Upgrade refuseniks, beware: Adobe snips away legacy versions of its Creative Cloud apps Adobe has left customers reeling after bringing an axe down on old versions of its Creative Cloud line-up. The US software giant has been encouraging users to switch away from perpetual licensing to the delights of its Creative Cloud subscription since the service's inception. The plan, which on first glance is enticing, …
We know who you are and where you live and we've got a lovely big licensing database.
You wouldn't want an audit, would you?
You're not getting off this treadmill, we've got you now. You should have stayed with the retail versions when you had the chance but you jumped at the shiny trinkets we offered you because you're just as greedy as we are.
Love,
Shantanu, your friendly Adobe Mafioso^WCEO.
"You're not getting off this treadmill, we've got you now. You should have stayed with the retail versions when you had the chance but you jumped at the shiny trinkets we offered you because you're just as greedy as we are."
Which is precisely why we are still using the older, purchased versions of the software! Anyone could see this coming from a mile away.
People can't say that they weren't warned.!
As soon as they stopped releasing perpetual licensed versions of Lightroom despite stating only months before that they would continue to do so you could clearly see the greed in their little piggy eyes for the perennial software rental model. I will never rent software, especially software that doesn't use a truly open format thereby allowing me to still access my work down the track.
(a) Unlike any number of other companies that have jumped on the "cloud" bandwagon, the Adobe subscription does actually deliver amazing value for money if you use even a quarter of it (lets face it, Photoshop has no real competitors, nor does Illustrator nor does InDesign, Lightroom is amazing for serious photographers and most of the rest of the suite is pretty much almost in leadership position if not already there). You get a lot of bang for your buck with Adobe.
(b) If you're still using ancient versions of Adobe then you're missing out on improvements (both visible and back-end enhancements). When you're dealing with software that manipulates large files, the improvements can occasionally be quite noticeable.
Yes, I guess you could accuse me of being biased because I have an Adobe subscription. But as I said, I can see the value for money and it is therefore only cloud I subscribe to.
Affinity ? Never heard of it ? I'm guessing its yet another one of those half-hearted attempts at mimicking Photoshop and/or Illustrator ?
Not only do I suspect that, like similar "competitors", it won't get a fraction of the way there, but also my friend, where's the rest of the Adobe suite ? Where's my Lightroom ? Where's my InDesign ? Where's my Premiere ? Where's my Acrobat Pro ? etc. etc. etc. etc.
I'm not interested in Apples and Oranges ! Show me a like-for-like competitor or don't bother. It sounds to me that Affinity is cheaper for a reason.... its got a fraction of the functionality.
Let me put it this way, through my work I know people who run large graphic design agencies. If they have settled on continuing with Adobe subscriptions having been unable to find substitutes, then why should I waste my time testing stuff that doesn't come close to the real thing ?
Have you ever properly (or at all ?) used Photoshop and Illustrator, the two pieces of the Adobe suite to which you propose Affinity ?
I'm not doing a fanboy when I say Photoshop and Illustrator have no real competitors. They have been a core Adobe product for donkeys years and thus have been around before many of the young whippersnappers coding the "competitor" products have been alive.
Yes I have used them, for many years, and now I don't. Its OK that you do, perhaps they are perfect for you. I disagree that they have no equal but only you can decide that.
"I'm not doing a fanboy when I say Photoshop and Illustrator have no real competitors."
Your comments betray this statement. You haven't considered or properly (at all?) evaluated alternatives. So you simply don't know.
They don't have issues with either. Certainly revisiting legacy projects is no issue, one of them in particular has a significant archive measured in petabytes and accessing legacy files is pretty much a daily occurrence either as a result of a customer request or a designer revisiting and refreshing a classic design.
"Affinity ? Never heard of it ? I'm guessing its yet another one of those half-hearted attempts at mimicking Photoshop and/or Illustrator ?"
I'm not particularly into this field but I can tell you that Serif (Affinity) have been around for donkeys years. IIRC I first came across them when they were giving away a free CD of typefaces with the preview versions of their then DTP and other packages. (You had to phone them to order it and then they tried the hard sell for the paid versions, but since I only wanted the free typefaces to use on my Amiga I managed to convince them I wasn't the target market and still got the free CD)
"you will be pestered almost every single day by emails pushing the 'benefits' of every single one of their product lines."
