Yes I tried it, and it is pretty good, but then the connection between programs is what’s keeping me with Adobe, nobody else offers that.
Tons of apps read PSD; the problem is that not doing that perfectly. Yep, being hobbyist has advantages as you cannot say to an agency that sorry, my app reads only half of your stuff:)
As you say: The system mismatch in the case of USB is utterly trivial in comparision. Both Adobe and Autodesk have established highly useful collaboration features in their software suites. Customers who decide to let rental contracts run out loose access to all nested / interwoven / losslessly constructed / parametric files. The only realistic and fair way to deal with customers I can see is giving them a permanent license after having payed a rental sum which equals the pricing of the former Suite > as the thread opener suggests.
This would be ideal, but I don’t think is going to happen any time soon, unfortunately.
I would not say ideal. It would not even be a tiny bit better than plain fair.
A great chance to start working for a friendlier company :o).
I really don’t get it. If you wanna get a full copy after paying, then you want to get a loan from Adobe which is not a bank.
The point is in cheap cloud services to have a predictable income for the developer and keeping pirated products lower. From user side you get a very cheap entry to great products, the latest versions, tons of additional services, etc.
I don’t think for a moment that Adobe is unfair with CC pricing, AD is a different kind of animal as Max pricing is like 20 times more than PS pricing. Different league.
First of all nobody had asked Adobe to establish the new licensing model.
CC apart from optional Server based data storage is no Cloud Service –they had no infrastructure based reason to start with SAAS. Second there’s no loan, not even in theory. People only may keep what they previously payed for.
‘First of all nobody had asked Adobe to establish the new licensing model.’
I think Adobe has the right to decide on their licensing options, also I personally wanted options like this (kind of software rental) and I know many people who shared this wish.
‘Second there’s no loan, not even in theory. People only may keep what they previously payed for.’
People never paid for keeping it. They paid for kind of renting it.
They wanna profit from their work just like everyone else.
It’s centuries old model - master & slave. Via humanistic approach. Nothing new. Also, inflation/inertia is inevitable… it can never really be owned. Though through use, practice and statistics, a model could be devised that would award those who make profound works, obvious impact on the collective, good advertising… basically spread the word & expand the member base most, pay less or even get a lifetime free membership. Believe, strive and work for happiness, luck!
Again, nothing new.
There’s always another (selfie) way to look at it: “S(t)uck on me, until you die.”
Ohhhh, dear Unkle: “I’m flossing.” 
If you love… set it free, open… unreal.
I have good experiences of Adobe customer support. In both times I had very bad problems where I could not open any of the software because of some error and he really did tell me to what file I should go in m file system to edit and how. And everything started working again. I could not ever fix that by just trying to google some ideas of how to fix it. (I really did and found nothing)
This CC is not going to be very long. They already have on very strong software competitor that is getting every day stronger. Sooner or later is Adobe forced to change their licensing system back to what it was before or make it cheaper. https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/
I installed Fuse CC. Here’s a test render in blender cycles 400 samples.
I made this in 15 min. Mostly playing with the different setting. Great for a quick visualization and even production render, depending on the style the client wants. But yeah. It’s Poser.
It exports an obj file with half 4k textures (spec, norm, diff, alpha, gloss)
I don’t know what’s the difference with gloss and specular in cycles?!
But Substance live did it.
… though I don’t see any reason for adobe to do this, after all, everyone is so happy paying 240$ per year so… yeah
Only way it’s going to change is if some other company over takes adobe in at least Photo and video editing
which isn’t going to happen anytime soon
@Bigbad
the difference is that one goes into roughness[gloss](invert it first)
and the other goes into the colour of the glossy shader(spec)
Well, that and he was paid by a studio to develop the initial version, then got investment to spin off a company to market it, and then the community later bought the right to have it released under the GPL for €100K. A lot of profit motive in that origin. 
Actually, no. Krita is on-par or better than Photoshop purely for painting. When it comes to other tasks, Photoshop is hands down the winner. Audition is better than Audacity and Illustrator better than Inkscape for professionals as they are more powerful, have better support, and in general are more reliable.
For some people, cost is all that counts because their time is valued at “free” (hobbyist or student) and/or because they are ideologically inclined to “free software” solutions. When it comes down to feature though, the line is far from blurred - the professional offerings are better.
Not picking on you in particular, Cyaoeu, I just cannot stand the “is it really better” question constantly coming up as if the world’s professionals are all a bunch of idiots and simply need to be shown the light. There is a reason they choose the more expensive option, and it’s not because they like paying money to international corporations.
