Is Adobe’s Creative Cloud Only Model Unethical and Illegal?

Maybe So!

When Adobe, makers of virtually every piece of industry leading graphics software applications, announced that it was shifting to a subscription only offering in lieu of its previous perpetual licensing model, many users were decidedly up in arms. There have been petitions started, angry and negative comments on blog posts, and Youtube videos detailing the reasons for discontent.

Granted, some or even much of that criticism was from misinformed Adobe users. There was misunderstanding concerning pricing, how the software would or could be used, how often E.T. had to phone home, and some certain other problems. Most of this was cleared up rather quickly it seems, which is good — no one is well served by misgivings that result from a lack of factual information.

But, now that the facts have had a chance to filter through the matrix, I have become concerned over my perception of everyone’s reluctant acceptance to the new system. And, I think that that reluctant acceptance, if my perception is correct anyway, is due to the fact that as better information did filter down to Adobe consumers, there was at least a small helping of misunderstanding filtering down as well. At the least, there has been a failure to grasp an important point.

Gimme my files, please.

One of the biggest gripes directed at Adobe with the change has been about future access to files created or edited in their software. Well, obviously, since the subscription model only allows access as one continues paying for the service, if the user had a compelling reason to stop, such as a financial crises, a more suitable software package becoming available, etc., then they would lose access to their files. Understandably, no one is going to go for that.

This fear, however, was put to rest as people pointed out that there are always ways to save files in different formats, some more widely usable than others, and often virtually universal format saves are possible. Voila! Future file access problem solved! Yay for team Adobe.

But are there really compatible formats?

While it is perfectly true that the only way for someone to lose access to their files would be through unbridled stupidity, it isn’t the full story; not nearly.

As it turns out, one of the most basic and compelling reasons to use many of the Adobe products — indeed, so basic and foundational to the system that it has apparently been taken for granted and thus escaped notice to be at the root of the creative cloud file accessibility problem — is layers and other such editing features which allow non-destructive tweaks to files.

As Adobe users know, saving a file with layers, for example, intact, is part and parcel of the system. This preserves file integrity so as to give top-notch output at the other end of all of your work, even if that work takes weeks, months, or years. No matter how long it takes to finish a creative project in Adobe software, one can rest assured that saving the file to disk and walking away for even an extended period is fine; no pixel level destruction takes place.

Yes. No. For a fee.

I know that I, for one, often do just that. I have many images on my computer from Photoshop CS that, even had I moved on to other software than Adobe (I haven’t — I currently own a copy of CS 5), I could still fire up my original CS and start from where I left off in my editing, with all my layers, masks, etc., etc., intact. No other software can open those layers and apply them correctly. I certainly cannot continue from where I left off. If I lose my Adobe subscription, I lose my work. Period.

“But you can still do that! You can still open them with Adobe years later.”, many would say. And they’d be right. I can . . . for a fee!

“Well, yeah, but is that unethical? Or illegal? Come on! And it’s not that much money.”

It aint that much.

First, about it not being that much money. No, it isn’t that much . . . currently. It could go up. And if all of observed human history is any indication, it will go up. But even if it didn’t, since it is so little money, why not let the billion-with-a-“B” dollar corporation take it in the shorts?

“Well, they’d have to do it for everyone then. And that is a lot of money.”

And we’ve now dispelled the myth that “. . . it isn’t that much.” It is a lot! LOT! LOT! LOT! And Adobe has done their research. They know very well that it is a LOT! They believe that their new system is going to rake in a LOT!

“But still. Unethical? Illegal?”

If the similarities were only similar.

Here is where one needs to see some fundamental differences between some common types of subscription services and Adobe’s Creative Cloud. The new Adobe system has been compared, for example, to paying for your monthly mobile phone service, web hosting space, etc. But the crux of the issue comes down, again, precisely on the proprietary deployment of the nondestructive ability to save files for later use. When I cancel my mobile phone service there is no outstanding conversation or some such thing that I lose my ability to continue developing. When I switch my hosting service, I don’t have a scenario where I cannot continue to edit an article unless I pay my old hosting provider.

With Adobe’s new system, I’d have to do precisely that. If this new system had started at CS, for example, I would now be in the bind of not being able to start from where I saved my files years ago. If I wanted to finish the work I started, I’d have to pay Adobe, even though I may have moved on to other editing software. I pay, or I start from scratch.