I can confirm that this statement is utter bull excrement.
I have been an Adobe subscriber for years. The only emails I ever receive are the monthly VAT-receipt PDFs for my payments. Zero marketing.
It's a matter that even with a subscription you can't use any longer older versions.
Adobe has some legal issue because of something used then that now is under litigation - and Adobe is transferring the issue to subscribers. A side effect of subscription - I don't know if it could happen with a perpetual license.
>Adobe has some legal issue because of something used then that now is under litigation
I'll say - pop over to eBay and drop 'Adobe Lifetime License' into the search box. eBay no longer remove listings as resales are legal and subscription for continued use of a purchase is not - in the EU at least.
Though note if you do fork out a tenner for Photoshop CC 2019 you won't be able to update it ever and any CC apps you are using via subscription will interfere (the licensing server installed as part of Creative Cloud will throw a hissy fit)
People can resell old perpetual licenses - I can't see how they can sell legally any software sold as part of a subscription - we could debate if the subscription itself is transferable - as also they won't work unless cracked. There's nothing in EU laws that forbids renting something, or forbids subscription licenses instead of perpetual ones. By the way, when micro/mainframes and Unix/IBM dominated, very little software was sold - subscription were the norm.So, really, nothing new.
Anyway, if you look for illegal software, at least be smart enough to get if for free, and don't feed criminals.
> Anyway, if you look for illegal software, at least be smart enough to get if for free, and don't feed criminals.
It's not illegal - if it were eBay would remove listings as they do with pirated copies - there are dozens of sellers shifting 1000s of copies of Adobe apps entirely legally due to the limbo of the licensing terms in the EU.
> There's nothing in EU laws that forbids renting something, or forbids subscription licenses instead of perpetual ones
There is law which covers digital download rights though - subscription for on-going updates, cloud services etc is another thing. At some point they will presumably move the license from subscription to credit agreement, but I guess that raises more complex problems.
Plenty of illegal sales on eBay - and you know. If it's legal, why it's not available from other channels?
Also, how many time can you "resell" software you get as part of a subscription? Can you crack it to make it work? And how they pay the licenses to Adobe?
I certainly can't speak to the EU, or rest of the world for that matter, but the case law on this was decided over a decade ago. One of the combined DVD-ripper DeCSS tools was found infringing but existing owners could not have their rights stripped. Continued use was allowed and, yes, you'd never see an update as the firm was shut at the end of trial.
I have that tool, the registration and receipt, and court decision all tucked away in my cold archives but I'm not going to go digging for it unless we need the cite for this Adobe legal case. Who knows? I've registered perpetual versions of all Adobe's CSx tools (varies by tool, CS2-CS6), even receipts and EULA's as I'm so paranoid, so I'll fetch it when we need it. BTW, I don't use my Adobe software for anything anymore, found better alternatives (Serif for one). Hell, IrfanView with a few plugins handles most of my use cases. Just me being me.
"If you're still using ancient versions of Adobe then you're missing out on improvements"
I don't understand why people raise this argument. Anyone using an old version of software is well aware of this already and have decided that the "improvements" aren't enough to be worth upgrading.
(Scare quotes on "improvements" because often, particularly these days, they aren't actually improvements at all, just changes.)
I don't understand why people raise this argument. Anyone using an old version of software is well aware of this already and have decided that the "improvements" aren't enough to be worth upgrading.
Definitely. Not an Adobe product, but we're still using Quicken98 even now (under MSWin10 for my brother's system, Crossover Office for mine). There's been absolutely nothing in the later versions that ever encouraged me to upgrade. Heck, if it hadn't been for a quirk involving faxmodems on MSWin NT4, would probably still be on an even earlier version.
And if I really DID feel the need to "upgrade", there are two later versions available for free download from Intuit themselves. And since Intuit has decided you're only allowed to bring in existing files with the overpriced "Deluxe" version, we won't be upgrading to any of the "current" versions.
While that might be true, it doesn't address the issue of people running on older systems (windows 7 and 8). Also, there was a recent price increase which people may have been reluctant to agree to and, while it might not be intended, this kind of gives the impression that Adobe is strong arming people into agreeing to the price increase). Just because they don't have a competitors, doesn't mean they can just do what they like (abusing a monopoly in an industry is generally frowned upon)
the Adobe subscription does actually deliver amazing value for money if you use even a quarter of it
Only if you fail to value the fact you are locked into a system with ever increasing fees, forced upgrades, and proprietary storage of your data (especially the layered modifications to photos etc).
