part of the EULA that states it?

    Pierre,

     

    It's not in the EULA. I know I've looked and asked Adobe repeatedly for the EULA to make this unequivocally clear for those of us who do read EULAs.

     

    However, Adobe staff have repeatedly stated in the forums - and only in the forums that I'm aware of - that both copies of CC apps can be run at the same time. So I'm taking them at their word in their forum posts.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:18 AM   in reply to John Waller

    Thank you for that timely enlightenment, John. 

     

    The situation you describe simply boggles the mind. How could there ever be any legal, moral or rational justification—or even an explanation—for such and absurd compartmentalization by Adobe? 

     

    Nevertheless, of course I stand corrected.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:20 AM   in reply to station_two

    station_two,

     

    I too am amazed that Adobe will not confirm such crucial details in the EULA and that we have to rely on random forum posts from Adobe staffers to confirm such fundamental entitlements for Adobe customers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:29 AM   in reply to John Waller

    John,

     

    You misconstrued my remark, which was composed before the interchange about the EULA with PEC.

     

    What I consider to be an absurd, unjustifiable and irrational compartmentalization by Adobe is the distinction made by Adobe between the Creative Suite software (CS6) and earlier and the Creative Cloud software (CC) as far as the scope of the license—regardless of whether it's spelled out in the EULA or not.

     

    That's a most bizarre example of corporate schizophrenia.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 1:49 AM   in reply to station_two

    CC is governed by other laws... The fact that you can install cross-platforms, or even install several languages, where before, you needed another license for each of the cases. A teacher in French and English wanting to showcase both platforms needed 4 licenses before!

    But those cases are explained in videos, the concurrent use I never saw before.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 3:01 AM   in reply to station_two

     

    What I consider to be an absurd, unjustifiable and irrational compartmentalization by Adobe is the distinction made by Adobe between the Creative Suite software (CS6) and earlier and the Creative Cloud software (CC) as far as the scope of the license—regardless of whether it's spelled out in the EULA or not.

     

    That's a most bizarre example of corporate schizophrenia.

    I don't see that as absurd or corporate schizoprenia. I see it as smart marketing.

     

    It's an obvious point of distinction for selling the Cloud.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 8:11 AM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    The software license is strictly for ONE (1) user on two computers that are not used at the same time.

    How does one Interpret one user.  If you have one machine with Photoshop installed on it and only one user can use that machine at a time.  However the machine can be used by a hundred people using their own user id or a single shared user id. Are there a hundred users or one user.  Only one user can use Photoshop at any given time. To me its not clear that my wife can not use my machine and use Photoshop.   I do agree that wife and I would be violating the license agreement if we were to use two machines at same time and user Photoshop activated for my adobe account.

     

    Because I do not run a Mac I can only run one version of Photoshop at a time on my machine for Adobe block two version of Photoshop from running on Windows by slamming you into any currently running version of Photoshop when you try to start a different version. This makes regressing testing very hard to do. Perhaps its why Adobe doesn't do a good job doing regression testing. Strictly speaking I may be violating my license agreement when I run two different version of Photoshop on two machine at the same time to do regressing testing when I install new version of Photoshop but then I'm only one user and Adobe does not do a good job when it comes to regression testing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 10:52 PM   in reply to Roy Hessey

    Roy Hessey wrote:

     

    …My wife has been using my Licence on her computer, but fortunately we have security so anyone from Adobe

    cannot just sneek in to check who is using her computer.

     

     

    Oooops!  Now you've told them. 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 22, 2014 10:59 PM   in reply to JJMack

    JJMack & John Waller:

     

    I'm not trying to insinuate that it's a bad policy for Adobe to have changed its policy/philosophy/interpretation of their EULA.  What I was attempting to point out is that there is no justification for their previous policy now.

     

    How could there ever be any legal, moral or rational justification—or even an explanation—for such and absurd compartmentalization by Adobe?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 12:12 AM   in reply to JJMack

    One could even play devil's advocate, what if you own a studio, and have two assistants that use the same machine, alternatively? Should you purchase two licenses even if there is only one user at a time?

     

    Should Adobe create Family licenses?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,829 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 2:28 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    Surely we are looking at a sort of realistic view from some of the Adobe staff who post here, which is completely different from the legal terms and conditions that apply to a CC single user license?  This thread has to contain the most jaw dropping information I have ever seen on this forum.

     

    The whole Photography Bundle deal has become completely farcical with deadline continually pushed back, and qualifying conditions changed more than once.  I’d love to see the take up figures for the Bundle deal.  I bet they are huge.  A million extra customers paying $10 a month, many of whom have never considered using Photoshop before because they couldn’t afford it.  And it has to be said, many of whom have used Photoshop before, but didn’t pay for it. 

     

    It was good that Adobe did the right thing for people who had a single app subscription before the Bundle deal became available.  Let’s hope that they are equally generous for people with full subscriptions when the discounted first year comes to an end.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 23, 2014 4:22 AM   in reply to station_two

    station_two wrote:

     

    JJMack & John Waller:

     

    I'm not trying to insinuate that it's a bad policy for Adobe to have changed its policy/philosophy/interpretation of their EULA.  What I was attempting to point out is that there is no justification for their previous policy now.

     

    One of the "Etiquette"  don't written in the forum guideline is

    • Discuss legal issues or Adobe patents.

     

    So this thread may be bad etiquette. I'm not a lawyer so I do not know if your definition of User being a particular Person or my definition of User being any person  is the User the Adobe license is referring to.  I'm not versed in legal jargon I just manage to get by with English. I failed ever English course I ever had to take.  All I know for sure is legal contracts are not written in a human understandable language like English they are written in lawyere that require a judge and jury to try deciphering what all the gibberish might mean.

     
    |
    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