Here's one more issue with subscriptions:
From the license we claim to have read before running the software:
1.5 Adobe may change the Terms at its sole discretion. If we change the Terms, then we will make a new copy available at http://www.adobe.com/go/terms. Your use of the Services is subject to the most current version of the Terms at the time of such use.
Statements like this are often accompanied by some allowance for the other party to opt out of the new terms, although often by voiding/cancelling the service contract. Adobe is not saying that they will alert us when they change terms.
Adobe can't really change terms on traditional perpetually-licensed "boxed" software. Those terms are set once when we buy the box. As subscribers, we get no guarantees what the future holds. If we find the changed terms to be disagreeable, we can simply discontinue our subscription and be left with MUSE files that we can no longer open/edit. That is a terrible way to lose control of our creations.
You are fooling us. Now I can not buy Muse, I have to pay each month and I have to pay more if I dont want it in english. Hey, wake up Adobe. For years we buy and work with adobe. We feel cheated with the new politics. In Switzerland, like a lot of countries, because of restricted licences, I have to work with a CS in german, I am francophone in the german part of Switzerland, I am not allowed to switch the language, with a multiple licence, all have to speak the same language, here, everything is mixed, I write many times, I call many times, each time I am in front of a bureaucraty, in a labyrinth of understanding. Pay and shut up!
What do you think about that, am I alone or what?
No ocolere, you are surely not alone. We just need to keep making noise about this to bring to light what is actually happening here. It's a shame that Adobe feels the need to "take hostages" to get what they want. Tell your friends to post their displeasure. Unfortunately the only thing that Adobe understands now is the almighty "greenback". They have lost their sense of artistic community and common sense and are purely a bureaucratic establishment now. It's a shame to see what they have become from what they were.
This was a bad decision by Adobe... There are products out there that are just as easy to use and a lot cheaper. No body cares about how fast you can develop features that are all ready on stand alone products. Stop trying to justify a reason to milk customers dry. Disappointed to say the least. $179.00 a year vs $99.00 one time shot from another great web design product (no names) but I will stick with that software program.
I would seriously re consider a subscription at this point. Here's why:
I am working on 3 new/updated sites for my businiesses. I completed and posted one site. It used simple navigation (by simple I mean one top nav menu with no dropdowns) and I am very pleased with it. Once I had a solidified outline it took me less than a day to complete it.
Upon building my second (and most important) site I ran across a "deal breaking" bug:
When you use iframe to embed .swf content, any menu (in my case dropdown with multiple links) is obscured by that iframe content. In my case this means that 3/4 of my dropdown menu is covered, thus rendering it un-viewable by clients using Chrome and IE. I tried everything. Chatting with Adobe, googling... nothing works. I researched and tried inserting "wmode" value="transparent" at the end of the url in the iframe with no luck at all.
Adobe is quite aware of this issue. What gets me is they are marketing this software as "Design and publish unique HTML pages that adhere to the latest web standards without writing code..." and I have to search high and low (with no luck) for code to insert to get the site to display properly in 2 major browsers?!!! That is what you (I have not subscribed yet) are paying for. It to actually work!!! Sure I could redesign the page(s) but that would ruin the aesthetics of the page(s) and I shouldn't have to.
How can I post a site where the navigation is inaccessbile by the client using Chrome or IE? Firefox is reportedly fine according to Adobe Chat.
I truely think MUSE has the potential to be a great program, however simple things like described above make it almost unusable for anthing but a simple site with simple navigation. Adobe needs to seriously get their act together especially if they are asking the end user to subscribe to a product that is incomplete.
rogersphoto.com, I wasn't able to find a thread here on the forum where you asked about wmode=transparent?
If it's specified correctly in the embedded HTML then other content can appear both on top and behind the Flash (or other browser plug-in drawn content).
One example of where the wmode="transparent" needs to be places can be seen by placing a SWF in Muse and then exporting the HTML and looking at it. For a SWF placed in Muse, Muse automatically generates the correct wmode settings.
