As the world seems to be moving away from an ownership model in favor of renting, is it time we start asking ourselves what is and isn't acceptable for photographers?
Most of the things we use daily fall into one of two categories: ownership or rental. While both models come with their advantages and disadvantages, many lean towards ownership as it tends to be more clear what can be expected from such a transaction. With rental, you never truly own what you are renting, and as such, the terms can always be changed by the company. In an example of having the worst of both worlds, computer software you own can still often need to "phone home" and be activated on a server to work. The problem with requiring a server for your program to run is that you are at the mercy of the owner of the server for things to always work. This is exactly where users of Adobe's Creative Suite 2, 3, and 4 find themselves, as Adobe has said the activation servers for those particular versions had to be retired. This means users will no longer be able to use a piece of software they originally paid for if they ever have to reinstall it.
Adobe stating that users can no longer reinstall Creative Suite 2, 3 or 4 due to the aging activation servers being retired.
While I appreciate many will say a program that is more than 10 years old has had its day, why should any piece of software that still works suddenly cease to function just because a company no longer wants to run a server? The cynic in me feels like Adobe has no motivation to help this group of users as they have already had their money during the original purchase. There may only be a small group of users holding on to these older versions of Photoshop, but they should still be able to use the program they bought for as long as they want. I have an old laptop with Photoshop CS4 on it, which I very occasionally use when out in the field. This version of the editor is still more than useable for my needs, and it would be a shame to lose it. For those asking why I don't just upgrade that particular computer, my hands are rather tied, as additional hardware and a newer operating system would also need to be installed for the Adobe Suite to work on it. Unfortunately, that machine has already reached its limitations in terms of upgrades. This means if this machine ever needs my version of Photoshop CS4 reinstalled on it, I wouldn't be able to.
So, What Options Are Available for Users of Older Versions of Creative Suite?
If you want to hang onto Creative Suite 2, 3, or 4, the good news is if you already have it working on your machine, you won't have any issues until you need to reinstall it. This means if you decide to wipe your computer, change your operating system, or do a clean install of the software, you will run into trouble as you will no longer be able to access the activation servers that are needed to finish the new installation.
Plan A: Clone Your Drives
The only real option available to ensure your older version of Photoshop will always work is if you clone the drives you currently have in your machine. This procedure is fairly straightforward and the costs are not too excessive. The cloning of drives is not a bad habit to get into anyway, as it gives you another backup of your precious data. By making copies of your drives while they have functioning versions of your Adobe programs, you'll always have the ability to "rewind" back to that point in time and never need to "phone home" to Adobe. For those unfamiliar with the cloning of drives, this video is a great starting point to familiarize yourself with the process.
Plan B: Try Offline Activation
To give Adobe credit, the company has offered offline activation in the past for users who can't access the Internet on a particular machine. By logging into Adobe on a device that can connect to the Internet, you can fill in a form and generate a response code, which will help you finish the installation process. The big question is if Adobe will still give response codes to users of the older Creative Suite 2, 3, or 4 which they have now retired the activation servers for. I have asked this very question twice to Adobe but have yet to receive an answer. I would personally file this option in the long-shot category, as there's no guarantee this approach currently works and even less chance of it working in several years' time.
So, there you have it: the incredibly limited number of options available to you when it comes to keeping your older versions of Photoshop alive. While I obviously am sympathetic to companies who have to consider the costs involved to indefinitely run close to antiquated servers, no paying customer should ever be left with a piece of functioning software they can no longer use. In the case of Adobe, there must be a cost-effective solution that would allow users of older versions of Creative Suite to keep using them indefinitely. During my time researching this issue, I've not been filled with confidence that a solution is available. If there is one, it isn't being communicated or broadcast clearly and understandably on their site or when reaching out to Adobe direct.
While I do appreciate this matter may not affect many of you currently, I think it's important we are all made aware that certain products you buy can potentially stop working if a company decides to flip a switch. Many may think this instance with Adobe is not even worth talking about, but if we let companies get away with certain practices, they are much more likely to continue down similar paths in the future. It doesn't take the greatest leap of imagination to think where all this could go as more and more products are connected to the internet in some way. One example that springs to mind are the possibility of future camera manufacturers designing into their products a reliance on some kind of "activation server" for their cameras to work. Those camera makers could just as easily decide to close those servers when they deem a camera has got too old. This all may seem a little overdramatic, but planned obsolescence is alive and well and isn't going anywhere. We as consumers need to be alert to these changes and push back where necessary.
Are any of you still using Adobe Creative Suite 2, 3, or 4? How do you feel about Adobe's decision to retire activation servers? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.
1) You are correct. Everyone licenses, not owns with software and other things like music, movies, etc. It is in the language of every one I have seen.