So, with other subscription types of services, I am free to move on to other providers or plans. Not so with Adobe. Well, one can move on of course, provided you are either willing to trash all your hard work, or to pay Adobe to tweak it for certain output.

It’s the output, stupid.

And “output” is a part of the whole equation as well. So far, I think I may have only shown that Adobe’s new plan isn’t very nice, though certainly not unethical or illegal. But please bear with me.

What is the point of Adobe’s graphics software anyway? Isn’t it output in some form? Does anyone pay Adobe only to look at and create their work within the applications themselves? Of course not. It is all about output, no matter to what medium.

And, if this output is to be professional as Adobe has built its reputation of being very good at, then the data has to be kept integral until the final moment of output. This is the advantage to using Adobe. They should know! That is one way they preached to us as to why their software should be used. And we believed them! Nondestructive editing. Tweakable to many types of output. This is the very reason that people spend as much as they do for their Adobe licenses.

Pay Adobe today, pay Adobe tomorrow.

But if this is the case, then it really is unethical! Adobe has taken the very thing that is the backbone of their software, the main advantage to having and using it, and used it as a ball and chain. I cannot stop paying Adobe! You cannot stop paying Adobe! No one can stop paying Adobe. Even if we stop, we pay! We pay in losing critical work that may be even tens of years old. It’s ours! But those layers that were the reason to use Adobe to begin with are now the things holding knives to our pocketbooks. Either we don’t access the file for the output needed to make money, pay by taking the considerable time needed recreating the work in other software, or pay Adobe. Either way, we pay! There is no stopping paying tomorrow for using Adobe today.

Can I try to make this more simple for a moment? I thought a good analogy that I came across was that of using tools to build your house, and then being told that since you won’t continue to pay for your tools you could no longer live in the house you made using them. But let me tweak this a bit.

Hammers for rent.

Let’s say I buy a special hammer to build a dog house. A year later, I decide to sell it to someone who needs it just a little modified. Good. A year after that, the buyer asks me to modify it yet again. Fine. Three years later I’m asked to refurbish it. No problem. Why? Because even though I built it with the special proprietary hammer, I bought the hammer.

My special hammer breaks! Rats! I’ll buy another one. Oh! Wait. They only rent them now. But the hammer really does build superior dog houses, so I rent it. A year later, I modify the new dog house, pay the hammer company. Another year later, modify the dog house, pay the hammer company. Three years later, refurbish the dog house, pay the hammer company.

Now how ethical is it that the hammer company gets to enjoy the fruits of my labor? What benefit do I have from this new system? A “non-breaking” hammer? As if I wasn’t able to fix or replace my old hammers? What do I gain? I gain nothing. I get less. I don’t have a hammer on hand all the time unless I pay even more. The hammer company gets money from my work . . . forever, and ever, and ever.

And let’s further say that this special proprietary hammer is so good at building dog houses just at that point of it being good for tweaking to different outputs; it is nondestructive until the point of sale for example. So, the very reason I bought the hammer was that it was good for making the modifications that I know are necessary in the dog house market. And the hammer company has now found a way to make that fundamental selling point a chain to tie me to their product, ’till death do us part.

I’m aware that the reader is probably as tired of reading this analogy as I am in writing it. But just a moment more, please.

Want better tools at better prices? Nah!

Let’s say an up and coming hammer company goes all in and creates a vastly superior hammer and sells it reasonably cheaply.

Now, I love the best dog houses and the hammer is a really, really good deal; especially compared to the rental model I am now quite unhappy about. So, what do I do? In normal circumstances, I switch and don’t look back. In this situation, however, since my old hammer is proprietary, I cannot further maintain my old dog houses for my customers without . . . you guessed it! Paying the OLD hammer company!

So even in the light of a better hammer at a better price, I’m STILL tied to the old hammer company!

Folks, I think that is unethical. And folks, I think that is Adobe.

Even if another company kills it and outdoes Adobe in either one or all of their current products, I’m still tied to Adobe, like it or not — and be sure, I do not like it, and neither should you.

Who said “Antitrust lawsuit?”

And the remaining question is, then, will the courts like it? Is it illegal?

I honestly don’t see how this model could survive an antitrust lawsuit. I really don’t. Adobe has locked out competition by making sure that even if a competitor creates better or similar software at even substantially lower prices, Adobe still gets paid. They have locked people in, or, at best, tricked them into a parole officer program whereby they have to “get permission” for the low monthly cost of $xx.xx, to touch their previous work. This further creates an atmosphere where potential competitors would have little or no motivation to undertake developing in the same market.

