Adobe Plans To Make Photoshop on the Web Free To Everyone (theverge.com) 119
Adobe has started testing a free-to-use version of Photoshop on the web and plans to open the service up to everyone as a way to introduce more users to the app. From a report: The company is now testing the free version in Canada, where users are able to access Photoshop on the web through a free Adobe account. Adobe describes the service as "freemium" and eventually plans to gate off some features that will be exclusive to paying subscribers. Enough tools will be freely available to perform what Adobe considers to be Photoshop's core functions. "We want to make [Photoshop] more accessible and easier for more people to try it out and experience the product," says Maria Yap, Adobe's VP of digital imaging.
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
"We want to make [Photoshop] more accessible and easier for more people to try it out and experience the product,"
Corrected that for them... "We've lost a lot of revenue since we went to this ridiculous subscription model that all of our customers hate. So we need to make a lower end version to attempt to get some of the people who bailed on us to spend money again."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and Photoshop is awful to use.
Plus it hasn't really had any real updates in fifteen years so why pay a yearly subscription?
(I'm still using CS2 - the version they gave away for free for a while)
Re: (Score:2)
That, and Photoshop is awful to use.
Plus it hasn't really had any real updates in fifteen years so why pay a yearly subscription?
(I'm still using CS2 - the version they gave away for free for a while)
I've used photoshop since it was just Photoshop. I can imagine someone stepping into the CC world would have a hard time. But really, a huge amount has changed since CS2. I had to go to the subscription model after CS 4 for a lot of reasons. But if CS2 handles everything you need, there is zero reasons to update.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup, I jumped ship from Adobe when they went to the rental only model.
Affinity Photo has really come to maturity fast. It has new from ground up engine behind it and often is MUCH faster than PS.
It is a bit of a PITA from time to time, having to figure out the 'different' way to do the same stuff I did in PS, but with a little effort, I've yet to be stumped.
The Affinity Designer and Publisher apps are amazing...I bought years ago, and still getting free updates.
For video, I use a combo of FCPX but also Davinci Resolve which is an amazing amount of horsepower for video editing, color grading, sound and special effects all for free in one package...wow.
If adobe would offer Photoshop again as a licensed version, I'd get that to put in my arsenal of tools.
Oh, I can't forget moving to Capture One in place of Lightroom.
It's a bit more clunky for cataloging, but OH the color and other adjustments you can do in C1...blows LR out of the water.
I played with One1 RAW a bit too....great features, but I think the RAW engine in C1 is better and even on a high end computer it runs slow...
I just prefer NOT to rent my software, I'll happily pay to upgrade when there is something worthwhile to upgrade for, but otherwise...no rental.
Adobe is no longer the ONLY player in town, they now have SERIOUS competition.
Re: (Score:2)
> Adobe is no longer the ONLY player in town, they now have SERIOUS competition.
who are the others ? for science !
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
I take it you didn't read my whole post? I listed many of them out.
Affinity Photo [serif.com]
Affinity Designer [serif.com]
Affinity Publisher [serif.com]
Davinci Resolve (plus other integrated tools) [blackmagicdesign.com]
Capture One [captureone.com]
On1 RAW [on1.com]
And some of these, offer a CHOICE of a subscription model, or license model.
Why can't Adobe offer that same choice?
These are ALL serious alternatives to Adobe's suite of tools.
Adobe had a lock on it all once upon a time, but that time is no longer...and they might want to consider adding back the license model to their subscription offering, if they don't want to lose business...which apparently is happening, or at the very least...they may have captured their old users, but are not attracting as many new creators as they'd like...?
Re: (Score:3)
I definitely second the recommendation for the Affinity line. Its UI is close enough to Photoshop that it doesn't require a complete relearn, like one would have to do with the GIMP (nothing wrong with the GIMP, but a lot of people are used to Photoshop's way of doing things.)
The hard part is finding a Lightroom replacement. Capture One looks interesting, but in general, I've not been impressed with what is offered.
As for Acrobat, I've found that it is still the best game in town. I've had to fill out fo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
(nothing wrong with the GIMP, but a lot of people are used to Photoshop's way of doing things.)
Yes, people are used to things being organized into logical submenus...
...rather than being organized into illogical ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you didn't read my whole post? I listed many of them out.
