Talk:Adobe Creative Cloud

Criticism section is quite outsized, no?
The "reception/criticism" section encompasses the overwhelming majority of the content in this article. Yeah, I get that some people don't like Creative Cloud model, but its place in this article seems more like score-settling than informative to the reader. I will ignore that the position comes largely from non-professionals who (often fairly) no longer see Adobe software as a good value for them, so I won't argue that the volume of text given to this position not fully relevant to the topic (though that is a perfectly fair argument). But, I will argue that the section contains mostly quibbly and outdated errata almost entirely from 2013. Also, the (many) cited articles appear like a "doth protest too much" situation, and the sources themselves are a bit oversold.

For example, the sentence "This caused an unprecedented loss of trust in Adobe as a company and an attendant rise in anxiety among their customers" is in no way whatsoever supported by the two cited blog posts, which are both perfectly reasonable opinion pieces, but not evidence to support that sweeping claim, nor are either from reputable, widely-read sources in the related industry.

My position is likely obvious, and I won't inject my own opinion into the article, but it seems unfortunate that in the article there is no mention that the move to CC has resulted in major software and feature upgrades at a pace that is unprecedented for all of the software packages in the suite. This is especially impressive for a company with few real competitors and a locked-in (even without a subscription) user base. Also there is no mention that by bundling all the software together (rather than offering it piecemeal), Adobe has more freely developed cross-program functionality since it can be more confidant that its users will have access to all of it.

It seems that, even if the criticism section were reduced, the tone of the article seems to take as accepted the idea that the only benefit or motivation for Adobe to move to this model was financial. Having spoken to many of the people on the product teams, who are no longer tied to strict release cycles and can develop new features faster and without considering the "marketability" of them, I personally know that this is not true, but sadly, I am not a published, citable source. :-D 12.217.88.33 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

sounds biased to me
While I may agree with it, the second paragraph on the page sounds biased to me. 64.203.224.125 (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

David Hobby quote

 * David Hobby, the author of Strobist.com, tweeted: "I like Photoshop; I still use CS3. But I am *not* renting PS for $600/yr. Period. Big winner: Capture One, which now needs a LR clone." 

What is the best way to note that Hobby's statement about the price is inaccurate? The cost to rent Photoshop was never $600/yr (it was 240/yr; the lower-cost Photoshop/Lightroom bundle was made available later)? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of comments
A) Questionable sources

Twitter, Mashable or Digital Photography Review as sources violated the following Wikipedia policies


 * Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable and self-published sources

URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

Extract:

“Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, ...” “These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.”


 * Wikipedia:Verifiability - Sources that are usually not reliable

URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources


 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Handling neutrality disputes

URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

B) Section Reception Comment: "Digital Photography Review wrote that the new license scheme increased fear, uncertainty, doubt, expense and risk. The website suggested that serious photographers reestablish a trusted and "Good Photography Workflow" without monthly payments for the next 10 years.[19]"

Argument: On the "Digital Photography Review" Wikipedia page, this warning is written: "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral."

Therefore, "Digital Photography Review" cannot be considered a reliable and independent reference. See Verifiability.

C) Section Controversies We have deleted the Controversies section entirely because it was out of place. This article is about Adobe Creative Cloud and the content of the section targeted only Adobe Systems (the company). There is a WP page on the company where the content of this criticism seem more appropriate.

Addition of new references
About a dozen new solid and reliable references (ex. The Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, PC Magazine, CNET, ZDNet) has been added to support the statements in the new version of the ACC page.

(Skyheight23 (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)).

Conflict of interest
FYI, it is very likely that Skyheight23 is an undisclosed paid editor. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Sibtain_007. SmartSE (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Potentially Unwanted "free trial"
Adobe Creative Cloud is becoming Potentially Unwanted "free trial" download installation pushed/foisted on all users of basic standard new version of Adobe Reader. Is there an appropriate way to mention this aspect in the article?

