Adobe has been a cornerstone in the creative industry for decades, with professionals relying on its software to bring their visions to life. Yet, the relationship between Adobe and its users is showing signs of strain, particularly for those who have been loyal customers since the early days.
Coming to you from Tony & Chelsea Northrup, this revealing video highlights the growing frustration many creatives feel toward Adobe. The Northrups, long-time users of Adobe products, express their discontent with how the company has evolved, particularly since 2013 when Adobe transitioned to a subscription-based model. This change was pitched as a way to provide continuous updates and improvements, but the reality has been disappointing for many. Instead of delivering groundbreaking new features, Adobe seems to be coasting, leaving critical issues unresolved. For instance, Lightroom's facial recognition feature remains embarrassingly primitive, frequently misidentifying people and failing to meet the standards set by other tech giants like Apple and Facebook.
The video also touches on the legal issues Adobe faces, including a lawsuit from the FTC over hidden fees and the difficulty of canceling subscriptions. These practices have left many feeling trapped, paying for software that no longer meets their needs. The Northrups share personal experiences with the frustrating process of trying to cancel an Adobe subscription, a process deliberately designed to be cumbersome. This is not just a minor inconvenience; it’s indicative of a company that seems more focused on profits than on serving its customers.
What’s particularly concerning is Adobe’s use of user-generated content to train its AI systems. The Northrups point out that Adobe acquired Fotolia, a stock photography site, and used its vast database of images to train AI without explicitly informing or compensating the photographers. This raises serious ethical questions about how companies should treat the intellectual property of their users, especially when it’s being used to develop technologies that could potentially replace those very users.
Expanding on these concerns, the Northrups discuss how Adobe’s approach to AI and automation could be undermining the very professionals who have supported the company for years. With features like generative AI that can create images with a few keystrokes, Adobe seems to be pushing a narrative that designers and photographers are no longer needed. This not only devalues the craft but also shifts income from individual creators to a massive corporation, deepening the divide between those who create and those who profit. Check out the video above for the full rundown from the Northrups.
Quit your whining (whinging where I come from) Northrups;
How to get out of any subscription: Cancel the credit card tied to the subscription... DONE.
--- "Cancel the credit card tied to the subscription."
Such a stupid idea. Did you even think this through? Mull over it for a bit.
Why is people sharing their opinion of a company, a bad thing? Are you against Amazon reviews as well?
Corporations should be publicly called out if they don't meet customer expectations (alongside cancelling, there's no reason you can only do one of these things)
There's not a problem in calling out a company or giving them a bad review, but if they are that bad to you and your brand, why would you continue to use them? They've been crying about several companies for years and they still use their products. Sounds like the problem is with them. I wouldn't think twice about dropping a company's product if I thought I wasn't being treated right or they were somehow bad for my business.
That AI can (or will) replace us photographers is the biggest misconception circulating everywhere. The performance and development of any so-called AI is ABSOLUTELY dependent on human-generated content.
Otherwise, channelization will take place and the AI system will collapse. To clarify: images that were generated entirely or partially with AI and that we in turn (involuntarily) provide as training data, e.g. to Abobe, become almost unusable after several runs. This is basically incest. In evolution, this leads to the denegeration of a species.
This alone is the reason why we photographers and everyone who creates photos of the world are absolutely needed with our AI-clean images for any further development of AI. And don't forget: the whole thing has nothing to do with intelligence. It's just trained content that is recombined.
For me, when it comes to any form of subscriptions, I use one of my credit card's virtual number service (not all CCs have this). This allows me create a totally different number for a specific use. If a company makes it difficult for me to cancel a subscription, I would just deactivate that specific virtual number.
That is a great approach to a difficult problem. In the future, I might have to try this as well. It seems like a foolproof solution.
Oh yeah, it is pretty much foolproof. And, just the relief feeling of never feeling trapped.
Some of the added benefits is you can set the expiration date for a short lifespan. And, set the daily spending limits / max spending limits (depending on the CC). Back in the day when it seemed server data breaches were common, I'd create virtual numbers for all my online purchases so my real card is never exposed,
So if the card used doesn't have virtual number service... what should you do?
You could go through the standard procedure and be patient. Document when you spoke to the rep and/or keep any email/chat communications. If they still charge you, dispute the charges with your CC. In my experience of the few disputes I had to file, the CC was on my side and they were quick to credit back my account.
