CorelDRAW Webinar "What's New for 2020"

[Bobby H]

Corel has a "What's New for 2020" free webinar scheduled for two times next Thursday, March 12. One webinar will be held at 10:00am EDT and the other at 3:00pm EDT. The presenter will be Klaus Vossen, Senior Product Manager of CorelDRAW. Special guest will be Mo Jogie, Design and Strategy Director, Morning Star Design.

The webinar likely means the folks at Corel are going to release the 2020 version of CorelDRAW very soon, maybe the same day of the webinar. FYI, version 2019 was released on March 12 last year.

Registered CorelDRAW users should have received an email invite to the webinar. Anyone who wants to view the webinar will have to register for either of the times. The email note said space is limited.

If they have a Q&A session during the webinar it could be interesting, and maybe not entirely in a good way either.

 

[ProColorGraphics]

Hopefully they fix the Mac versions, because it's terrible! I have never had a program lock up so much!

 

[GAC05]

The email note said space is limited

They can't just break out some extra folding chairs and set them up in the back?

 

[Bobby H]

Breaking out some extra folding chairs and setting them up in the back in this case means installing more servers and getting more bandwidth for the webinar broadcast. I doubt if they're going to do that.

 

[decalman]

Backward me still got x5 .
I got no need for upgrade.
I also got win 7.
Works great.
Win.10 someday.

 

[Jburns]

Backward me still got x5 .
I got no need for upgrade.
I also got win 7.
Works great.
Win.10 someday.

Its not fair that you don't get to share the problems and issues of the newer systems.

 

[Bobby H]

Sticking with X5 is going to have its own hazards, like trying to install it on a brand new PC running the latest version of Windows.

Several years ago I thought X5 was a pretty good, stable version. But then a Windows update (if I remember correctly I think it was a big update to Windows 8.1) totally "broke" X5, which forced an upgrade to X6 -the first version of CorelDRAW to require activation. It's been a slippery slope downhill since. I fear the policy of no more traditional perpetual license upgrades, particularly any setup where users can skip a lame or buggy or just plain bad version, is really going to come back around and do very severe damage to Corel itself. They're likely to see many users leave and adopt rival applications in response, even if those applications represent a serious downgrade.

I suppose if worse came to worse you could create a virtual Windows 7 machine on a partition of a new computer and run X5 that way.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Several years ago I thought X5 was a pretty good, stable version. But then a Windows update (if I remember correctly I think it was a big update to Windows 8.1) totally "broke" X5, which forced an upgrade to X6 -the first version of CorelDRAW to require activation.

A fresh install of X5 actually worked on 8.1, but an upgrade for whatever reason, broke the install on my end. An upgrade to 8.1 also borked the install of Ps CS6 on my mom's computer. Now a fresh install of one of my digitized programs to 8.1 didn't work out, but it did give an error msg to move a specific dll file (and in to what location) and that fixed the install.

I fear the policy of no more traditional perpetual license upgrades, particularly any setup where users can skip a lame or buggy or just plain bad version, is really going to come back around and do very severe damage to Corel itself. They're likely to see many users leave and adopt rival applications in response, even if those applications represent a serious downgrade.

This isn't a Corel specific issue. Any program that has adopted this subscription based approach has this issue. Even Adobe (I'm not saying that they have had buggy versions, I'm just saying that this risk is still there that there could be, Corel just had the unfortunate reality of having a buggy version for both platforms) has this risk, especially when they instituted the no version older then x - 1 (I know the public reason why, that doesn't matter, it's the fact that it exists now, although if they have removed the offending blob of dolby code in these later versions, I don't know why they couldn't just say now, no version older then x, but oh well).

Although, it's not just a buggy version to skip, it's also to skip versions that may have deprecated and removed functionality that a user may want/need. The program itself may not be buggy, just lost functionality that a user may need, but now forced to upgrade.

I suppose if worse came to worse you could create a virtual Windows 7 machine on a partition of a new computer and run X5 that way.

A properly spec-ed out computer for VMing can be just as good as having the OS on bare metal. I can run VMs within VMs and that VM that's within a VM runs damn near parity as if it was on bare metal (even better, but the bar was low for that in some people's mind, even though I never had a problem with it back in the day).

One doesn't want to shirk on the specs of a computer going to be used for VMing. VMing can give you damn near native performance (especially with what VMs are now capable of doing) as long as one gets the appropriate computer for the job. Don't try to just shoot for minimum requirements. VMing more often then not tends to be a worst case scenario if shirking on the specs of the computer. Not all the time, but more often then not it is.