Here's what it looks like for a placed SWF. Exactly where it needs to go and how it would appear for HTML from an arbitrary source would depend on the specific HTML. It's possible the source for the embedded HTML doesn't support wmode="transparent" (in which case the layering of content on a page for something like a submenu wouldn't work with it regardless of whether you're using Muse or hand-coding):
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="100" height="100" id="u184_media">
<param name="movie" value="images/redcircles.swf">
<param name="quality" value="high">
<param name="swfversion" value="184.108.40.206">
<param name="wmode" value="transparent">
<param name="expressinstall" value="Scripts/expressInstall.swf">
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="images/redcircles.swf" width="100" height="100">
<param name="quality" value="high">
<param name="swfversion" value="220.127.116.11">
<param name="wmode" value="transparent">
<param name="expressinstall" value="Scripts/expressInstall.swf">
<h4>Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.</h4>
<p><a href="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer"><img src="http://www.adobe.com/images/shared/download_buttons/get_flash_player.gif" alt="Get Adobe Flash player" width="112" height="33"></a></p>
As an Adobe user for the last 20 years I have watched them become more and more greedy....they buy up perfectly good software, and either completely destroy its usability or kill it...they have turned the design software market into a monopoly we with very very little other options than their software. I want control over my software...I want to be able to NOT upgrade if I don't want to - some of my printers are 2-3 versions back for their equipment...and I do minimal web work and I really like Muse and if it was "box" copy I would snap it up, but I can't see paying a subscritpion fee every month in perpitude to do my website and maybe 1 more a year! Love the software HATE subscriptions...so Adobe...why alienate your market?? basically your just saying we arent doing free patches now you have to pay for everything...and I thought Microsoft was the devil...Adober I think you have knocked them off the throne.
Customers should react as users of Netflix did...revolt...refuse...they change their minds really quick when things start effecting their bottom line and they get bad press.
Thanks for the reply. I think I may have not phrased my frustrations about swf content embedded in muse not correctly displaying and completely misunderstood the "wmode=transparent" thing.
The code below is what I have embedded (cut & pasted) into muse according to muse instructions:
<iframe style="width:1000px;height:900px" src="http://www.rogersphoto.com/engagement-gallery/index.html?wmode=transparent" seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>
Now the actual gallery appears just fine in all browsers however there is no way (that I can find) to have my dropdown menus appear on top of that content. As you can see I have (wrongly?) placed the "wmode=transparent" in the iframe after the url.
I don't design anything using "flash" as I don't need to therefore my flash vocabulary is quite limited. And although I am not a coder (I am a photographer) I can understand enough html to tweak anything that need to be tweaked.
My absolute MUSE problem is the fact that when: I place embed an iframe containing .swf such as the one above, MUSE will not write the correct code to have my meunus be on top of the content!
Curiously I do not have this problem at all when I embed an .mp4 from say "Animoto.com" In this case the menus appear as they should; On top of the content.
I would really appreciate guidance on how to correct this as I would love to be able to incorporate muse into my work flow (despite the absolutely horrible, dictatorial, Adobe subscription policy).
After all, Adobe advertises MUSE as Code Free web design and want's users to subscribe for that "privlidge". Shouldn't they live up to their claims? And if Adobe can't get it right or at least fix this bug with all their resources and (subscription) $$ how am I supposed to? It's like driving a car with the visor stuck down (you can only see half the road in front of you). Can you help me put the visor up please?!!!
Email me or post here. I just need a fix!
Very good point Mike! Or how about if Adobe get's acquired/taken over and the new owners decide to discontinue? What then? Your site(s) is useless! I can't think of one logical and supportable reason why Adobe will not sell this software outside of greed. It's a dictatorial policy unbecomming of a reputable company. They didn't even try to "package" this software for sale.
and their big reasoning is that they want to have updates every few months....well that is fine...I get updates every few months with lots of apps and Mac OS....they are all FREE...maybe do packages of extras that can be added on for a small cost....not main features some of which are still missing...like say lists!! but say you add more widgets you could release a widget pack for $15 or something...I would much rather pay a fee like that to get some new useful addons if I wanted them...but knowing that I have the software as my own w/o a subscription. PLEASE Adobe....you finally got something close to what probably a lot of designers like me whos eyes roll back in their head when they look at code can actually get excited about...I think your shooting yourself in the foot by alienating all the would be potential users w/ this stupid subscription scheme
The CEO has spoken read:
Narayen, speaking at the Robert Baird Growth Stock Conference Tuesday, outlined Adobe’s transition to become a cloud company. He said that the Creative Cloud showed it could bring in new customers in a pilot in Australia. He expects the Creative Cloud—a Web-based roll up of Creative Suite 6—will bring in new customers and diminish piracy.