Cancelling the card should be a last resort because there could inconvenience implications. Obviously, depends on one's situation.
Generally, the card issuer will not stop a legitimate charge. In this case, Adobe won't stop the subscription because the user is bound by contract. Northrup et al, want to cancel simply because their feelings are hurt.
Not wanting to cancel their card due to "inconvenience implications," if any, shouldn't stop the Northrups as it seems they are quite adamant to defeat Adobe, Inc. and have their feelings assuaged in any manner possible.
--- "In this case, Adobe won't stop the subscription because the user is bound by contract. Northrup et al, want to cancel simply because their feelings are hurt."
So, people are bound forever? Lol, no. Don't act dumb. Then again, maybe you're not acting. Since we're all visual learners and apparently, you are too lazy to watch the video and/or do your own research, let me help you with the below FTC link:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-takes-ac...
And, since you're such a contract expert, if Adobe changes their terms or usage mid contract, folks should be allowed to cancel since those terms and usage weren't in place at the time they entered the contract. Riiighhht? Haha, why am I asking you. You don't know.
--- "Not wanting to cancel their card due to 'inconvenience implications,'"
No one should have to deal with the hassle. No one.
You keep bringing up the Northrups' "feelings", but, you're the one acting hurt for some strange reason. And, are adamant to try to defeat them, even if it means acting like a petulant child.
I refused to join the Adobe subscription plan when it started. Not that $10 a month was gonna bankrupt me… more just because of the principle of the thing. I suspected that the subscription model was far more in their best interests than mine. Although there are numerous valid reasons, as explained by the Northrups in this video, to pile on with criticisms against Adobe, the issue of constant updates has always been my biggest gripe. Quite simply… I don’t want them. That wasn’t always the case. I started with Photoshop 2.5 in the mid 1990s, and routinely upgraded computer hardware and software because most updates made a big difference in what you could accomplish. But, like camera gear, we passed that threshold a long time ago. Affinity Photo, as an alternative, looks and feels very much like Photoshop. I recommend taking a look at it.
Well, I bet you wished you bought a ton of Adobe stock prior. Adobe has made a ton of money off of the subscription plan. Way prior, many of us were stuck with older software clunkers because we didn't have $600 laying around for the latest version. (Adobe wasn't the only one, I had to buy Quark Express back in the day for a small fortune.) The more money that Adobe has, the better their software is going to be.
10 bucks a month for the latest version at all times for LRC and PS; after five years that's $600; same price bitd for a new PS version alone that you had to wait 5 years to afford (for some of us anyway.)
As I recall, the updates were approximately $150, not $600. $600 would have been the first time purchase price.
There are more things than I can count that I wished I had invested in before they became what they are now. I live not far from Aspen, Colorado and joked that real estate there in the 70s was so ridiculously expensive... like 20 or 30k for a condo. I should have bought every one that I could have scrapped the money together for.
$150 if you upgrade to the next level, if your 3 levels behind you gotta buy the whole package.
Ok, the subscription now is $120 per year; "the principle of the thing" you shouldn't be worrying about is you're saving 30 bucks and the updates are several per year.
I could care less about "valid reasons, as explained by the Northrups." I'm not going into a learning curve with some other product when I can get my work done efficiently while the Northrups whine and complain. Do they even need Adobe software to contribute to their making a living?
Does anyone know what the situation is with the film and photo material on frame.io?
Since frame.io is provided by Adobe, there is also the suspicion that Adobe is using images and video clips for ML free of charge without the users' knowledge. In principle, frame.io is a good thing for photographers, especially if you work with cameras (there are more and more of them) that allow you to upload directly to frame.io. But at what price? Perhaps it is better to avoid frame.io if you want to ensure that sensitive customer images are not misused by Adobe?
I'm less concerned about implementing Ai features(saves me a ton of work retouching hair) what drives me nuts is the restrictions they put in when it comes to generative fill...
If the algorithm thinks there is too much skin visible in a picture, generative flat out refuses to work, or some other random reason that goes "against policy".
Is it really ok with a company that delivers "professional" software to be the judges of what I can and can not have in photos?
I took a series of pictures of interiors of a hunting cabin where the owner asked if I could put a bigger trophy and a rifle on the wall, ofc I said yes.
That was a hard No, from Adobe to put any gun related things in a picture (tanks work fine).