The only way out for Adobe is unrealistic. Burying the terms or warnings about not being able to access files with adjustment layers, or any other ways that non-Adobe applications cannot read, deep in some EULA will not be enough. It must be made up front and crystal clear if Adobe wishes to avoid being targeted in an antitrust suit. But if Adobe does that, who will submit to their terms?

Adobe innovation!

I love Adobe’s software. It really is that good to be very tempting to submit to the ball and chain knowingly. Hey! Many would argue it already was a ball and chain with their upgrade model and not pushing camera model compatibility out to older versions of their software. Maybe so. But any way I cut it personally, I don’t see Creative Cloud as Adobe’s newest innovation. I’d have to give that honor to their new Leechware business model.

“Suck, suck, suck . . .” forever.

32 thoughts on “Is Adobe’s Creative Cloud Only Model Unethical and Illegal?

  1. Man I wish that I could write as well as you do, there is another thing that you might have missed, what if Adobe decides in the near future to make CC created files to not be compatible with CS applications, a very likely scenario.

    Regards Robert Allen Schambach

  2. Pingback: Is Adobe’s Creative Cloud Only Model Unethical and Illegal? | PC Tipster's Blog

  3. There are a few things you have overlooked.

    Let’s start with what version of the software do you own right now? CS6? OK, then are you in the “Cloud” or did you buy the Master Collection with a perpetual license?

    #1: If you own CS6 software with a perpetual license you are good for the rest of your life as long as you never change your operating system or buy new hardware. But I know many companies that are still using CS4 because they didn’t want to change their hardware or Operating System.

    If you own CS 5.5 or below, same thing. You have a perpetual license.

    #2: But let’s say you made the mistake of starting a subscription to the Creative Cloud with version CS6. OK, you are in a bit of a bind. If you do own CS5.5, you can always go back to that. But you have all those CS6 files that you don’t want to downgrade to CS5.5. For instance, I know that I would want the ability to create interactive forms in InDesign CS6.

    #3: In that situation you will need to purchase a perpetual license for Creative Suite 6. Adobe has said that they will continue to sell that product. You can buy CS6 perpetual license right now! However, I would NOT trust that they will continue to sell that product 10 or 15 years in the future. So I’d buy it now rather than waiting.

    #4: Once you own the perpetual license of CS6, you are good for the rest of your life. You’re back at step #1.

    #5: But perhaps you are running a business that is booming and you have tons of money to throw around and you sign up for the Creative Cloud and you use it for several (five? ten?) years. You’re up to what would be the equivalent of CS12 or CS17. And you decide to retire to Boca Raton. You pack up all your old files on a hard disk down to sunny Florida.

    #6: But then you get a call from an old client who wants to give you money, tons of money, to make some changes to one of your old jobs. You sir, are back in business. But you have to purchase new hardware. Or borrow a laptop from your grandchild. Your old perpetual license version of CS6 won’t hack it. You need up to date software.

    Fortunately, all you need to do is sign up for a single month of the Creative Cloud. That’s just enough time to do the job, send it off, and go back to the deck chair by the pool. Oh, are you bothered that your old perpetual license isn’t working any more? You should have kept a machine in case this happened.

    #7: What people are upset about isn’t that Adobe has changed the way their software is sold. It’s that they won’t get the latest and greatest version of Photoshop or Premiere or InDesign for a low upgrade fee.

    But nowhere does any license with Adobe or any other software company say that you are entitled to a low price for upgrades.

    If you are angry at Adobe, just purchase the CS6 license and go back to your desk and work in perpetuity.

    • Hi and thanks for your thoughts. I must say, you make it sound a little too easy. Near the end, though, you basically mimic what I was saying about going back to old files. You HAVE to pay. This is what is wrong. I bought into the system for the advantage of layers and non-destructive editing and saving. Perpetual licensing allows me to pick up where I left off eons ago without paying Adobe more money. That is as it should be.

      If it is no big deal to you or other users to pay a fee for opening up your own work just to turn a layer on or off, or add a curve, or heck, even just to be sure a profile is converted correctly for a specific output — you’re not even editing it — then I guess Creative Cloud is for you. I resent very much, however, the fact that I have to send money to Adobe for that. I paid for the tool to do the job, and finished it. Why is it acceptable for the tool maker to get even more money because I want to use my creation in a new or different way?

      Can you tell me any other example where people accept this?

