10 Replies Latest reply on Feb 25, 2016 2:29 AM by adroewer37

    Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?

    JimHess Adobe Community Professional & MVP

      A curious mind would like to know why so many users are deathly afraid of or claim they don't need the creative cloud. Consequently they insist on purchasing a standalone version of Lightroom which will not be updated with new features. Then many of them complain that they aren't getting what they paid for. In reality, they are getting what they paid for. They purchased, in this instance, Lightroom 6, and all the features that are included in Lightroom 6.

       

       

      The creative cloud version of Lightroom is designed to be updated continually whenever new features are available. Well, considering the latest import screen "improvement" maybe that wasn't the best thing that happened. However, Lightroom 6 users are complaining that they don't have the dehaze adjustment as well and as other things that have been updated. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding that using Lightroom CC means that everything is in the cloud. On the contrary, Lightroom and the latest Photoshop are installed locally on your computer's hard drive. The programs run locally. Updates come through the creative cloud when made available. Those updates are installed to the local computer. Of course, the creative cloud offers Lightroom Mobile as an added benefit. It's there to be used or to be ignored depending on an individual's needs.

       

       

      Surely it can't be an issue of cost. For $9.99/month you can have both the latest Lightroom and Photoshop installed on your computer. And the difference in cost is really only a marginally greater than keeping standalone Lightroom up to date.

       

       

      It can't be that they are tied to the creative cloud and can't work in the field. Connection only needs to be made periodically to ensure that the subscription payment has been made. Other than that, you are free to move about normally. It's just Lightroom and Photoshop, current versions, installed LOCALLY on your computer.

       

       

      So, why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud plan? It really works well, in my opinion.

        • 1. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
          John Waller Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          One of the obvious reasons comes from version skippers.

           

          Many people are happy to pay once, own the software and use it for several years without updating or upgrading. That's not possible with the Cloud.

           

          Others have a conceptual objection to software as a service. They simply reject the idea of being left with no software when they stop paying their subscription.

           

          In the case of Lightroom, that point is tempered somewhat since Lightroom reverts to being a Library and photo viewer (no editing tools) when your subscription expires.

          • 2. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
            JimHess Adobe Community Professional & MVP

            Okay, I'll buy that. It seems that there are a few users who skip upgrades. I have been using Lightroom since version 2, and have upgraded every time. And it seems that most users in the past have impatiently demanded upgrades. So even for the majority of standalone users I'm not sure that is a main reason.

            • 3. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
              AllieBPort Level 1

              Depends of your workflow.

               

              I use Lightroom as library and development but the slidesows are made in other programs like Proshow Producer. The final show is made in Premiere Elements.

              The cost of the CC package has to be raised by the cost of this package and as already mentioned Î skip from year to to year one of the updates.

              • 4. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                KevetS Level 1

                For me, there are 4 issues:

                 

                1. Cost

                Lightroom versions span on average 18 months.

                CC @ £8.57 pm. 18 months - total £154.26

                Standalone @ £103.88

                No brainer!

                 

                2. Ownership

                If I need to use any product on a regular basis, whether it be a drill, camera, car, washing machine etc. I will always prefer to buy outright! I simply don't like rental, hire purchase, contract or whatever you want to call it. In my view it's a false economy - as my issue 1 demonstrates.


                3. Photoshop

                I have an old version of PS Elements for making any non LR edits, absolutely no need or desire for Photoshop.

                 

                4. Updates

                Providing LR supports my cameras and lenses, then all is good. I have no need for the latest tool, and as has been shown the last couple of weeks, not all updates are good!

                 

                • 5. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                  Keith_Reeder Level 4

                  KevetS wrote:

                   

                  1. Cost

                  Lightroom versions span on average 18 months.

                  CC @ £8.57 pm. 18 months - total £154.26

                  Standalone @ £103.88

                  No brainer!