The one downside, especially if VMing to use current and still supported software, is that most software OEMs will not support a program that they are told runs in a VM. Programs developed with not only low level languages, but languages used to target specific platforms are designed specifically to be run on bare metal. Due to that, most vendors won't support a program (even if it's a current version) that's being run in a VM. So if support is a big thing for you and can't/won't do any web searches to find answers/work arounds, stick with bare metal.

 

[Bobby H]

This isn't a Corel specific issue. Any program that has adopted this subscription based approach has this issue.

The downside risks of a subscription-only arrangement are greater with Corel than they are with Adobe. CorelDRAW is the only "tent pole" application Corel has in its collection. Unlike Adobe they have no other major applications to leverage in a subscription system.

And even CorelDRAW itself is not a clear, out in front, industry leader like Photoshop, InDesign or After Effects. Making matters worse, CorelDRAW is caught between competing against Adobe Illustrator on the professional end and also having to compete against far more affordable, non-subscription applications like Affinity Designer, Inkscape, Vectornator, Autodesk Graphic, etc on the consumer/hobbyist end.

The buggy, unstable goof-ups with CorelDRAW 2019, both on Mac and PC platforms, further complicates the situation for Corel. Long time users are being forced to run multiple installations of CorelDRAW, just to have something that works when CDR 2019 crashes or does something else glitchy. Just this morning I had to use CDR 2018 to open and re-save files made in CDR 2019 because when the files were saved using CDR 2019 they refused to open on a coworker's system running CDR 2019. I had even saved the files back to version X8 but CDR 2019 was putting something buggy into the files. Re-saving using CDR 2018 fixed the problem. With all that in mind, I'm a bit nervous about the impending CorelDRAW 2020 release. Will this be an improvement, another step backward or an odd step sideways?

Corel has to get its $#!+ together otherwise they're going to be shedding users. I still think $198 per year is too much to ask for what's being offered. $99 per year (the upgrade protection thing) is more reasonable, but the software has to at least be stable and reliable. Overall I just don't see how Corel is going to attract new users to this. The only thing they're accomplishing is squeezing, angering and testing the loyalty of long time users.

I think Adobe and Autodesk are really the only big creative software companies that can get away with pushing subscription-only systems. I haven't used the Canvas drawing program in a long time, but I still get emails from them. They're going to a subscription-only model too, one that even costs a little more than Corel. My reaction to that was an incredulous WTF. Good luck with that! Given all the vector drawing programs that have come and gone I'm a little surprised Canvas still even exists.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I think Adobe and Autodesk are really the only big creative software companies that can get away with pushing subscription-only systems.

There are actually cases of pushback on Adobe and Autodesk, so while they have industry standard stamped on their stuff, there is still push back.

I know a lot of professional photographers that very much didn't like what Adobe was doing with the photography package subscription fee awhile back. Some people were getting quotes of double the yearly fee then others. It seemed to be randomized as to who saw what. That cause some migration as well. So Adobe does have to watch that.

Now, Autodesk has a similar issue like DRAW, but it's with Maya (and it's stability concerns) and there are a lot of people considering alternatives because of that. Now, that's in the VXF world not signage, so take it for what it's worth, but it can happen anywhere. Subscription model is walking a tight rope. Adobe is doing something else very well that is also in their favor. While I wouldn't consider it innovating in the traditional sense, they are at least expanding their tools by acquiring others. That's helping them go forward. Of course, Adobe did have that lackluster "full blown" Ps iPad app launch, so no one is immune from bad releases. Definitely a tight rope that vendors have to walk with this model. Always have to prove that peoples reoccurring investments are wisely used.

 

[Bobby H]

There are actually cases of pushback on Adobe and Autodesk, so while they have industry standard stamped on their stuff, there is still push back.

Most of the "push back" those companies have received in response to their shift to subscription models is a whole lot of verbal complaints online but very little in the way of action. Adobe certainly hasn't suffered a net loss of users with their switch to the subscription-only model. With rival companies trying to go the subscription route (like Corel) that may do more to help Adobe maintain and to continue to grow its user base. Adobe's stock price has soared since the introduction of Creative Cloud in June of 2013. Some of the biggest gains have come just in the past 12 months. The price per share was around $45 back then, nearly 7 years ago. It peaked at $383 last month and has only faltered somewhat lately due to coronavirus fears. The stock could hit $450 per share before the end of the year.