So that ended up being done manually at som extra time and expense.
On the other hand, I tried swapping out a jacket on a model and generative fill ended up more or less undressing the model.... Tried changing it to a bit more covering clothes but generative fill refused to comply "against policy" so I had to start over.
So yes, Adobe got some things to work out.
Almost started to watch this until i saw it was the Northrups
Sad, you created an account just to post a sarcastic lie. I mean, what part of the thumbnail delayed your reaction. :)
Would you care to explain why that is, or why you feel it necessary to belittle another person's work for no apparent reason?
There are many valid points in this video. But asking for fairness and loyalty to the little guy, from a big company is just ridiculous. The only thing that can regulates these kind of things are laws and body governments that impose these laws.
"If they can, they will do it. If there's no one to stop them, they will keep doing it." Adobe is becoming a bully.
Adobe forced me into a payed subscription by holding tens of thousands of processed photos and tens of thousands of processing hours hostages. I can't move away from Adobe as I will loose those. I can't start again and reprocessing 20 something years of photo (or maybe there is a way to import lightroom catalogues in another app)! This is unfair. They own the app but the processing and the skills are mine!
Also, treating us equally is not fair. I don't care as much as others for updates, and generitive AI, and all the little updates, mostly beeing smoke screen to give the impression of usefull update. Give me the choice, paid subscription with constant updates, or buying the updates when I'm considering necessary.
We need more influencers to make noise about these issues and we need to get a sort of leverage. I think if there was a movement across the users, let's say, agreeing to cancel the subscription for a month, same month all toghether, that will make Adobe reconsider their "politics".
"(or maybe there is a way to import lightroom catalogues in another app)"
The import of LR catalogs works very well with Capture One. The only question is: is Capture One's policy the right one? Here, too, there is a paid subscription model. However, the software can also be purchased with a perpetual license. This works as long as the respective operating system supports the software version and you don't buy any new cameras with new RAW files. Currently the best alternative for switching from LR with its catalogs to another RAW developer.
The Voice Over industry is suffering from AI also. Unscrupulous companies pay unaware voice artists to read long lists of words in various pitches and emotions just to turn around and attempt to put those same voice artists out of business. The pay is far less than the voice artist should be paid to make matters even worse. Industries based on creativity are in genuine peril right now.
Affinity !
It NEVER ceases to amaze me how people continue to spend money on a product that doesn't server their needs to treats them badly or steal their product, but yet you continue to use their products and/or services and then get on Youtube and bash how bad they are. Just leave and find another company and product that meets your needs and doesn't do all the bad things to you that you claim are being done.
What you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND is some people just can't get up and leave Adobe. Some of these folks have years and even over a decade of images locked in to Adobe. All this controversy is just recent. It's like they it's been happening for years and folks are just now complaining about it.
Photographers like you, and photographers like me can just get up leave. You don't do any extensive edits, if any edits at all. So, yeah, it's easy to say just leave. As for me, I only use Photoshop mainly for the plugins from Retouch4Me (sadly, they only work in PS). Worst case, I can use Affinity Photo to open the layered PS or TIFF files. Also, I can use Retouch4Me's standalone clients. It won't as convenient to my workflow, but it's still doable. So, I can leave if I need/wanted to.
OK, adding my 2 cents (maybe it's worth 4 cents now with inflation). I read a lot of stories and watch YT videos about people railing on the subscription model - no one likes it, but we all do it. Our Internet bill, our wireless phone bill, our steaming services, our electric and water bills and insurance payments are basically all subscription services. So I don't get how it's any different than what Adobe is doing or now Capture One or others. And believe it or not $10 a month for PS and LRC seems to be a pretty good deal and that price hasn't gone up in over 10 years and for all the things you can do with those two programs alone is pretty remarkable (IMO). I wish Capture One by itself was that cheap, but since I do get a discount for CP1,I won't complain.
I guess people think software developers work for free or you can just make it one time and be done. I guess people are upset that Adobe is making so much money, but so is Apple, Microsoft and Nvidia (all 2 Trillion Dollar and more companies). But as I've stated before, if you don't like a company's product or service, why continue to give them your money? Asking for a friend...