Affinity Photo [serif.com]
Affinity Designer [serif.com]
Affinity Publisher [serif.com]
Davinci Resolve (plus other integrated tools) [blackmagicdesign.com]
Capture One [captureone.com]
On1 RAW [on1.com]
And some of these, offer a CHOICE of a subscription model, or license model.
Why can't Adobe offer that same choice?
These are ALL serious alternatives to Adobe's suite of tools.
Adobe had a lock on it all once upon a time, but that time is no longer...and they might want to consider adding back the license model to their subscription offering, if they don't want to lose business...which apparently is happening, or at the very least...they may have captured their old users, but are not attracting as many new creators as they'd like...?
Tried a few, but I need stuff they don't offer, and I need the suite as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Like what for instance?
I'd like to see if I could help...so far, I've found nothing I needed to do in PS that I couldn't do in AP, and I've done some pretty hairy compositing in my day....
Re: (Score:2)
I am yet to find a single feature that Adobe has that doesn't have a good alternative for, what is it you have found that no one else has?
Large scale animated gifs and cinemagraphs with all of Photoshops adjustments. The massive overlay ability, and the seamless actions, and the plugin inventory. Can you point me to the programs that do everything Photoshop does? As an expert, you can lead me to a better alternative, glad you chimed in, because there are few experts in everything that photoshop does, and I considere it a stroke of luck that you are here. I don't know everything that Photoshop does, so pleased to meet someone who does.
Even
Re: (Score:2)
If adobe would offer Photoshop again as a licensed version, I'd get that to put in my arsenal of tools.
I am also a happy user of all the Affinity products, for a couple of years now. It's such good value for money that I even purchased Publisher from them, although I have not used it even once.
I would have agreed with you, maybe 2 years ago. Now if they want me to look into Adobe products again, they better be priced similar to Affinity products. Unless Affinity drops the ball in a big way, Adobe is not getting a single cent from me anytime soon. Or like I said, Adobe better price it's products better.
I am n
still using PS5.... (Score:2)
Sadly Affinity lost out on my machine because I couldn't do anything without them taking 270 seconds on each start to detail all my fonts -- the slowest of anything else had been the 12 seconds firefox needed. When I reported the problem, I was told to change the way I did everything and get a font manager.
Ever since Win7 came out I had no problem with my few thousand fonts and font managers became a thing of the past.
They brushed off my comments, saying the number of fonts was my problem. If they just in
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little lost here...what does Firefox have to do with Affinity Photo?
When was the last time you tried AP? They have frequent updates, and one of the last ones, I believe, was a major engine upgrade...
Re: (Score:2)
They both index and load all the fonts each time they start. Last I checked AP did it more slowly than any other product that loaded the fonts (except linux's fontconfig, but I was only comparing against windows products).
I haven't tried a recent version as I didn't get the impression they were putting much work into improving it.
I don't feel like continuing to beat my head against a wall when their response to the problem was to try or add another product (font manager) that nothing else needed.
Re: (Score:1)
Another victim of corporate greed. Before Adobe started this whole CC bullshit, they were the king.
They say Microsoft getting piles of money with Office 360 and wanted in on the game. The thing is, Adobe isn't Microsoft.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
But in the case of Office 365, what you're really paying for is the 5 TBs of OneDrive cloud storage for the five users you're allowed to share the subscription with. The Office suite itself is nothing more than the cherry on top of the OneDrive sundae. The subscription cost is $100 a year which makes it about $8.33 a month which is an absolute bargain considering that most online cloud storage providers are a hell of a lot more expensive and don't give you nearly the same amount of storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would certainly they prefer to have the option of persistent than subscription but for some places like my company we have been very happy with the subscription model.
Programs are always up to date and we can work off multiple machines (2 active at any time, its easy to "turn off" one machine as needed, so I can use Adobe on my work PC, laptop and Home PC at any time).
Also when someone leaves the company we can just turn off the license and not worry about what machine it was installed to, pulling the cod
Re: (Score:2)
Corrected that for them... "We've lost a lot of revenue since we went to this ridiculous subscription model that all of our customers hate. So we need to make a lower end version to attempt to get some of the people who bailed on us to spend money again."
Plus there's now a dozen browser-based image editors for people to choose from without paying ridiculous money to Adobe.