Corel, BTW, is a privately held company, sold by Vector Capital to KKR last July.

Now, Autodesk has a similar issue like DRAW, but it's with Maya (and it's stability concerns) and there are a lot of people considering alternatives because of that.

Yeah, alternatives like Autodesk Studio 3D Max.

I don't know the situation regarding Maya since I don't use it. Nevertheless Autodesk seems to be the equivalent of Adobe in terms of 3D software for modeling, animation, architecture, engineering and manufacturing. Autodesk's stock price has run a similar but not quite as impressive trend line as Adobe.

Of course, Adobe did have that lackluster "full blown" Ps iPad app launch, so no one is immune from bad releases. Definitely a tight rope that vendors have to walk with this model. Always have to prove that peoples reoccurring investments are wisely used.

I wouldn't call Photoshop for the iPad a "bad release" as much as it is a work in progress. I also believe many trying this "full" version of Ps on the iPad have very unrealistic expectations. The iPad, even a maxed out Pro model, is not a replacement for a real desktop or notebook computer. If anything, I consider full blown Photoshop (and Illustrator) for the iPad about as useful as a second belly button. The best graphics applications on the iPad are the ones having the courage to specialize in a specific area rather than try to cover every base. Procreate is excellent in that regard. Adobe will never be able to get Photoshop and Illustrator working on the iPad the same way those applications work on a Windows PC or Mac because there are too many fundamental differences between how those devices. The iPad keyboards don't even have enough keys to cover all the shortcuts I routinely use. So I'm likely to just keep using Adobe Photoshop Sketch and Illustrator Draw to create hand drawn items and then zap that work over to the desktop computer for more refinement.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Most of the "push back" those companies have received in response to their shift to subscription models is a whole lot of verbal complaints online but very little in the way of action. Adobe certainly hasn't suffered a net loss of users with their switch to the subscription-only model.

This is push back from people that were already on the creative cloud. Your talking about price hikes of double what they were paying and not everyone was seeing that price hike either. This isn't just about the mere fact of them going subscription only.

While there are by far more people belly aching about the mere fact of a subscription only, but yet still paying the fees (which in my mind mitigates the effectiveness of the belly aching, but I digress).

Also, keep in mind, don't they have Adobe Experience? How much does that service bring in as well?

Also considering that there are less products out there that Adobe doesn't have a connection to (at least it really seems that way), it's hard that they aren't getting subscription fees from something.

I wouldn't call Photoshop for the iPad a "bad release" as much as it is a work in progress.

We are really embracing semantics now aren't we?

I also believe many trying this "full" version of Ps on the iPad have very unrealistic expectations. The iPad, even a maxed out Pro model, is not a replacement for a real desktop or notebook computer.

I would say that was in part due to the marketing materials that discussed what the iPad version was going to be capable of doing.

If anything, I consider full blown Photoshop (and Illustrator) for the iPad about as useful as a second belly button. The best graphics applications on the iPad are the ones having the courage to specialize in a specific area rather than try to cover every base. Procreate is excellent in that regard. Adobe will never be able to get Photoshop and Illustrator working on the iPad just like they do on a Windows PC or Mac because there are too many fundamental differences between how those devices work.

Rumor mill has abounded for yrs, but on some things seems different. Now it might start with the more "budget" products (hard using "budget" and Mac in the same sentence), but depending on the promises there, they may shift lines as well. It all depends. This would, in my mind, fit with other behaviors that seem to be exhibit as of recently, but that's speculation solely on my part, so I'll leave that be.

There is definitely a move to distance with 3rd party supplies, I don't expect (nor do I think a lot of people as well do) that they will do the mid to high end Macs in the near time (which wouldn't affect us in the near term). Unless gains are just very quickly realized (and I mean very quickly realized), but I could definitely see that as an end game. Considering also that Intel hasn't really brought anything new and flashy to the table in awhile, it's going to be harder. And I would say Apple would be in the best position to do something like this as (at least as of how I'm seeing things right now).

 

[Bobby H]

This is push back from people that were already on the creative cloud. Your talking about price hikes of double what they were paying and not everyone was seeing that price hike either. This isn't just about the mere fact of them going subscription only.

I've seen one price hike from $49.99 to $53.99. What is this "price hikes of double" claim about?

We are really embracing semantics now aren't we?

No. We're not "embracing semantics" at all. Adobe was very clear up front about Ps for the iPad being a "work in progress," that not every feature from the desktop would make it onto the iPad. Some features would be added later and some others may stay exclusive to the desktop version. Nevertheless some people have their panties in a twist about it anyway. That's on them for expecting too much right up front or generally not listening.