I doubt Adobe would pull these if it didn't have to for legal reasons, and the heavy handed nature is likely in self-defense.
As for the competitors, they all have something not-quite-right, and something missing. I've tried a wide bunch, and it ranges from lack of RAW support to tools that have been in CC for a very long time.
Example: Capture One. Expensive 'pro grade' tool. Love the software, but they don't support RAW from Olympus E-PL8, and they don't have any facility to blur sections of the image. If that's the best the competition can offer, then Adobe win hands down.
"Capture One. Expensive 'pro grade' tool. Love the software"
I agree on Capture One. Lovely well made software, written by a company that knows a thing or two about image manipulation. But nonetheless, it still gets eaten by Adobe for breakfast.
> Example: Capture One. Expensive 'pro grade' tool.
Expensive - Yes. 'Pro grade' - not by a long shot.
I'm a hobbyist photographer, been doing this for fun for a long time. For me, Capture One ranks at the very bottom of the non-Adobe photo processing software.
Take the same RAW file and process it in three different versions of Capture One. You'll get three different colormaps for the same exact photo. And three different levels of smudginess. Funny, none of the three different output versions from Capture One looks anything remotely close to the output from DxO.
Not to mention the horribly convoluted workflow.
I'm not a fan of Adobe's subscription model for CC (Lightroom/Photoshop/etc) by any means. I much prefer DxO, and not just because it's not subscription-based.
But Capture One vs. Adobe I don't see much of a choice to be made here.
"... they don't have any facility to blur sections of the image."
Which isn't a RAW editing procedure anyways, so throw it in GIMP (as GIMP can do more destructive editing than Lightroom). This also highlights yet another redundant piece of software from Adobe, similar to how Illustrator is really just Photoshop reskinned and tool swapped.
Im not pumping C1, but it's _finally_ better all around at RAW than Lightroom, but that's not saying much *if* you exclude Lightroom's destructive editing, because Lightroom is bloated and slow (a dedicated web template section and 2 core utilization max... come on).
BTW, C1 sucked for a _LONG_ time. For years I only used it for its multicore functionality with thumbnails, and went right back to Lightroom. Air heads were pushing C1 as defacto years before it even had a meta system!! Ironically, now that C1 has everything it should have had to start, no one pushes it.
"Jump off the upgrade treadmill and try some Open Source software!"
Name one, just one, serious (or half-serious) competitor to Photoshop or Illustrator or any of the rest of the suite of software delivered with an Adobe subscription.
Such a thing does not exist.
Open Source has its uses, but don't ram it down people's throats at those moments when its quite clearly the wrong tool for the job. Adobe vs Open Source doesn't even merit discussion, Adobe wins hands down.
Whether or not that's true depends on your use case. For many of the things Adobe software is used for, there isn't a good OSS alternative. However, for many other things Adobe software is used for, there really is.
Because there may not be a good OSS alternative for your use case doesn't mean that's true for everybody (maybe not even most).
"Name one, just one, serious (or half-serious) competitor to .. the suite of software delivered with an Adobe subscription. Such a thing does not exist."
CinePaint. Based on GIMP, and **widely used in Hollywood**.
Heck, as a semi-professional photographer (I also have day job, as I like having a salaried position), I don't find any downsides in using DarkTable and GIMP ...
Of Adobe’s subscription model is that it separates the straitjacketed pros, who are constrained what agencies, printers, and customers are willing to accept, from the less “serious” user, who can easily live with alternative solutions. Why, just yesterday, I unthinkingly double-clucked a .psd file icon and it opened.,.. in Pixelmator, which got the job done for me. (In the interests of fairness, I tried Affinity a couple of years ago, but it was more than I needed.) Particularly since I left a job where Acrobat DC was required for all forms, I’ve been Adobe-free. I realize not everyone can do that, but boy howdy has it ever made my life simpler.
"Of Adobe’s subscription model is that it separates the straitjacketed pros, who are constrained what agencies, printers, and customers are willing to accept, from the less “serious” user, who can easily live with alternative solutions."
Only the "less serious user" could come up with such a foolish statement.