And the whole Suite thing is a complex enough tangled mess that a special Cleaner Tool is available from Adobe to try to help with de-installation.-96.233.20.34 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely Unethical & Inappropriate
I'm sorry, but devoting half the page to "criticism" of the pricing model is ridiculous. This is some hit job that permeates all of the Adobe pages that reads as borderline vandalism. Noting the criticism and backlash is fine, but the language such as "the negative reaction across segments of Adobe’s user base was swift," is a sweeping and misleading statement. I'm going to take large swathes of the section out. Please consider what I am taking out before restoring it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.112.226 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello.


 * I read the section, and frankly, I find your message wildly exaggerating; even so, the wildly exaggerated objection here is mellow in comparison to your actual edit: revision 685885313. If you indeed have a genuine concern, I strongly recommend you to tone it down, given the fact that your only other contribution to Wikipedia is the obscene edit you did to Yahoo! GeoCities article.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm with Codename Lisa on this, for the most part. Removal of well-sourced critical content, however vitriolic, is unwarranted. However, original research / synthesis is unwelcome. Please understand that many people: want to be able to buy a good program that will work as advertised forever; strongly dislike unfairly having to pay anyone periodically for the privilege of using such program, even if it is just to experience the product of such program; and strongly dislike unfair proprietary formats for which there is no perpetually free reader/experiencer/interpreter. All formats deserve fair use, including being freely read, experienced, and interpreted.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   04:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a casual Wikipedia user, I came to the page specifically to get information about the controversy and criticism. Though this discussion is from 2015, I made an account primarily to reply here, because the casual user perspective matters. The information in the criticism section is useful. All it needs is a couple more citations. Lactase-lacker (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Adobe Creative Cloud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140713024246/http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/17/some-artists-give-adobe-cloud-switch-critical-review/ to http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/05/17/some-artists-give-adobe-cloud-switch-critical-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I checked the archive link and replaced it with one from 13 June 2013. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Adobe VoCO
I suggest adding a section on Adobe VoCo, maybe even an own article already. There's no release date so far, but it's verifiable and sourcable that it's been announced and publically demonstrated:,, , , ,. While security concerns have been voiced over manipulating human voice recordings, there are already other products getting on the market with the same or similar functionalities, so it seems the genie is already out of the bottle. In any case, as you can see from the BBC link, Adobe and leading voice recognition companies are already saying that the voice patterns required for identification and authentification are vastly different from the ones required for re-creating a voice for entertainment industry purposes. --2003:71:4E6A:B447:C558:4B6D:6E41:1C2F (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References are not aligned with text
The first paragraph of section 2 contains a plethora of reference links within and at the end of each of its two sentences. It is not clear why the in-sentence links have been placed where they have been placed, but if the items they link to do actually have quotes that relate to what is currently written in this paragraph I suggest that maybe those quotes should be included. At the moment it is just messy. Ambiguosity (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Adobe Stock" is mentioned but not referenced further, and supposedly is the difference between two tiers of product, so one expects a link or something, (like four words "..., a stock imagery library."?) 50.37.17.96 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Licensing scheme
Hello

I am writing this because I contested an edit by. (Those of you who are new in Wikipedia should know that per, we Wikipedians contest edits by reverting them.) Jcaron had removed "Software as service" from the licensing field, saying "Creative Cloud is not SaaS, and SaaS is not a licence type either". Let's see how correct it is.

First, "SaaS is not a licence type either". According to the software as a service article: "Software as a service (SaaS; pronounced /sæs/) is a software licensing and delivery model in which software is licensed on a subscription basis and is centrally hosted." So, yes, it is a licensing type. See for what we seek in a license type.

Second, "Creative Cloud is not SaaS": I'd like to turn your attention to what Adobe says at "Why Adobe SaaS". Adobe itself says it is SaaS. And for those of you who are smart enough to ask for a secondary source, please take a look at this Computerworld article: "Adobe-as-a-service: Software vendor bets on cloud".

To sum it up, I think it is very clear that both SaaS is a licensing model and Adobe Creative Cloud is SaaS.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jostens
The final paragraph under Reception > Criticism about Adobe's partnership with Jostens doesn't seem to belong under criticism, nor reception. It seems to be a general fact that should be mentioned elsewhere in the article (if at all). --Benimation (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Adobe Prelude
Adobe Prelude is discontinued. Should be moved from Current to Discontinued. Doremon764 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I love this app 2600:1001:B005:F553:F591:5CAD:6542:971F (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)