We have taken a very measured approach. We will offer perpetual (licensing) in order to enable people to experience the Creative Cloud offering and get comfortable with the amount of innovation that is happening.
So unlike other companies who have had to make business transformations, you can think of this as an augmentation of the business model rather than a complete left shift. So I think that could give you as investors and us comfort that we are doing this in a measured way.
We do think that the Creative Cloud with the new offerings that we have is certainly going to be long-term the preferred way, both for Adobe as well as for our customers.
What we tell investors is, if you believe that everybody is going to stay on the perpetual model, then you can look at CS6, which we think is one of the strongest releases we have released in a long time; and you should get comfort from the fact that people are going to want to upgrade to the new version. If you believe that the subscription offering is going to be a more compelling offering, then what that means is that over time we are certainly making our business more sticky. And we are attracting customers to our platform.
We can now all see where all the subscription stuff is coming from and where it might be heading to.
hmm you have to wonder what the "attracting new customers" is...because honestly if you are an artist, designer, web developer or photographer how are you not using adobe products somewhere? if they showed an increase you have to wonder if it was people who needed it for a specific purpose...say they had a big project and hired 5 contract workers...they license CS so those contract workers can use it in the office on their rented computers...and then at the end they just stop their subscription....that is what I see as the usefulness of the whole subscription model...letting smaller businesses use contract or freelance people and not have to pay for a whole new CS....
The whole "Cloud" thing might be great for large places that do a lot of sharing....but its useless to those of us who are 1 person studios...I don't share my stuff...I don't need asset available everywhere...there should be extra offerings like a Cloud package for companies that do work that way...I have never used Adobe Bridge or any of the other "sharing" management bits already in CS...Cloud will do nothing to improve my user experience....and anyway what happens when your on a deadline at 3am and ur internet goes down because your service provider is doing work on the lines OR Adobe servers go down and you need sometihng from your cloud....yea...I don't want to be relying that heavily on an internet connection to do my work....
The whole piracy issue is just a nice excuse...they ran the numbers on a subscription service and saw that they can basically hold their customers hostage....I know I ran the numbers and it was way more expensive for me....which means they are making more. I have talked to a lot of colleagues and other designers and they all feel the same...Adobe is being greedy not innovative.
I just downloaded Joomla (Adobe will probably edit or delete this) and it looks like a nice, FREE and somewhat easy alternative to Muse with quite a few free "plugins" too. I happened across this on somebody elses site and it looked nice and clean.
Best of all, you actually get to download the software package and don't have to worry about a subscription and loosing the ability to edit your site if you choose not to subscribe anymore!
If Photoshop ever goes the way of total subscription I will go back to using Corel Photo Paint which is what I used decades ago (It was an awesome program).
So because Adobe can't balance money, you have to tax us by using a BS excuse of update frequency... really??? For the short time it was avail. as a beta I didn't see tons of updates. As a loyal adobe customer for years, I think this new biz model is by far the WORST idea I have ever seen Adobe do. The next was killing GoLive, but that's another issue. It's painfully obvious that all of us are not going to purchase this program with these kind of buying options, so why don't you LISTEN to your CUSTOMERS? You do realize the longer you ignore customers, the more chance you will have to loose them to other options, which will soon be built by some college kid who has passion and cares to LISTEN.