Of course one part of the puzzle is interoperability. But this is not the core reason why the "pros" remain with Adobe. For example, in the world of print, PDF rules the roost, so as long as you can provide the printer with a correctly prepared PDF, they will be happy (the clue is in the name "correctly prepared" though, most Open Source fanboy non-pros won't have a clue and so you'll annoy the printers because you've sent them a useless PDF, not because it is a PDF ... Adobe Acrobat happens to have lots of validation tools built in which is helpful in a pro workflow hence why most pros use Adobe instead of <alternative-pdf-writer> ).
However on the subject of interoperability, most pros will appreciate the lovely interop between the Adobe products. No need to waste time converting between random formats.
The real reason is the sheer maturity and quality of the Adobe tools. Competitors come and go with their half-hearted attempts at creating an Adobe-killer, but Adobe keeps on getting better. Real pros know that.
Finally, if you are employing a room full of 30 designers, the fact of the matter is most of them will have been using Adobe since they were old enough to pick up a Wacom stylus. Ask them to use <insert-name-of-so-called-Adobe-competitor-here> and not only will you loose productivity because they don't know their way around X, but also because X is less mature than Adobe, you will loose productivity because it will take the designers longer to achieve the same goal because X doesn't have half the functionality that Adobe does.
"But this is not the core reason why the "pros" remain with Adobe."
It's because they have a tool that works, and they're not interested in learning another.
It's a good example of the differences between how It types differ from a lot of other professions, because learning new tools is part of the point of the job.
(Not all print is Adobe based, there's still pockets of CorelDraw in the signmaking world.)
Fully agree. I have had to work with digital agencies a lot, and their environemnt, like it or hate it, is a seamless world of Adobe. As professionals, they live and breathe it, which is why, when I give them something in an Adobe format (images, illustrations, video, what-have-you) I can be sure that no time will be wasted by them.
One major flaw 'less “serious” user,' is an idiotic assumption. Photo editing software (as well as most of CC suite) is a mature product for both Adobe and their competitors. For most users, the software from anyone was feature complete as their needs a few versions ago. So the only reason to upgrade is for bug fixes and maybe some improvements in the algorithm speed. What the marketing weasels are touting, meh. Photo blogs and YouTube channels make this point. While each package has its strengths and weaknesses often which one to use is matter of personal preference than technical specifications.
To 'encourage' anyone using CS6 (perpetual license which includes Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects and several other applications) to switch to CC, Adobe has taken down all of the help pages for CS6 - click on Help in the app and you get 404.
Perhaps there was some sort of environmental consideration that dictated removing, say, 2,000 pages.
This post has been deleted by its author
They are not dead yet.
CS6 can still be downloaded from here
https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/cs6-help-pdf-available-june.html
Or, if you need help for different versions they are all here
https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/archive.html
Just the first link on the top of the page gives a 404, the others are still working (at least some).
Better down them all before they go puff.
I wonder how long they'll keep the activation servers running? You can't install without them. They did at least have the good grace to release generic keys that didn't need activation when they switched off the CS2 servers, but does the CS6 licence small print actually require them to support activations for ever?
Did you know that if you clone a CS-installed system HD, boot from it and deauthorize the cloned CS instance, you get back an instance that can be installed elsewhere even while the original keeps purring along?
Block transport2.adobe com and Bob's your uncle.
Looks to me like the advantage for Adobe is that it has everything, including the kitchen sink.
And the disadvantage is that there's apparently litigation on some versions that allege it stole everything, including the kitchen sink, while charging customers, and crowding out any potential competition with allegedly stolen tech while developing its own homegrown, legal versions (hopefully.)
One of the biggest issue for Australian ad agencies is they often have to produce collateral and share it with neighbouring nations in the South Pacific.
They are often running older version of things like InDesign meaning the ad agencies have to open/backsave in older versions to have the files compatible.
Not really and issue with Illustrator or Photoshop as the file format does not change, but it's a show stopper when working across regions using InDesign!
Exporting to IDML (kind of like a template file) is really not a viable solution as when the resulting file is opened, it's a brand new document that needs to be saved.
As per a lot of things, if you are working internally, not a massive deal which version of apps you use, it's when you need to collaborate with a range of companies that the app versions become a real challenge.