If it was up to me I wouldn't have Adobe wasting its time and resources trying to cram as much as they can into a "full version" of Photoshop on the iPad. It's unnecessary. It's a solution in search of a problem. But some moron out there demanded loudly enough, "we need full Photoshop on the iPad," and Adobe unfortunately tried to fill that request. I don't see it as being any different from dopey users wanting even more Photoshop functions brought into Illustrator.

I would say that was in part due to the marketing materials that discussed what the iPad version was going to be capable of doing.

That's Apple's fault. Adobe doesn't deserve any of the blame for that.

Rumor mill has abounded for yrs, but on some things seems different. Now it might start with the more "budget" products (hard using "budget" and Mac in the same sentence), but depending on the promises there, they may shift lines as well.

I would not call an iPad used for graphics work a lower cost "budget" item. I paid more for my 12.9" iPad Pro than what quite a few mid-range notebook computers would cost. Nevertheless, it's a specialty device, not a general purpose computer. It's definitely great for a variety of things. I love drawing on it (the Apple Pencil is a very good device). It's also not bad as a media consumption device (very good screen and surprisingly good speakers). But the add-on keyboards are limited and the file manager in the iPad is also very basic. It's not like pulling up the Finder on a Mac or File Explorer in Windows.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I've seen one price hike from $49.99 to $53.99. What is this "price hikes of double" claim about?

As I mentioned earlier in the post, I was talking about the Photography package in reference from the price hike. $9.99 to $19.99.

I know a lot of professional photographers that very much didn't like what Adobe was doing with the photography package subscription fee awhile back.

Or specifically they were playing around with the price hike and randomizing who saw what pricing schema.

If it was up to me I wouldn't have Adobe wasting its time and resources trying to cram as much as they can into a "full version" of Photoshop on the iPad. It's unnecessary. It's a solution in search of a problem. But some moron out there demanded loudly enough, "we need full Photoshop on the iPad," and Adobe unfortunately tried to fill that request. I don't see it as being any different from dopey users wanting even more Photoshop functions brought into Illustrator.

If it was that simple like that, why the hell don't we have a larger (not unlimited, but larger) artboard in Ai by now? While the math is relatively simple to handle this conversion (in most instances, mainly depending on the user), I would say that would be a far more useful feature then trying to port to another arch. Unless using more portable languages that have more portable interpreters or compilers (2 different things to accomplish the same goal).

That's Apple's fault. Adobe doesn't deserve any of the blame for that.

When Adobe has the line "Works just like Photoshop, because it is" in their own materials, I can see where the lines are blurred. And I'm the one that is usually more willing to be sympathetic to the plight of the developer then most on here. I can relate just a smidge of what they have to deal with.

I would not call an iPad used for graphics work a lower cost "budget" item. I paid more for my 12.9" iPad Pro than what quite a few mid-range notebook computers would cost. Nevertheless, it's a specialty device, not a general purpose computer. It's definitely great for a variety of things. I love drawing on it (the Apple Pencil is a very good device). It's also not bad as a media consumption device (very good screen and surprisingly good speakers). But the add-on keyboards are limited and the file manager in the iPad is also very basic. It's not like pulling up the Finder on a Mac or File Explorer in Windows.

And that's why I said budget in quotes like this "budget" as it is relative given what one is talking about.

However, the "budget" devices that I was referencing, were their "budget" devices that right now have the x86 arch on them. Not ones that are already arm.

Now here is the thing, if they they do this, even on their "budget" former x86 devices, this means that Adobe didn't waste too much effort to get full versions of their software on that arch. No quite as much of a waste of time in that instance. But that's just me.

 

[Bobby H]

If it was up to me I wouldn't have Adobe wasting its time and resources trying to cram as much as they can into a "full version" of Photoshop on the iPad. It's unnecessary. It's a solution in search of a problem.

If it was that simple like that, why the hell don't we have a larger (not unlimited, but larger) artboard in Ai by now? While the math is relatively simple to handle this conversion (in most instances, mainly depending on the user), I would say that would be a far more useful feature then trying to port to another arch. Unless using more portable languages that have more portable interpreters or compilers (2 different things to accomplish the same goal).

Did I suggest it was simple for Adobe to port a full version of Photoshop onto the iPad platform? No. I said the efforts are a waste of time. I think Adobe would do better to improve their existing Photoshop Sketch and Illustrator Draw apps for iOS. Illustrator's maximum size limits for art boards is a whole other off topic sidebar.