In closing, if money is the issue here, then put a price on muse that is high enough that you can pay your developers to keep updating the software, charge a small fee for updates and make the price low enough that the consumers are happy. I can't believe leadership there lacks the ability to understand basic business fundamentials!!!!
its not $99, but its a fine program - http://www.softpress.com/products/freeway-express.html
Thanks a bunch for that but, oh noooo, it's only for mac and I'm a PC. Shoot, it looked promising too!
My farewell to MUSE:
Oh well, after great deliberation, angst, trepidation and just plain, outright disgust and anger, I have abandoned my MUSE. I have been using it since the beta and now my trial has only 9 days left. It looked exactly like what I was looking for, especially ease of use. I designed 1 complete simple site which is now live and am 3/4 done with my main business site. But it has too many bugs. My main disgust is with Master page menus being covered up by embedded content. I can't have my drop downs being obscured by content which should fall below it. I mean come on Adobe, really?!!! No spell checker is a minor annoyance. No way to edit the code to tweak it is annoying too. Adobe should have just kept improving and modernizing GoLive which is exactly what I am going back to using (GoLive6). Granted it is running virtually which is annoying, but nowhere near as annoying as MUSE is now. Heck, I already own it and don't have to worry about not being able to edit my site if I decide to stop subscribing or if Adobe decides to pull the plug.
Adobe just doesn't get it do they?! Subscription based software should be an alternative to "boxed" software. Not a dictatorial tool. You can't hold people software hostages. Unless Adobe wises up and offers MUSES as a non subscription "boxed" option I will never go back. Did I mention the bugs and subscription only model?
It is my hope that enough people see the light and exactly what ADOBE is doing here and JUST SAY NO, to this abhorent practice. Force them to do what is right. Shame on you Adobe.
Just going to play a little bit of devil's advocate here...
I personally do not have much of an issue with paying a subscription fee at all. It's a paltry sum of money really - sure it could be a bit less, no-one ever complains about things being cheaper!
I've paid for subscription software numerous times in the past. Once I stopped using it, or had no need of it anymore, I simply stopped paying. Pretty straight forward yes? A hugely popular online game is subscription based (World of Warcraft and now Diablo III) - AND you have to fork out for the software itself AND you have to pay for any expansion packs. I don't see many people complaining about that (I know its a completely different piece of software, but the business model is essentially the same in many regards).
You see, if you just sell the product as is and lots of people buy it, then slowly over time that income stream becomes less and less until you release a new update which needs to have significant changes/upgrades in order for anyone to want to buy it. A lot of those people who bought the first version won't buy the newer one because they don't see any benefits in having the new features. Suddenly you're selling a lot less of the updated product than the original and income drops dramatically. By adding a subscription fee, it ensures that there is regular cashflow for the company to pay for their overheads. If they're not paying those overheads, then the company starts borrowing money to pay for them and hey - suddenly you have a global financial crisis! (A bit of a long bow to draw I know, but hopefully you get the picture...)
There are a LOT of subscription services out there that offer a lot less - web hosting anyone? Who pays for web hosting? Why can't you just pay one time for a space on a server and thats the end of it? No, they make you pay a monthly fee - for what? For lots of things! For one they have to pay some dude (We'll call him Bob) to sit there every Sunday to make sure nothing goes wrong. There are a myriad of costs to pay for, and once the initial uptake has tailed off then there is no money left for imprtant upgrades and so on... Next thing the company is no more, and all the servers get shut down or sold off to another company (who happens to be running a subscription model I might add...)
A one time fee, while it is nice, is NOT a very good business model for things like software because they are always changing things. I know what you're thinking "I want upgrades every week/month to address the problems I have because it doesn't do the same thing as this other piece of software that I can get for free anyway". Well that would be nice, but lets be realistic here! Nobody is forcing you to pay for anything! If you dont like it after one months subscription then hey! You have a choice, UNSUBSCRIBE and go somewhere else! Pretty simple yes?
I for one will most likely be paying for a 12 month sub after my trial runs out because quite frankly all the other solutions out there I have tried are rubbish with terrible support - and yes, I've spent a LONG time looking around for other solutions to replace that program that so many designers/developers love to hate - iWeb. Not to mention that in order to get any use beyond their boringly rigid templates and features, you have to go and pay for plugins which in turn only seems to make the whole experience a great big WOFTAM.