As an hobbyist photographer I get Lightroom and Photoshop for £8/month from the Photographer's package, for that you get to run the apps on 2 machines simultaneously no matter what platform. I used to rip it off and it was hard work keeping up with cracks and patches. I considered buying it and even buying and older version off eBay but it was just easier to cough up the monthly payment. £100/year for a product that used to cost £700 is not bad and I get regular updates and bleeding edge features if I want to try them. I can run it on 2 machines simultaneously irrespective of the platform. My wife uses my second copy on her Mac when we're home and then when we go away I just move a license over to the Mac laptop for editing "on the road". No it's doesn't connect constantly, that's FUD spread by prats, it checks minimum once a month.
No I'm not an Adobe shill, I'm just too old to fanny about with rip-offs, cracks and buying old versions that won't work on the last O/S's. I want to have good tools for editing my shots as good shots mean I can earn some reasonable pocket money off Getty and print sales. Of course the second Affinity is on Windows and supports the DxO ( NIK) plugins, I'm swapping! Ha ha!
AFAIK, you're still ripping it off....
"Your individual Creative Cloud license lets you install your apps on more than one computer, activate (sign-in) on two, but use them on only one computer at a time"
Anyway it's people like you that turned software licensing into a nightmare.
This post has been deleted by its author
We're not all blue chip agencies or freelancers. I'd forgotten about Serif/ Affinity, I refused to get drawn into the Adobe subscription model otherwise they'd trouser the equivalent of a whole year's income from me over the rest of my career. I'm using Corel Paint Shop Pro but it's getting a bit desperate and bloated (and very annoying to use), so I'll maybe try Serif, but it depends on whether some expensive legacy Alien Skin plug-ins work. At least you get both 32 bit and 64 bit PaintShop Pro desktop versions, making it workable with these plug-ins. And in Windows 7.
It does annoy me when companies artificially stop you installing software on older OS for no good reason.
AFAIK there is no technical reason why Adobe should stop support for their software running on Windows 7, it just a money saving exercise so they don't have to have to have to test for bugs on anything other than 10 or train their staff on support for older OS versions. Heck it should still be possible to install it on XP or Vista if you wanted, but with warnings that your OS is out of support and that Adobe support won't help you if you have problems with the software on that OS.
Anyone here remember Quark Xpress?
Once desktop publishing really took off, they were charging $695 for their publishing software. In 1980 / 1990 dollars.
They were arrogant, dismissive, expensive.
Along comes two-trick pony Adobe (PS, IL) with Creative Suite + InDesign, and customers abandoned Quark in droves.
Along the way, publishing as an atomic endeavour died out and killed the Quark Publishing System.
Every dog has its day.
I do remember it and liked it, but was working in non-profits at the time and when it got too expensive I very reluctantly went to Adobe and learned how to use their stuff and then stayed with Adobe.
Never assume you are always going to be the prettiest girl at the party.
But can they touch my CS6?
Because that's how I get my Adobe fix.
I don't like clouds.
They run away.
I like things in my hand because then they stay.
But can they touch my CS6?
Keep your hands off my installation disk!
Keep the server on! Don't pull the plug on me! That's a con.
Somewhere I have CS3. You're not taking it away from me!
That was the traditional photoshop. Before all this cloud infested slop.
Who will stand alone in the end?
The final CS6 user and their wacom pen.
Don't surrender! Don't give in! CS6 users keep on fightin'!
Will you be the last one? In 2030!
Until the server goes kaput and gets you shirty.
I working in media for 5 years and come from an IT background. There's always alternatives if you're open to looking for them and value spending your money wisely. One I was trained in Adobe I have to admit - I didn't see what the fuss was about. Photoshop - interface was slower to work with that then (then) comparable Paintshop Pro and Premiere not only really killed my video workflow, but was resource intensive on my machine. Vegas allowed me to work faster and my machine had zero issue previewing a multi-tracked video project in real time. Illustrator and After Effects are admittedly harder to replace (though HitFilm Pro is my shout for an After Effects replacement). The problem is creative people are just that.... artists, painters, videographers etc. They want to create and use the tools they're familiar with and I can understand why. Learning a new interface and workflow process really kills that process. I see it from both sides. For me? I'd never give a subscription service the money and as long as my purchased versions of Vegas and Paintshop Pro and fit for purpose I'll refrain from paying almost £50 a month. I'm techie enough to work around the need for a subscription. As for the arts community that Adobe are bending over a barrel - they have my sympathise
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