It's easy to see why Adobe is pursuing the effort to port Photoshop and Illustrator to the iPad. But it looks past the fact an iPad Pro is really a tool to augment an existing desktop/notebook computer setup. An iPad is not a tool to replace a traditional personal computer, at least not one meant for graphic design purposes.

Affinity Designer is available for both the traditional desktop and iPad. But the iPad version is a stripped down variant (and costs considerably less). Vectornator and Autodesk Graphic can run on the iPad and OSX, but the Mac versions have more features and functionality.

I've seen a few requests on Corel's forums for an iPad version of CorelDRAW. Obviously with as many problems as Corel has currently been having with the Windows and OSX versions of CorelDRAW they need to wait on any iPad efforts. Corel will only compound their development problems by adding an iOS version into the mix. Even if Corel could get the Win/OSX versions of CorelDRAW fixed and deliver a stable version for the iPad it's very likely the iPad version would be stripped down in terms of features and functions just like those other applications.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Did I suggest it was simple for Adobe to port a full version of Photoshop onto the iPad platform? No. I said the efforts are a waste of time.

Now this is a strawman fallacy. That is not what I was talking about.

This is what I was referencing as simple:

But some moron out there demanded loudly enough, "we need full Photoshop on the iPad," and Adobe unfortunately tried to fill that request.

That all it took was just one moron to belly ache loud enough and that got Adobe interested enough to create a more full on parity port of their flagship app to iOS. I don't think it was just as simple as one person complaining loud enough for something, where there are other features where more then one moron is belly aching for. So I do think that there was something else driving that decision and while that may not have been apparent to you as it wouldn't fit your needs, Adobe may have felt that it was worth pursuing. That is what I was talking about.

It's easy to see why Adobe is pursuing the effort to port Photoshop and Illustrator to the iPad. But it looks past the fact an iPad Pro is really a tool to augment an existing desktop/notebook computer setup. An iPad is not a tool to replace a traditional personal computer, at least not one meant for graphic design purposes.

It's about numbers. I am pretty sure that Adobe doesn't care if they are full fledged designers or hobbyists or whatever they call themselves that ultimately use their software, just so long as they are using it and paying their subscription fees. That looks good all the way around. Most of the professional designers are probably going to be on Adobe's platform regardless if they like it or not as long as certain criteria have to be met and they are only met with Adobe's products. They allows them some leeway to go make their customer base bigger.

Microsoft is also coming to their realization as well as they are looking past their own flagship OS and are getting bolstering from other services. It's all a numbers game based on the C/B of each decision.


I tried looking for it again, but at one time, someone had setup a slim emulation for Android that ran Inkscape and Gimp (it was the full on apps with a slim install of QEMU for emulation). It looks to have been pulled from Google Play. It was massive, 1GB and because it was emulation, huge power consumption compared to even if it was virtualization. There is in the works an Android port of Krita, so it'll be interesting to see if it is able to go full bore of if it also looses something in translation and if they may or may not be recovered by scripting.

There are other ways to make apps more universal, but it does come at a sacrifice and for these older programs it would need to be a total re-write (which some could use anyway to help with bloat or what appears to be bloat). Which will never happen.

 

[Bobby H]

Now this is a strawman fallacy. That is not what I was talking about.

Bull$#!+. You coupled the "if it's that simple" complaint with your repeated criticism of Adobe not improving Illustrator's maximum size limits of its art boards. That put the comment in the technical context of application development, not the marketing context of trying to please fanboys.

I don't think it was just as simple as one person complaining loud enough for something, where there are other features where more then one moron is belly aching for. So I do think that there was something else driving that decision and while that may not have been apparent to you as it wouldn't fit your needs, Adobe may have felt that it was worth pursuing. That is what I was talking about.

What kind of argument are you even trying to pursue with this? Earlier you appeared almost happy the introduction of "full" Photoshop on the iPad was a "bad release." But since I said Adobe shouldn't have bothered with that in the first place and put more effort into Ps-Sketch and Ai-DRAW, you've been trying to play devil's advocate for an iPad version of Photoshop.

It's about numbers. I am pretty sure that Adobe doesn't care if they are full fledged designers or hobbyists or whatever they call themselves that ultimately use their software, just so long as they are using it and paying their subscription fees. That looks good all the way around.