2) Try reading for comprehension instead of debate. If one needs to re-install for any reason it is a problem. The original license statements didn't say anything about the software only working on the first computer you installed it on, only the number of concurrent use installations.
I have no problem with my reading comprehension skill. Yes, I was debating. Is there anything wrong with that? Can nobody give any voice or opinion that is different from that of the article writer's? I was having what I think was an honest and healthy debate. But apparently, you choose personal insults and attacks instead of focusing on the substance of the discussion. So, never mind. Be that way. I am done discussing it with you.
I do believe that when older adobe versions cannot be activated - that adobe is in fact not living up to the contract.
Even when it's written into the contract we agreed with - that won't help them. The confidence is broken.
Now matter how old these versions are - it's their moral obligation to keep those alive. Otherwise they should write patches and fix the unavailability of the activation servers - and distribute those fixes. When we paid for our software we're entitled to run it forever.
Ten years ago a friend of mine warned me about Adobe and the fact they're going to screw us. And boy - was he right!
It’s funny how misleading Adobe does by using the “buy now” labelled button when offering a plan when it’s really renting it… is that even legal?
(Here, I am NOT commenting directly about the article. Instead, I am commenting on the general tone I am seeing here.)
I think Adobe's subscription model is great. It is mind-boggling that there is so much hate against Adobe's subscription model. Perhaps many of the haters are too young to remember how much Adobe software cost in the past before the subscription model (SM) or that they have always only used pirated copies.
Let's use Photoshop (PS) as an example. Before the SM, it cost nearly $1000 for a single-seat license. Even if you upgraded from an older version, it would still cost around $700. This high entry barrier was a great hurdle for a lot of users especially if you are just starting out as a freelancer or a small company. This is the reason why PS was one of the most pirated software in the world in the past. People just couldn't afford the legitimate copy.
Let's do the math here, folks. the Photography plan gives you both PS and Lightroom for just $9.99 a month. I bet most of you spend 10X as much on cafe coffee in a month, right? For real! AND, not to mention that, with the SM, you no longer need to pay for expensive upgrade. You always get the latest version upgrade included with the monthly fee.
Now, $9.99 a month is $120 a year. It will take roughly 8 long years' worth of monthly fee of $9.99 to get to the $1000 mark. Remember the old price of PS before the SM? Yes. It was about $1000. So, the cost for you to use a software, which is always up to date, for 8 long years = that $1000 you would have paid up front in one lump sum, and the latter didn't even include any upgrade (remember that upgrading to a newer version wasn't free in the past before the SM, instead, it would cost several hundred dollars). The math is clear. The SM is a great deal.
With the SM, I am seeing a lot more users being able to use a legitimate software, which is always up to date, instead of using pirated ones.
Why the hate?
“ Let's use Photoshop (PS) as an example. Before the SM, it cost nearly $1000 for a single-seat license.”
That’s where the problem began. They began to sell PS at a price 10 times too high, and now people are so brainwashed that they think $10 a month / $120 a year is a great deal! And no, I cannot afford 10 times as much in cafe coffee in a month…
Whether PS worth the money is, of course, a matter of opinion. Honestly, I don't know what the "fair" price should be. BUT, I know that PS is a very capable software. Think about how much PS can do and how well it does those tasks. It's a very advanced and complex piece of software that takes a lot of very talented persons to develop.
I am NOT a "free market" guy, NOT a capitalist, NOT a libertarian. I am a Bernie Sander kinda guy. BUT, in this case though, I think PS truly deserves to be the market leader and as such they can command a high price. Think about it. PS has been around for decades and during these years not a single piece of software has been able to replace PS as the leader, despite its high price. Why? Because it is still the best. Gimp is free,.but few people use it. Why? I heard that Affinity is very good, so then why haven't all the PS users jump ship to this much less costly software?
VALUE IS A FUNNY THING:
I bet many of you who complaint that the $10 a month PS subscription is too expensive would gladly pay $4, $5 (half the price of ONE WHOLE MONTH subscription of PS) for a single cup of Starbuck coffee; or pay $10 (the price of ONE WHOLE MONTH subscription of PS) for a single glass of cheap house wine at a restaurant. But $10 a month for such a capable software is too much???? ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL WHO USES PS TO MAKE MONEY, I think $10 a month for such a capable tool, it's steal, IMO.
You are right. For a professional photographer $10 is very affordable. While speaking of coffee, I may spend more for the instant coffee I use to develop my films…
Caffenol? ;)
Caffenol. Coffee + vitamin C + washing soda.
Exactly. Photoshop was the only viable game in town and again the industry standard so even if you wanted to use a different software you couldn't because every where else was using adobe. They had a virtual monopoly on the industry so adobe did what adobe does best and over charged the hell out of it because they knew people had to pay it.