And there's things like Krita.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, and I'm certain a web-only free version of Photoshop, would not ever force you to upload your photos to some repository that would instantly grant Adobe some kind of rights to market, advertise, or sell your works in exchange for Photo-mmmm-donut...
(A few million people) "He's joking though...right? I mean it can't REALLY say that in the EULA...can it?"
*scrambles to find EULA*
I bet they bailed to competitors (Score:5, Insightful)
Adobe lives because of the extra work and cost it takes to interoperate between different systems. Linus Tech Tips had a video a while back where he went a week or two w/o adobe software and while the alternatives were fine the extra work from making them behave together (and the extra money spent on the man hours doing that) was just a little less than what he was paying Adobe per year (almost by design...).
But in countries where labor's cheaper that doesn't happen. And if they get a foothold there Adobe could go into a death spiral when they're no longer the standard.
Re:I bet they bailed to competitors (Score:5, Interesting)
GIMP is pretty feature rich
GIMP is used by precisely no one doing serious work. There are other alternatives, but GIMP's poor colour management, lack of CMYK workflows, lack of easy to use multi-bitdepth editing (they finally included 16bit support over a decade late at a time where other tools started natively handling 32bit HDR files), all makes it a non-starter for anyone but a home user.
Re: I bet they bailed to competitors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GIMP is used by precisely no one doing serious work. There are other alternatives, but GIMP's poor colour management, lack of CMYK workflows, lack of easy to use multi-bitdepth editing (they finally included 16bit support over a decade late at a time where other tools started natively handling 32bit HDR files), all makes it a non-starter for anyone but a home user.
A pretty sweeping statement. What makes you think home users don't do serious work? CMYK is not a problem unless you're going to print your work on dead trees.
Re: (Score:2)
A pretty sweeping statement. What makes you think home users don't do serious work?
Definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GIMP isn't used by anyone doing casual work either, because they have all moved to working on tablets now. Tablets are relatively cheap and integrate both a stylus and screen that you can draw on directly, the kind of thing that used to cost a small fortune.
Adobe was late to that space and is now struggling against competitors who offer very good products at much lower prices.
Re: (Score:1)
GIMP is pretty feature rich
GIMP is used by precisely no one doing serious work. There are other alternatives, but GIMP's poor colour management, lack of CMYK workflows, lack of easy to use multi-bitdepth editing (they finally included 16bit support over a decade late at a time where other tools started natively handling 32bit HDR files), all makes it a non-starter for anyone but a home user.
Talk about exaggerated statements.
I'm a game developer, illustrator and I have a degree in graphic design. I use GIMP pretty much every day and there are scripts and plugins that only GIMP has.
Also, during college (years ago) I used GIMP as a replacement for PS to do all my college work (again, GRAPHIC DESIGN). I printed all my jobs with no major problems, every print job requires adjustments in one way or another.
I also used Gimp to teach digital painting at a local art school for several years (but eventu
Re: (Score:2)
I used photoshop briefly in college, but have been using GIMP ever since. I'm well aware that its limitations, but none of things you mention are obstacles to me getting serious work done.
Is there some reason that I should pay money for photoshop? What would it give me that I couldn't do in Gimp, that I would need to do?
So that's a good point (Score:3)
A huge part of what makes Photoshop what it is is that they have a ton of patents. Those patents go back to the early 2000s and cover things that are basically essential for image manipulation. Patents are good for 20 years and as they expire gimp implements t
Re: (Score:2)
I used to love Aldus Photostyler back in the day. Fuck Adobe for buying them out and killing it. I'll never give Adobe a penny for Photoshop.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
"We want to make [Photoshop] more accessible and easier for more people to try it out and experience the product,"
Corrected that for them... "We've lost a lot of revenue since we went to this ridiculous subscription model that all of our customers hate. So we need to make a lower end version to attempt to get some of the people who bailed on us to spend money again."
No - and yet this gets modded as Insightful? - does ANYONE do research these days?
Not even going to bother to point you at the bullshit you wrote that got modded up - DYOR.
The subscription model actually helped many people to afford to be able to use the software.
Photoshop CS6 was $1000.
The current subscription model gives you 4 years of use for that price - so sure, it's like a perpetual fee, like a mobile phone contract.