You certainly make some reasonable points. Ten bucks a month is less than half my water bill, and that’s about the cheapest monthly expense I’ve got. I wish I could hold my price increases for insurance premiums to just ten dollars a month when those come along. But not everyone’s mind works on a purely rational basis though. I can’t speak for everyone my age, but whereas technology improvements for much of my life were valuable and an occasion to look forward to, updates these days are mostly just a nuisance. Software necessitates an upgrade to hardware, or vice-versa. Another app for monitoring driving habits, a necessary app for getting the grocery store discount, a necessary update to our television streaming service which renders our seven year old smart television obsolete, a washing machine with more buttons and settings than I can fathom a need for. The list goes on and on. With regard to Adobe, I would have typically updated the software about every other, or every third upgrade cycle. So effectively a subscription model triples my cost of photo post-processing. For what benefit? One more feature that I don’t want or need? Photoshop has always provided the basic ingredients that I need for post-processing, but it's rapidly turning into something that far transcends my definition of photography. It's becoming a digital image creation tool... pretty much detached from the reality which is where photography is grounded. And I do not support the concept of AI integration into the software.
Speaking to the relevance of age and change: At this point, technology in general and its inherent cost of ongoing maintenance feels exhausting. Adobe is only one company… most every business is caught up in the same vicious cycle. It’s not just about corn flakes cereal any more… they somehow have to always be new and improved. Good grief! I really would just prefer more simplicity in my life, without having to go totally off the grid. It’s not only that; it’s a feeling that I’m slowly being stripped of all freedom to act independently without being tethered and controlled by high-tech. I’d like options for how to interact with technology, but high-tech doesn’t necessarily see it that way. The very idea that my music and photos are located somewhere in a cloud seems, so… ridiculously phony and inauthentic. They claim it’s all for my convenience, and maybe it is for a 20-something collaborating on a group work project, but my cynical mind (and I’m not prone to conspiracy thinking) feels like I’m a pawn getting sucked into a war of dominance between high-tech companies. And that’s why only $10 a month seems so anathema to me.
I agree with your points, especially regarding AI, but "we" as consumers keep asking more and more of these products and services, particularly with cameras. 1080P wasn't enough, so they gave us 4K and that is no longer enough, so they gave us 8K (even though most computers can't handle all that processing power needed - we just keep asking more and more and now we want 100 megapixel cameras and we'll complain about storage space. I ask myself at times, "How did photographers make money before all these huge megapixel cameras came out?" And the more we ask for, the more they add and the more it costs, so to me the $10 a month for LRC and PS is a steal (although I don't really use PS). As I stated earlier, software developers generally don't work for free - LOL.
I just don't get it why people would use products and give certain companies money if they are not being served.
Some people always want more features; some people do not. I am in the latter camp. I am perfectly content with my 36 megapixel D800, Photoshop CS5 (released 2010), and Mac OS 10.12. It allows me the tools to do everything with my photography that I want. I understand that other people have other needs. Of course $10 is a bargain... if you make use of the updates. I would not, but I would like to have the option of upgrading at the point at which hardware and software must be compatible, which is inevitable. To your point, I did just fine before all of these innovations. So I would like to have the option of buying software once if that's appropriate for me, or a subscription plan if that works better for someone else. I'm pretty sure that some software companies offer those options. I disapprove of the way Adobe crams the subscription model down our throats.
Notice how zero software companies have come up with a product that can out do or even equal the Adobe stuff; at least PS/LRC
Does any really care what what Tony and Chelsea Northrup think?
I care about the issues at stake here, so yes I care about what other people think, especially people like them who might have some influence with Adobe.
By the numbers, looking at this video on their YouTube channel, the Northrups have 1,630,000 subscribers, 1,239 comments to date on this video, and 4,600 votes on those comments. I'd say that pretty well proves that a lot of people care about what they think. And with that sort of following and six books published about Adobe software, it might behoove Adobe to care about what they think. No company is above reproach. Technology is especially vulnerable to competition. Adobe is no exception.
Big deal. Jared Polin has 1,500,000 million; what does that tell you?
How about a tuber with solely Adobe stuff? PIXimperfect has 5,100,000 subscribers.
Adobe Book author?
SCOTT KELBY
Best Sellers Rank: #61,683 in all Books
#7 in Adobe Photoshop
#21 in Digital Photography (Books)
#131 in Software Design, Testing & Engineering (Books)
NORTHRUPS
Best Sellers Rank: #1,577,763 in all Books
#1,397 in Digital Photography (Books)