I wouldn't call it a "virtual monopoly". Photoshop is the market leader. But why is it the market leader? Is it because Adobe is anti-competitive, that they use their huge resources to undercut its competitors, like Walmart does, for example? If so, may you give us some examples of Adobe's anti-competition practice?
Or, it is the market leader because it is a better software that people want to use. There are choices beside Photoshop. There are cheaper or even free Photoshop-alternatives, but why aren't these cheaper or free software taking over the market? Gimp is a great example of Photoshop-alternative. It's free, "made by the people, for the people". Why only so few people use it?
If Photoshop is so over-priced, like you say, why would any person or company uses it when there are cheaper or free alternatives? You may say it's because, it's the "the industry standard' and everybody uses it, so it's a "virtual monopoly", so you haver no choice but have to use it. Well, this circles right back to the original question: Why is it the industry standard to begin with? A mediocre piece of over-priced software wouldn't have become the industry standard when there are alternatives available.
If we want an excellent piece of feature-rich software and if we want the company who makes this software treats its employees well, then we should be willing to pay a reasonable price for it. $10 a month is very reasonable in my book. How much you pay for non-essential items, like soda or beer or chips, movie rentals, for examples, a month?
And if you are a professional who uses Photoshop to produce service/product that you sell, let me ask you this: How much you sell your service/product for? What is your markup? What is reasonable?
Another problem, though, is that it's now harder to steal a copy and use it for free, which is what many got used to doing. And now they're mad.
I dunno man it's pretty dang easy to pirate adobe stuff
.
To the ones who support paying subscriptions on softwares like Adobe, you are not gaining anything. Adobe arrogantly brags about its profits like a proud entitled jerk, and sheeples go along with it without thinking. Adobe Inc. is one of those billion dollar US corporations that keeps getting US Government tax breaks while Republican and Democrat supporters don't mind at all. And meanwhile, a lot of US corporations are not paying taxes and not paying their workers enough, but who cares to those who are willfully uninformed. Hey! Instead of getting Universal Healthcare, maybe we can "rent" healthcare which it is no better than "buying" healthcare. But wait! Are we already still paying high monthly bills for health insurance? Maybe we all can "rent" a pet instead of adopting a pet! 🙄Yes! That would work according to goof-balls!
With all the huge profits Corporate America is sucking from people at a faster rate, it will never create good paying jobs in the US, but it can invest money creating low paying service sector jobs, creating low paying jobs in poorer places for cheap labor, and hiring visa workers to work here for chump change money just to keep the US wages stagnant while sitting on huge profits. Even Corporate America can have US prison workers assemble its products for peanuts! The working class Americans keep declining, but the so-called US Government doesn't care while Republican and Democrat supporters also don't care. With inflation keeps increasing, surely it's not hurting corporations; but it is hurting the common people! Someone on here mentioned about Adobe is misleading people with this "Buy Now" thing for their CC softwares. Adobe has it there on purpose because it knows its consumers are gullible. Corporations, mainly corporate America, know how to play mind games. It is just that a lot of people don't know that they are being played!
First, let's just be known that I am a Bernie Sander and AOC supporter and, like you, I am against corporate welfare and tax evasion, and I fully support universal health care, universal education, etc. BUT:
(1) You say, "To the ones who support paying subscriptions on softwares like Adobe, you are not gaining anything. Adobe arrogantly brags about its profits like a proud entitled jerk, and sheeples go along with it without thinking."
I resent this generalization. I DON'T support all subscription model (SM)/software as a service (SaaS), but I DO support Adobe's, because I think it is very reasonably priced. But, no, I am not a sheeple and I don't say it "without thinking."
(2) You says, "And meanwhile, a lot of US corporations are not paying taxes and not paying their workers enough, but who cares to those who are willfully uninformed."
If their financial statement is to be believed, Adobe's effective tax rate is 17% this year (https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2021/Adobe-Reports-Record-Q4-an...).
I think that it should be higher, but Adobe isn't like Amazon or Facebook or GE or FedEx or Nike, etc, who pay $0 federal income tax. And according to self-reported surveys on Indeed, employees give Adobe a 4.5/5 rating. Their software developers makes about $100K - $200K (https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Adobe/salaries).
(3) I 've got that you don't like Adobe's subscription model. So you'd rather pay for the old fashion one-time license for each version? If so, how much is reasonable for any one of their suite advanced and complex software? $1000? $500? $300? $100? $50? $0? Before you answer, keep this in mind, if they have to pay their WORKERS well while making a return on profit worthy of its investment, how much is reasonable in your opinion?
Adobe has fallen into a pile of trash over the past 8 years. the new version of PS it's self it garbage. I've personally moved on with other software but paying for the Adobe CC is the bane of my existence since I need it for handling legacy clients. FUCK ADOBE
Yep they've fallen to the practice of minimum viable product.