Are there downsides? Sure there are, I personally think it sucks, but I can afford to lay down $1000 on software - many can't.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow...you overpaid back then even.
But let's grant you it was $$$ then.
You can get an license for Affinity Photo now, when on sale twice a year for about $35 I think it was.
I bought mine at least 5-7 years ago....and have still been getting updates. They were also the first that had FULL power app on the iPad..and even now I think their engine on iPad has more functionality and speed that the PS offering.
No...there are viable competitors for PRO work now, Adobe doesn't hold the crown alone now and I think competition is going to start to hit them.
I think this web offering deal is the first sign that Adobe sees trouble ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get an license for Affinity Photo now, when on sale twice a year for about $35 I think it was.
I bought mine at least 5-7 years ago....and have still been getting updates. They were also the first that had FULL power app on the iPad..and even now I think their engine on iPad has more functionality and speed that the PS offering.
No...there are viable competitors for PRO work now, Adobe doesn't hold the crown alone now and I think competition is going to start to hit them.
I think this web offering deal is the first sign that Adobe sees trouble ahead.
Yeah, I have Affinity Photo - plus Designer - great products, but I'm struggling with decades of finger memory - and really, that's how big software keeps on going, it's a PITA to switch.
I know Photoshop for what I need it for, like the back of my hand - with Affinity, it's having to relearn everything.
And I'll fess up, although I _can_ afford Adobe software, I've always had it bought for me by the company I work for - which is yet another business model win for Adobe, much like Microsoft word - to the poin
Re: (Score:2)
What does overpaid even mean here? $1000 is the annual cost of transit or parking pretty easily, and of course the number is much bigger if you factor in the cost of running a vehicle even if you work in some suburban parking wonderland. Production tools which make money cost money.
$1000 is only overpaying if you're some non-revenue hobbyist. Employed professionals wouldn't pay a dime out of pocket for this and most freelancers wouldn't even hesitate considering it means more or less guaranteed compatibi
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a business and you want a predictable $20/month/head expense, but don't want to deal with begging senior manglement for a $600/head/every-5-or-6-years-when-you-need-to-do-something-the-old-version-doesnt budget, there's a business case for SaaS, but almost never for personal use.
Businesses are their primary customers while Education gets special pricing. The tiny niche of home users that were willing to spend hundreds of dollars on photo or video editing software were never really their market anyway, they don't care about those people and so now those people are served by alternatives like Affinity. Which is a great thing! We see competition in the space and the customers that the incumbent didn't previously care about are catered to by a company that does care about them. Everybo
Re: (Score:2)
If you're a business and you want a predictable $20/month/head expense, but don't want to deal with begging senior manglement for a $600/head/every-5-or-6-years-when-you-need-to-do-something-the-old-version-doesnt budget, there's a business case for SaaS, but almost never for personal use.
Businesses are their primary customers while Education gets special pricing. The tiny niche of home users that were willing to spend hundreds of dollars on photo or video editing software were never really their market anyway, they don't care about those people and so now those people are served by alternatives like Affinity. Which is a great thing! We see competition in the space and the customers that the incumbent didn't previously care about are catered to by a company that does care about them. Everybody wins out of this.
What you said - the biggest sales of Adobe software are driven by business.
However, Affinity is gaining ground - slowly, but surely.
Plenty of freelancers are using it - it's a total pain for many to switch, but the cost savings add up.
Re: Correction (Score:2)
Yeah, too expensive. I don't have heavy needs so I switched to GIMP and Affinity Photo.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Informative)
We've lost a lot of revenue since we went to this ridiculous subscription model...
Since Adobe (ADBE) is a public company, you can fact check this kind of claim. Show me in the chart where they've "lost a lot of revenue"...