                   

                  Not really - you get more new features, and quicker, with CC - that's a significant benefit for many. So it's not a straight like-for-like cost analysis. And you choose to ignore the fact that £8.57 gets you PhotoShop as well. Whether or not you want PS isn't relevant to an objective cost benefit analysis: "I'm not interested in PhotoShop" is not a cogent argument against CC.

                  KevetS wrote:

                   

                  2. Ownership

                  If I need to use any product on a regular basis, whether it be a drill, camera, car, washing machine etc. I will always prefer to buy outright! I simply don't like rental, hire purchase, contract or whatever you want to call it. In my view it's a false economy - as my issue 1 demonstrates.

                   

                  You don't "own" any software: in pretty much all cases, you're paying for the licence that allows you to use it, and in legal terms that's not analogous to owning the software. This is certainly true of the stand-alone Lightroom. This "ownership" argument is bogus on its face, because it's simply not true.

                   

                  The real argument is "I want the software to keep working even after I've stopped paying for it", as if there's some sort of fundamental human right to this, because that's how it used to be.

                   

                  Well I'd like my mobile phone contract to keep me connected if I stopped paying it; and I'd love to keep getting gas, electricity and water to my house even if I stopped my Direct Debits for them. It'd be brilliant if I could stop paying my mortgage and still keep my house, too.

                   

                  These are all examples of things we pay for on an ongoing basis, knowing that if the money stops, so does what we're getting: and we don't bat an eye about that fact. Why shouldn't a software company move to a similar model? Adobe isn't a charity; it exists to make money, and this change of licence/payment model (and that's all CC is) will help it do that.

                   

                  It won't be long before people won't even remember that Adobe used to sell perpetual licences; and the SaaS model will be seen in just the same matter-of-fact way that we currently view how we pay for our household heating and lighting.

                   

                  Or our web hosting (everyone has a website these days, right?) - that'll end too, once you stop paying...

                   

                  KevetS wrote:.

                   

                  3. Photoshop

                  I have an old version of PS Elements for making any non LR edits, absolutely no need or desire for Photoshop.

                   

                  Whereas for those of us who appreciate the many (many) new capabilities of the latest PS over obsolete versions of PSE, the minimal cost of entry to things like content-aware fill and focus-based selections makes CC easily worth the money. I suppose if I was just a happy-snapper taking pictures of my cat, I'd have more modest requirements. Again: "I'm not interested in PhotoShop" is a better argument against buying a copy of standalone CS 6 than it is an argument against CC.

                   

                  KevetS wrote:

                   

                  4. Updates

                  Providing LR supports my cameras and lenses, then all is good. I have no need for the latest tool, and as has been shown the last couple of weeks, not all updates are good!

                   

                  Which by definition I never even have to think about with CC - now that's a no-brainer. Oh - and personally, I have no problems whatsoever with the latest Lr...

                  • 6. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                    Keith_Reeder Level 4

                    AllieBPort wrote:

                     

                    Depends of your workflow.

                     

                    I use Lightroom as library and development but the slidesows are made in other programs like Proshow Producer. The final show is made in Premiere Elements.

                    The cost of the CC package has to be raised by the cost of this package and as already mentioned Î skip from year to to year one of the updates.

                    Eh? How is it CC's "fault" that you also need to use other software?

                    • 7. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                      AllieBPort Level 1

                      I didn't make myself clear I believe.

                       

                      It isn't a direct fault of the CC-applications but a cost matter.

                       

                      When I buy every second year a new release of Premiere Elements + Photoshop Elements it's a much cheaper deal than the CC-option.

                       

                      Above the cost item I suspect that the learning curve for Photoshop will be much higher than a new version of Elements.

                      • 8. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                        Bob Somrak Level 5

                        AllieBPort wrote:

                         

                         

                        I suspect that the learning curve for Photoshop will be much higher than a new version of Elements.