At nearly $650 per year for a full CC subscription Adobe isn't going to be keeping very many "hobbyist" users in the first place. And that's assuming those "hobbyists" were using legally purchased software.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Bull$#!+. You coupled the "if it's that simple" complaint with your repeated criticism of Adobe not improving Illustrator's maximum size limits of its art boards. That put the comment in the technical context of application development, not the marketing context of trying to please fanboys.

Look it over again. I mentioned the max artboard size, because if it was simple for one person to belly ache of a need for an iPad version and they got Adobe to start working on it, it should be even easier when you have mult. people belly aching about needing a max artboard size for Adobe to actively fulfilling that feature request. It has nothing to do with how simple it would be in dev work to actually create the feature.

I'm probably more aware of the hardships of app dev then some on here. I have created my own apps and it isn't easy. What makes it even harder is that I'm more of a hobbyist doing this to scratch my own itches to get thing things that I need without having to rely on someone else. Since I don't have the years experience, I'm not the most efficient one at that.

Bare in mind, I also don't need a bigger art board for what I do, so it's not even a feature request that I truly need. I mentioned it, because a lot of sign guys on here belly ache over it and I know that if I was to say something like "as an embroiderer blah blah blah" that would automatically bring about a dismissal from you, so I tried to come up with something that most everyone would know that a sign person would want from Adobe.

What kind of argument are you even trying to pursue with this? Earlier you appeared almost happy the introduction of "full" Photoshop on the iPad was a "bad release."

I wasn't "happy" about the bad release. I mentioned the "bad release" to show that any vendor can come out with a bad one despite how long they have been in the dev game.

At nearly $650 per year for a full CC subscription Adobe isn't going to be keeping very many "hobbyist" users in the first place. And that's assuming those "hobbyists" were using legally purchased software.

That's assuming they need the full suite. They do have cheaper options that include Ps as well. The photog package even at the more expensive rate that Adobe was trying to push comes to about $240 a year.

If I'm a hobbyist and I don't need the entire suite and there are cheaper options for me to get what I need, I'm going to go that route (as long as I can still afford it, but some people do things that they can't afford either).

That's not to say some hobbies aren't subsidized by something else or the person makes enough with their hobby to afford the cost of the monthly fee as well as extras. It all depends on how things are being worked out.

 

[Bobby H]

Look it over again. I mentioned the max artboard size, because if it was simple for one person to belly ache of a need for an iPad version and they got Adobe to start working on it, it should be even easier when you have mult. people belly aching about needing a max artboard size for Adobe to actively fulfilling that feature request. It has nothing to do with how simple it would be in dev work to actually create the feature.

The artboard size thing is an off topic sidebar. And really this whole Adobe thing is an OFF TOPIC SIDEBAR because the original discussion was about Corel's planned webinar next week. Not this cr@p you've trolled repeatedly way too many times already. We're the only two people here discussing this pointless $#!+ regarding Adobe and its subscription setup. That ship sailed 7 years ago.

You talk of knowing a lot about application development. But then you throw out these remarks implying Adobe's Illustrator development team must be incompetent to not have already implemented infinite art board sizes or at least art boards way bigger than the current 227" X 227" maximum. If you were a part of Illustrator's beta testing program, much less one of the actual application developers, you wouldn't be saying those things. Because making the max art board size in Illustrator substantially bigger is a lot harder than it seems at first glance. A lot of $#!+ tends to break when you change the foundation like that.

That's assuming they need the full suite. They do have cheaper options that include Ps as well. The photog package even at the more expensive rate that Adobe was trying to push comes to about $240 a year.

In my own anecdotal, non-scientific experience just encountering other people in person who are using Adobe applications most of them were using pirated software. They didn't pay for any of it. That especially goes for the "hobbyist" types. I've seen people with no design skills at all, but a tendency to collect pirated software, have computers loaded with full copies of Creative Suite, Maya or any other expensive app they could find just to have it and be able to brag that they have it.

I personally have quite a collection of Adobe software boxes and discs I legally purchased dating back to the early 1990's. Seeing these @$$holes, some of whom where doing actual paid graphics work, using pirated Adobe software gave me quite a conflicted feeling. On one hand I knew at least I was honest and legit. On the other hand I knew I was out literally thousands of dollars for being honest and legit and these jerk-offs would probably only laugh at that display of integrity and "waste of money." So, in one sense, if Adobe's Creative Cloud setup is making it harder for the pirates to deliver cracked Adobe software then that's a good thing. Make the wannabes use Inkscape, Paint Shop Pro or whatever low cost or free thing they can afford.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

...