ADBE Annual Revenue
Pre-2010 Max: $3.58B (2008)
2010: $3.80B
2011: $4.22B
2012: $4.40B (first real year of Creative Cloud)
2013: $4.06B
2014: $4.15B
2015: $4.80B
2016: $5.85B
2017: $7.30B
2018: $9.03B
2019: $11.17B
2020: $12.87B
2021: $15.78B
Additionally, Net Income is also up significantly from $774.67M in 2010 to $4.822B in 2021. You don't have to like Adobe, but it's very clear why they moved to a subscription model and it's very clear it's paid off for them quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, $3.80B from 2010 would be worth $5.09B in 2021. So, they tripled their revenue, when adjusted for inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
2012-2016 being stagnant is fairly damning. Suggests strongly that there was major resistance to the sub model. 4 years using the old packaged versions is a typical innings for a company. After 4 years it starts to become too much work to deal with the little hassles from using old, unmaintained software and I'd guess that's why it starts to creep slowly upwards. But this is them making more money off fewer customers, and just ask Microsoft how "long term" arm twisting is for a business strategy. 'member wh
Re: (Score:2)
Then why has their revenue nearly quadrupled? More arm twisting.
That's a pretty hilarious statement when there are so many others talking about the viability of the alternative offerings from Affinity, GIMP, BlackMagic, etc... What is it that Adobe's apps can do that the alternatives can't?
People who HAVE to use certain software woke up one morning and found out they would have to sub up before the year is out.
You actually think there is a sizable market that HAVE to use Photoshop yet at the same time it doesn't matter if it's a 4+ year old version of Photoshop?
This was a sudden infusion of enormous numbers of customers.
Yeah, all of a sudden you didn't have to shell out $699 [prodesigntools.com] for the software (or $1299 if you wanted the entry-level CS suite) so it ma
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how much of that is the subscription model and how much is the expanding market.
Between 2010 and today we have seen a lot more people becoming "creators", e.g. YouTubers or doing art on a tablet with a stylus. That has been driven by advances in technology. In 2010 you need an expensive camera to take 1080p video, and an expensive computer to edit it, and then it would take very long time to upload. Today even low end smartphones can do that, with mid range ones offering fairly decent 4k. Same with
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much of that is the subscription model and how much is the expanding market.
My opinion is the two are inexorably tied together. The department I used to work for attended Adobe MAX annually going back to when it was Macromedia MAX. Over and over and over again, year after year, Adobe preached that the future was creativity. Every keynote. Every general session. Every presenter. Every year. And, to their credit, Adobe bet on that future of creativity and won. Without *that* bet at *that* point in time, there is likely far more competition and a deeply eroded market share. As a bonus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We want to make [Photoshop] more accessible and easier for more people to try it out and experience the product,"
Corrected that for them... "We've lost a lot of revenue since we went to this ridiculous subscription model that all of our customers hate. So we need to make a lower end version to attempt to get some of the people who bailed on us to spend money again."
Boy howdy. I have to use Photoshop, and need the whole creative suite.
But if I were to give my honest opinion - Cover the wimminfolk and the little ones ears!
I seriously hate those motherfucking cocksuckers! Sorry for the family unfriendly text.
The phoning home on every boot. The excruciatingly slow verification process just about every time you open a program. The ridiculous cost.
Yes, the programs are really good. Adobe is just using the excuse that if we're being graped, we should lie back a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why they don't come out with a cheaper version that limits how many hours you can use the software, with the idea that some small time hobbyist or occasional user wasn't generating meaningful revenue from it.
I'd pay $100 a year if I got 100 hours per year of use out of the software. As it stands, it's just a little too expensive to justify $660 a year for the whole suite. Considering many pros are in CS apps 2000+ hours a year, $1 an hour seems like a reasonable compromise for hobbyists who have
give not take (Score:2)
Apparently no one at adobe noticed the backlash against autodesk when they started taking features out of the free version of fusion 360. Would it not be wiser to start with a limited set of features then add them later free or not?
Amazing
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like they are going for the 'first hit is free' business model, with some vague promise of at least some continued access to your work over time to differentiate from a trial.
With respect to how much backlash, they might not care if the backlash comes from the free users you aren't able to monetize anyway, and so long as the backlash doesn't move people onto a competing platform.
Re: (Score:2)
no one at adobe noticed the backlash against autodesk when they started taking features out of the free version of fusion 360
Lol, I'm sure Autodesk's board was wrought with worry over the backlash from the moochers who paid $0.
Re: (Score:2)
the company I work for was having their mechanical engineers rave about fusion up till that point... then later on we renewed the solidworks licenses and I have not heard a whisper about fusion again ... hell freecad comes up more in office talk
shrug
Monetize the user (Score:5, Insightful)
Version "on the web" will let Adobe monetize user data - they will have access to your information, image content and more. So - some revenue stream, and trading product use for privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious whether they have rights to the images edited...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For these users, nothing of value was... gained.