If you use Adobe for work the CC price point can be an attractive part.
But lets see it from a different view point.
Adobe bought Macromedia.
Then Illustrator at one point finally to some tools Freehand was so known for
such as artboards and better pen tools.
But then Illustrator lacks certain typygraphy tools so you need to use InDesign.
Freehand was a straight competitor to InDesign for productions with smaller pages.
Photoshop till today has pathetic pen / path tools. Photohop has not changed since
nearly 10 years. It still offers not the same smart way dealing with non destructive
tasks like Photoline or Affinity Photo.
For me this comes down to one thing: You rent the software and you pay for continuous development.
You do not own the software and where does Adobe really innovate when it comes to software?
You basically rent a multiple times re-branded old fart sold as a new cake.
Yeah we have no 3D models in Photoshop.
What about a smart file format like Affinity does so that Photoshop and Illustrator can have
the same file they save into and same path tools?
And Adobe has a defacto Monopol after they killed Macromedia guys.
Corel Draw and such never made it that far.
Everybody uses Adobe so everybody will also use Adobe that is a Monopol
Ever heard anybody scream: I LOVE MICROSOFT WORD it is so GREAT! ?
I never yet everybody uses it.
Adobe brought us a lot of good thins, PDF, all Adobe apps use the some color management engine!!!
But truth is that you pay for old stuff and you dont own it.
FWIW, I have met people that love Microsoft Office (including Word) and are happy to say so.
Call me weird I actually do it’s so much easier to work with than the competition…I have tried Open Office a couple of times and honestly it feels like MS Office 2003 even the interface hacks back to that era.
My feeling with subscription is that business software; CAD,Office suites, Accounting, video editing etc is all going to move towards a subscription model perpetual license are going to die out in 5 to 10 years.
the main problem is missing serious competition and wrong business models of the competition.
Affinity is not available on windows but has good tutorials available.
Photoline has no serious tutorials out there and has a lot of missing features which are crucial for 3d Artists (no alpha channel editing etc)
Corel PaintShop Pro X … no tutorials, missing features.
Photoshop is and will still be necessary for 3D artists until someone starts to create a clone catered to the needs of 3DArtists.
Especially the layer system of Photoshop is crucial, if any developer is able to mimic that so PSDs can be correctly opened and saved, you will have my support.
‘Freehand was a straight competitor to InDesign for productions with smaller pages.’
Adobe was competing with Corel and Aldus from the ‘start’. Aldus had Freehand, also PageMaker.
Corel had Coreldraw. In that times the industrial Standard was QuarkXpress for DTP, PageMaker was a ‘small business’ alternative and lost the battle against Quark.
Adobe bought both PageMaker and Freehand finally (FreeHand had a longer story with Macromedia and Altsys involved).
‘Photoshop till today has pathetic pen / path tools.’
Completely agree.
‘Photohop has not changed since nearly 10 years. It still offers not the same smart way dealing with non destructive
tasks like Photoline or Affinity Photo.’
It has changed, it had some little innovation (more like polishing), but it is true: no ‘big’ innovation happened except of 3d and I agree, I would like to get more from the industry leader, too.
‘For me this comes down to one thing: You rent the software and you pay for continuous development.’
You rent a software in its actual state. That is all.
‘You basically rent a multiple times re-branded old fart sold as a new cake.’
You don’t have to do that. It could be seen in that way: is there any alternatives as a complete package with better pricing on the market?
The answer is no.
And Adobe has a defacto Monopol after they killed Macromedia guys.
Business goes that way: you buy out, you try to be better than the competitors, etc. That is natural human behavuour.
Corel Draw and such never made it that far.
Corel never was in the position of Adobe; always lost battle over Adobe.
Everybody uses Adobe so everybody will also use Adobe that is a Monopol
Ever heard anybody scream: I LOVE MICROSOFT WORD it is so GREAT! ?
I never yet everybody uses it.
See it in a different way: it is far better than what other tools could show. They are not even used at all.
But truth is that you pay for old stuff and you dont own it.[/QUOTE]
So what? I mean yes, you are right, but why is it a problem at all? You almost never owned commercial apps, just owned perpetual usage rights.
You don’t have to pay for it if you don’t want; if you need it, you could get it for 12 USD (PS). God, I wish AD would have these kind of pricing on Max. For business users it is very affordable, for hobby users there is no need for CC products at all.