On the flipside of all this however is if you were charged a subscription for everything - then suddenly things are a lot less affordable, and it is up to the company to be realistic in their expectations of what people are willing to pay. Next thing you know you're paying a subscription for this, that and the other thing and it's costing you hundreds of dollars per month. Add to that the cost of living, paying for phone/internet/mortgage and so on - it all gets a bit crazy.
A possible solution to this would be to release a full featured version of a program on subscription, and a cut down/bare essentials version for general retail... I don't know - I'm just throwing ideas around now >.<
IMHO Adobes Creative Cloud pricing is quite prohibitive to a great many people like myself. If I had the option to use Creative Cloud and only select say PS and Muse for $16-20/mo for a 12 month subscription then perhaps I might be interested.
Its a difficult job trying to keep everyone happy!
Well, for those of you looking for an alternative to MUSE and do not want to have to Code you might want to try these plugins for Lightroom : http://shop.theturninggate.net/ . Since it's Adobe Lightroom they still got a "piece of the pie".
I was experimenting with it but when MUSE came out I put them aside. Now that I won't be using MUSE (because of the bugs and subscription model) I am back to experimenting with it. Everything is done in lightroom via modules from image galleries to full blown sites.
It is not as "easy" as MUSE but comparably it is feature rich and customizable.
Hope this helps.
You make good points in general, but considering we are discussing ADOBE, there's where the problem is.
1 - They do NOT listen to their customers, because if they did GoLive would still be a product.
2 - They can decide one day to kill the product, which then leaves all the users screwed because the code you do in muse can't be opened and updated in anything other than muse. And when they realize the poos sales they are going to get from that software, who knows if they will just axe the software.
3 - Software companies are some of the most profitable businesses on the earth. The margins are crazy high, which is fine to me, but now the profits are even greater with the lack of manufacturing a cd/dvd/manual/box/shipping/etc...
4 - The theory of lack of sales with new versions is not relivant. For years Adobe survived witht his model, which when they updated software BASED ON THIER CUSTOMERS FEEDBACK, the customers actually purchased the new version (what a suprise), it wasn't until some new ******* leadership there, who cares more about stock price than customers, stopped listening to it's base and the updates were LACKING in many areas... THAT is why new versions of the software in Adobe's case have not been selling as well as liked... CS5.5 SCREAMED of that... such a desperate move to TRY to make a few extra bucks for a lack of features that warrant the price tag. What Adobe seems to miss here is that the customers WOULD pay for a update, if the update was worth the price they put upon it.
5 - Subscriptions work fine for entertainment aspects, but from business aspects, they are poor investments. When you have subscription based reliability, it means you need to rely on too many parts to survive: internet connection for varification, adobe server must be working, what if there's a billing error, the software goes away, etc... when you own the software you need power and the computer...
6 - Lack of developers... what developer is going to create anything on this platform? Especially when the customer base will be so small that it's not worth it.
7 - Price, lastly, Adobe could really do the right move here and sell it's software for a better price and then sell more of it. In relation, they are the most expensive software for graphic creative. If Apple purchased Adobe, the prices would drop. If Apple made a vector and web program, Adobe would be hurting.
Pixelmaker - $14.99
Aperture - $79.99
Photoshop - $999.99
... this says everything to WHY the sales are not strong.
Update: Well after exhaustively crunching numbers and actually using Muse for a while now, I have to eat some of my words: Since I have 3 sites which cost me XXX dollars a year for the hosting and the Adobe Cloud will cost me XXX dollars a year which includes site hosting, Muse and all of the Adobe products, Adobe wins by a mile. It's just good business economics period (for me).
Muse is a very powerful program once you make "friends" with it. Yes there are a few annoying bugs but they can, for the most part, be worked around until they are fixed. Since, for now, Adobe actually is improving the features and usability of Muse it's a fantastic program and the easiest to use of any of it's kind. Only time will tell if Adobe will run with the ball or drop it.
