ADOBE is on the run, failed at subscribtion

[StoneNYC]

I just think they should still be offering both options to give everyone a chance to make their own decision...

[StoneNYC]

My problem is that where I live, it would take a month to download it.

Have you contacted Adobe to ask them about this particular kind of issue? It's possible that they have some kind of special situation set up for people that live in your kind of area where Internet access is not available, or limited?

[Greg Miller]

If CS6 is working for you, then who cares what Adobe does with CC? You can just ignore it, and use CS6 for the rest of your life.

If this new payment model is totally abhorrent to you—even though it saves you money—then you could switch to a competing product.

Yes, I am quite aware of my options. I was simply pointing out the reasons why I don't think the $10/month rental option is a "pretty good deal".

[dave_whatever]

Let's face it for what it is, the CC model is adobe's attempt to remove from photoshop the title of "probably the second most pirated piece of software ever", probably only second behind Windows XP. Photoshop has long been seen as the one piece of software that everyone must have, despite 90% of its capacity being more or less redundant to most users. I can,t imaging anyone who doesn't make money from their photography getting value from Photoshop, not at the $999 price point. Lightroom or Aperture is available for a lot less money which cover most people's needs better than any version of Photoshop, and allows handling a large library of files easier (and the same basic workflow/handling for scanned images and digital), and open source freeware like GIMP increasingly able to fill the gaps. So with photoshop widely pirated (mainly due to its enormous price tag) Adobe needed to do something to continue to make some money, they'd rather take a fee quid each month than nothing. And by making it look like a cheaper option as nobody is paying up front, they'll probably kill off a lot of the perceived need for pirated copies.

[Jac@stafford.net]

My problem is that where I live, it would take a month to download it.

Could it be worse than my 4.9Mb/s ? Sometimes it is slower.
.

[Greg Miller]

Could it be worse than my 4.9Mb/s ? Sometimes it is slower.
.

Sounds like you have DSL or low end cable. DSL speeds of 3 Mbps or less is very common. The few folks still using dial-up suffer with 54 Kbps.

[StoneNYC]

Sounds like you have DSL or low end cable. DSL speeds of 3 Mbps or less is very common. The few folks still using dial-up suffer with 54 Kbps.

Could be worse than that... When I got an UPGRADE to 28.8kbps back in the day I was CRUISING! Haha

[Jac@stafford.net]

Sounds like you have DSL or low end cable. DSL speeds of 3 Mbps or less is very common. The few folks still using dial-up suffer with 54 Kbps.

My sympathies to the 54 Kb/ps folks. Been there long ago.

My internet provider chokes our speed. We have to pay a lot to get more in increments up to 100Mbps. (Gigabit speeds are crazy expensive.) Only a few commercial enterprises buy it. We have two different providers in town, but they don't compete. Same-same all the way.

Europe is so far ahead of the USA. A real shame.
.

[CantikFotos]

Could it be worse than my 4.9Mb/s ? Sometimes it is slower.
.

How's 1.3 on a good day when it's not down completely?

[Jac@stafford.net]

How's 1.3 on a good day when it's not down completely?

That is so bad. I am guessing that your particular island is strictly satellite fed. On the other hand, perhaps it is a beautiful place to live in the real world.