Re: (Score:2)
Version "on the web" will let Adobe monetize user data - they will have access to your information, image content and more. So - some revenue stream, and trading product use for privacy.
Maybe, but I don't really think they have to for this move to make sense.
Photoshop's business is built on people who use it as part of their jobs. Even if it's stupid expensive it's worth it to them if it is actually the best product out there.
The problem is that it's too expensive for people to learn on it, so people are gaining experience lower-priced less-capable alternatives and then even when they go professional they're likely to stick with what they know.
So the main purpose of the web-only version is
It's going to be a tough climb to the top (Score:2)
- https://www.photopea.com/ [photopea.com]
- https://pixlr.com/ [pixlr.com]
A simple google search shows a handful of new options that I haven't seen before.
Adobe will experience fierce competition in this space, no doubt.
Re: (Score:3)
Paint Shop Pro was the one!
(before Corel bought it and ruined it)
Re:It's going to be a tough climb to the top (Score:4, Informative)
PhotoPea is so close to Photoshop that all the same keyboard shortcuts are the same, even in the web interface, and the masking tools all operate the same way. The newest versions of Photoshop have a bunch of AI-based filters that PhotoPea doesn't have, and I've never tried to check how Actions work, but I often use PhotoPea to teach Photoshop to others.
I do nearly all my editing in Capture One, which is analogous to Lightroom. Free options in the digital darkroom space tend to have greater limitations. Last time I checked, RawTherapee and Darktable didn't even process the CR3 files my cameras make. I suspect that serious users of the Adobe suite would be perfectly happy to tell anyone the drawbacks to using the freebie clones as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember using very good free photoshop alternatives before
Yeah great free online ones, just upload your data to them. Nothing suspicious about that, certainly they must just be giving this all away out of the goodness of their hearts.
Pixlr (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: This IS Adobe we're talking about (Score:2)
That's how the demo version of PS worked in late 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
Why funny, that used to be quite common back in the day! Don't remember what apps exactly, but I've definitely had to go around it with screenshots!
Re: (Score:2)
Web Aps Are Against Personal Computers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that. Access to information services has always been considered an important part of home computing.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think many people have a Mainframe they run in their guest room closet so that they can fire up the dummy station terminal in the kitchen to look up a recipe, or the dummy station in the living room to view the TV Guide.
Instead most have a personal computer that does not rely on the mainframe, but certainly can use connectivity to servers to accentuate use case scenarios.
I use the free version at home ... (Score:2)
(Probably preaching to the choir here...)
It's called GIMP [wikipedia.org]. I know many people will say that it's not as capable or easy to use as Photoshop, but (so far) it does everything I need, and I found the help I needed on line, for my occasional uses -- bonus, it's a free, locally installed app available for Windows and Linux.
Just saying... it a good place to start, for free.
"Free" web version (Score:2)
Retro Play (Score:3)
[looks at Mac Quadra on desk with PS 2.5, connected to 25 pin scsi tabloid scanner]
Back in the day (Score:2)
We just pirated PS till we could afford to pay for it. I remember having to dl 1mb files of Illustrator and PS3 from some ftp server then splice them together lol then put them on 40 floppies and take it to my buddies house
GIMP (Score:3)
GIMP solves your Photoshop problems. I'd be far more interested in a freemium version of Acrobat Pro. As much as I hate PDF, it is currently/still the most secure format for legally binding docs.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at the flagship products from not-Adobe companies? Nitro Pro or Foxit, for example? Nitro is ~$150 as a one time payment, which seems completely reasonable compared to the monthly charge for Acrobat Pro. I've been reselling and supporting it for small law offices for years and it seems to work for their needs.
GIMP is just fine. (Score:1)
As long as you're not locked into Photoshop's proprietary image format (which GIMP still only almost completely supports after all these years) then transitioning to GIMP is relatively painless for anyone without the sophomoric indignation against the slightly different default menu structures, which incidentally have been user-editable for decades. Most the practical arguments against using GIMP these days are stale and frankly lazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Piracy (Score:2)
There was a time everyone had a dodgy copy of Photoshop. It was how they became synonymous with photo editing and kept the competitors at bay. As soon as these people had some real money, or a commercial use, they'd buy it. Best. Marketing. Ever.