Unfortunately it doesn't make good business sense for many others. especially those that have already invested in suite seats. And the fact that you will be a slave to what ever adobe want to do or charge you cause if you stop your subscription for ANY reason to got NOTHING, NADA and are DOA.
Any way you look at it it's a bad deal for current suite OWNERS.
You know maybe they want Muse and Edge to be subscription based to root out all of the "Do-it-yourself" types that are too cheap to pay a professional.
Also, if web design is too easy it will cheapen the trade and make it too competitive.
I recently sold an asphalt business I had for 11 years to start building websites which I have been playing with for about 3 years. There is nothing worse than trying to run a good business in a cut throat industry.
Eeks Mike then you might have picked the wrong change in profession. Everything on the internet now a days is a cut throat business. Everything you can do there are a million other people that can do the same, cheaper, faster and with a smile on there face and they are just a click away. This sort of software won't change the way websites are made right now. It's just a product to allow more people to get online. The internet has been around for 20 some years and I am surprised that traditional websites are still made the same way to be honest.
Everything is a cut throat business period. Not just the iNet. I have been a professional photographers for 20 years and when the economy tanked EVERYONE and their Uncle picked up a camera and said they were a pro. I venture to guess there are more "photographers" out there than lawyers!
Anyway, if have more than one website you are hosting ((I have 3) and point the domains to your free hosting on BC then using the Cloud services is a no brainer just based on the fact that hosting of 10 sites is included. Throw in all the Adobe software and then, well, you do the math. It does make sense. But, if you aren't going to switch servers/hosts then that is a different story.
I do disagree with not offering all the products as "boxed" or subscriptoin based. That's just Adobe's way of holding you hostage and it is a dispicapable business practice.
You have the choice not to subscribe (and learn to code) if you are so upset. But I dare you to find a piece of software like MUSE that makes it so easy (albieit frustrating with the bugs). I tried and fell short. Let me know.
If Adobe was really smart, they would offer a choice on all their products as it would not cost them one additional red cent. But their Adobe... Enough said
rogers actually there are a few solutions like Muse that are a one time fee type deal. Sitegrinder 3 is the best most feature rich solution but it does require you to have and know photoshop. It also has quite a few bugs which is common when dealing with code generation and browser compatiblity, however what Sitegrinder does not have is the constant updates to there software that Adobe can push out because of the sub fees. They also don't have the resources and big teams like Adobe has.
I am also sceptical about SaS products but no one makes prodcuts quite like Adobe no matter who wants to complain about it. With the fees means faster conent upgrades and bug fixes without more added upgrade fees etc. If someone wants to complain about $15 a month and would rather a Adobe premium price tag..they are just complaining that they can't download it for free . I also love the people saying "well its expensive if I only want to make one site". Actually no it isn't, developers charge a heck of a lot more to update your site 2 a month.
What Adobe needs to do is educate the public or none web savvy folk about the actual costs of having a site developed and updated by the big guys compared to the low cost of renting Muse.
$15 a month for Muse and $6 a month for my web host and I can make and host as many sites as I want? One site and it pays for itself for like 10 years.
Clearly, it's obvious that loyal Adobe customers are NOT happy with the business model of Muse (the Cloud). "It will allow the Muse team to improve the product more quickly and be more responsive to your needs" is total BS. Why insult our intelligence?...we're not idiots. Adobe wants continuous cash-flow through a subscription...it's ONLY about the money. There are tons of decent alternatives to Adobe software available nowadays that don't require a subscription...maybe you should consider listening to our complaints BEFORE you lose our loyalty?
As a graphic designer I depend heavily on Adobe software to earn my living, and I have to say that seeing this attempt to transition into a monthly fee-based payment structure makes me nervous.
I can understand Adobe wanting to combat piracy, make more $, etc., but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. I'm very interested in using Muse and I'll definitely download the trial, but I'm opposed to the idea of shelling out money on a monthly basis for a subscription. If Adobe decides to use this model for it's creative suite software, I really don't see myself getting on board with it.
On the positive side, I've been using Adobe Edge Animate recently and have been very happy with it. It's free, but I'd be happy to pay a flat fee for a license once the software has been refined a little more