                        As an EX Elements/Lightroom user and now CC user I can say trying to work around some of the limitations of Elements is a lot harder than doing the same task in Photoshop as the same tools are more feature complete in Photoshop and it makes the task easier.  Also, some basic things just can't be done in Elements.  If you go by the 18 month Lightroom update of a previous post  and buy Elements every few versions you are only saving less than $5 or so a month and are NOT getting to use the new tools and Photoshop.  It makes no difference to me what option someone chooses but they shouldn't complain about not having all the new Lr CC features in the Standalone if thats the option they pick.

                        • 9. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                          KevetS Level 1

                          Keith_Reeder wrote:

                           

                          KevetS wrote:

                           

                          1. Cost

                          Lightroom versions span on average 18 months.

                          CC @ £8.57 pm. 18 months - total £154.26

                          Standalone @ £103.88

                          No brainer!

                           

                          Not really - you get more new features, and quicker, with CC - that's a significant benefit for many. So it's not a straight like-for-like cost analysis. And you choose to ignore the fact that £8.57 gets you PhotoShop as well. Whether or not you want PS isn't relevant to an objective cost benefit analysis: "I'm not interested in PhotoShop" is not a cogent argument against CC.

                          KevetS wrote:

                           

                          2. Ownership

                          If I need to use any product on a regular basis, whether it be a drill, camera, car, washing machine etc. I will always prefer to buy outright! I simply don't like rental, hire purchase, contract or whatever you want to call it. In my view it's a false economy - as my issue 1 demonstrates.

                           

                          You don't "own" any software: in pretty much all cases, you're paying for the licence that allows you to use it, and in legal terms that's not analogous to owning the software. This is certainly true of the stand-alone Lightroom. This "ownership" argument is bogus on its face, because it's simply not true.

                           

                          KevetS wrote:.

                           

                          3. Photoshop

                          I have an old version of PS Elements for making any non LR edits, absolutely no need or desire for Photoshop.

                           

                          Whereas for those of us who appreciate the many (many) new capabilities of the latest PS over old versions of PSE, the minimal cost of entry to things like content-aware fill and focus-based selections makes CC easily worth the money. I suppose if I was just a happy-snapper taking pictures of my cat, I'd have more modest requirements.

                           

                          KevetS wrote:

                           

                          4. Updates

                          Providing LR supports my cameras and lenses, then all is good. I have no need for the latest tool, and as has been shown the last couple of weeks, not all updates are good!

                           

                          Which by definition I never even have to think about with CC - now that's a no-brainer. Oh - and personally, I have no problems whatsoever with the latest Lr...

                          What a bizarre reply!

                          JimHess asked, "A curious mind would like to know why so many users are deathly afraid of or claim they don't need the creative cloud." I replied, giving my reasons based on my needs, hence starting the post with "For me...". Yet, your (in places condescending) reply is based on your requirements. It may come as a surprise to you, but it's highly unlikely that I will be making future LR, PS or possible CC  purchases based on your requirements. CC works for you, great!

                           

                          BTW "happy-snapper" or not, I'm fairly sure that I don't have a single "cat" snap in my collection!

                          • 10. Re: Why is there such a resistance to the creative cloud?
                            adroewer37 Level 1

                            The thing is: You can choose if you buy your car or lease it. And once you've paid your house in full, it's yours.


                            Adobe is no charity organisation. Right. But they used to be a company that provided choices. But that is over. Also the whole reason behind the Creative Cloud is beneficial mostly for Adobe: They could not sell us every update anymore.

                            Why? As a professional creative, you don't need every update of the Creative Suite or CC, because the improvements were so small you could easily skip 2 versions.


                            The fee for the CC is the same if you'd update every single Creative Suite. Which hardly anybody in the industry did. Which hardly anyone wanted.

                            So f*ck the "This is for the customers", the CC was invented ONLY for Adobe's gross income.

                            And that's why there is a resistance agains the Creative Cloud.

                             

                            Again, if they'd SELL the recent version of the Creative Cloud and optionally make it a rental service, nobody would complain. But mandatory monthly fees? No options? Nope.