No thanks (Score:2)
I already have CS2 for free which still does 99% of what I need, because you dumb fuckers put it up by accident.
But hey, good luck you guys!
Oopsie (Score:2)
Got so focused on extracting money from old users they stopped getting new users.
Isn't this illegal dumping? (Score:2)
Haaa (Score:2)
Content-aware fill? (Score:2)
If I can use that for free then I have use cases where I don't care if Adobe copies my photos and uses them for advertising or whatever. If not then they can blow their free tier out of their back side.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Gimp and "Heal Selection" -- works well and performs the same function.
I've used (an albeit old) Photoshop and use Gimp. I know this will start a 'religious war', but for my use cases they are equivalent - there's noting in PS that Gimp can't do that matters to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I use that occasionally, and it's a lot better than nothing, but it's not as good.
I certainly wouldn't pay to get access to the better tool in this case though.
The word you're looking for is: (Score:2)
Bait and switch.
OK, 3 words.
Bait and Switch (Score:1)
This Adobe thing sounds like a come-on in that they intend to hook users into using the web services and, as they clearly stated, move critical and extended features back behind their subscription paywall. I used to use Photoshop when it was a standalone client, but when they went subscription, I quit using it. I don't use it enough to warrant paying a monthly fee when when I do use it, it's extensive enough that I want all of its abilities at hand without having to pay extra just to access it. In other wor
Re:lol (Score:4, Interesting)
Look we can all hate Adobe for one reason or another but lets not just make stuff up.
The full master suite for CS6 back in "the day" was like $2000+
A business now can get the full master suite for a user for $85 a month or about $1k per year.
And that is inclusive of upgrades and is effectively a multi-seat license.
Fact is Adobe has in fact grown about 4x in revenue since they made the switch, from $4b in 2012 to nearly $16b in 2021
For the individual who has been fine with CS6 for half a decade or longer, probably doesn't make sense. For businesses for which Adobe is a tool that makes them money, overall I think many have been happy.
Re: (Score:2)
The full master suite for CS6 back in "the day" was like $2000+
A business now can get the full master suite for a user for $85 a month or about $1k per year.
It only takes 2 years for the subscription price to get larger than the one-time purchase price with those numbers. I'd argue that very few business truly need to have new features more often than 2 years. For those that do, then a subscription is fine. For everyone else, the subscription is a worse value, and that's not even including the "you can never cancel or else you won't have ANY version if you do" problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Usually a subscription also includes support. For business, leasing is often the better option. It's a fixed cost, and a reduced IT staff
Adobe Support?!? (Score:2)
Usually a subscription also includes support. For business, leasing is often the better option. It's a fixed cost, and a reduced IT staff
Adobe has never had support worth paying for. Back in college, I was the only person in any of my design classes that had a paid copy of Production Studio CS3; literally everybody else used a cracked copy. I still have my DVD sets, actually.
I tried calling Adobe support on more than one occasion, they were invariably useless. It was always better to use third party forum sites to get solutions; even the first party Adobe forums looked like the Microsoft forums today: support reps clearly copy/pasting respon
Re: (Score:2)
Very true but really it's a predictable cost year over year and it's flexible and it saves a lot of IT time. Also now as a business we don't have to worry about the upgrades or not, it's just baked in every time.
It's a calculus to be sure, I am sure there are companies who ditched Adobe when this happened for tools with fixed costs and thats a decision they have to make. Adobe has decided for their business this is best and frankly the market seems to have decided they like it.
I get the feeling a lot of pe
Re: (Score:2)
Subscriptions are always the better value for the shareholders, and face it, those are the only people the company cares about anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
With an enterprise subscription and single sign on enabled a lot of that is automated, or no longer required.
Re: (Score:2)
when you had 100 people charged 10 bucks and now have 2 you charge 2000 thats where your growth is
But that's the opposite of what they have done. Previously they had very few paying users because it was extremely expensive, now the barrier to entry is very low.
stupid hollywood types will pay this cause whatever
No. Hollywood doesn't use AfterEffects, layered compositing is long-deprecated. Node-based compositing, Nuke specifically, is the gold standard nowadays. Seems like you're out of touch.