      Would you not be upset if you were made to pay your old landlord a fee every time you sold a print you made while living in his house . . . even though you moved out years ago? The house you lived in provided you with a place to do your work, but does that give the landlord a share in your work? Sorry! NO! And especially so since you were PAYING HIM already for the convenience of using his house. You’ve ALREADY paid. And Adobe has already been paid for their part in providing a convenient “working space” and tools for me to do my work. This is illegal I tell ya. Unless Adobe makes it very, very clear to subscribers that this is a scenario they risk encountering, they will lose an antitrust suit.

      It’s like Adobe is trying to drive a wedge between intellectual ownership and pixel, hue, and saturation ownership. Well, I have no kind way to express how infuriating that is.

    • Re :: “Fortunately, all you need to do is sign up for a single month of the Creative Cloud. That’s just enough time to do the job, send it off, and go back to the deck….” // I think you missed the point here….I don’t agree at ALL with this comment….Once the job is complete Adobe doesn’t deserve another single dime from me to make tweaks or adjustments to a project that is 10 years old.

      • If you don’t want to pay in the future, just purchase CS6 and stop there. Just don’t throw out your old machine.

        BTW I routinely see companies with one old machine that is able to run Quark 4.

  4. Excellent Article….it’ isn’t about the monthly….it’s about the other details in this Creative Cloud hi-jacking that is utterly horrible to the creative..I just wish others would see it….also, one thing I like to point out…..So Flickr granted 1terabyte of space for photos and video…this 20gb afforded by Adobe is an AWFUL joke. lol

      • Hi again Sandee. I’m not sure why you make this sound so easy. Yes, I am very, very aware that one can use a copy of software for a fairly long time. I did just that with the original CS. I can still plug that in and use it if I want. But, when I finally get off of XP, I don’t think that’ll work (maybe it will, I don’t know).

        Certainly, however, there will be a time when even CS6 is just not viable. And since this is Adobe we’re talking about, that could mean all of one single genius new tool that takes a particular hold in the industry and results in, for example, graphics and print houses only being able/willing to accept files that have been prepared using it. I recently used the 30 day trial of In Design just for that very reason. I needed to get out a flyer and the print houses would only take a specific version PDF, which is common.

        I’m absolutely positive that staying with CS6, at least for some users, will not be a viable solution for more than a couple years; I’d give it three at the max.

        I could go on, but one thing I think I need to say before I go to bed is this: I’m not against Adobe making money, even big money. I’d be a hypocrite if I were. I want to sell my own work for the price that the market will allow. Go for it, Adobe!

        Additionally, I think Adobe can do whatever they want. They are free to set their business up any way they choose. But, what they can not do is allow, either purposefully or negligently, for users to subscribe to their new system without detailing what the very real and possible risks are.

      • This is all well and good until your machines dies . . . then you buy a new machine and guess what? The OS doesn’t support CS6, or 5.5, or 5 etc.

      • Exact that´s what I would call: FORCING!
        Many people trusted into Adobe and are left in the rain by words like “Take it or leave it”
        Adobe doesn´t care about, if they spend enormous amounts of money in workflows and plug ins.
        You just make it toooooo easy, as all the half-truth arguments from Adobe also.

      • Sandee, in your other reply you stated: “If you don’t want to pay in the future, just purchase CS6 and stop there. Just don’t throw out your old machine.”

        What happens if the old machine breaks and you’re not able to use CS6 anymore? Few years from now you won’t be able to run old programs such as CS6 on newer machines. What then? You will again be FORCED to pay Adobe to access your files.

  5. since when were upgrades ever cheap. i agree with your article and think people are being snowed by adobe. I want upgrades to the product I have spent the last 5 years trying to master and I believe what they are doing is highly unethical. i would easily pay a yearly maintenance fee for updates but when i stop i want it fixed in time. if i want back in then i buy full price to get back in, this is how all my other software works.

  6. Very good post! Totally agree!
    I even don´t like to see Photoshop starting up. I feel ashamed…
    It is disdainful and grossly negligent how Adobe doesn´t point out all the negative aspects.
    I´m afraid of others that will follow & of the opinion it should be forbidden.
    A monopolist is abusing his market might here (and I don´t think, they can do what ever they want to – as many trusted in them & invested in PlugIns or created expensive workflows).

    • Thanks.

      Yes, that is another point. Plugins from other software companies. Every plugin is more money down the drain when you stop paying Adobe.

  7. Do not buy CS6! If you do, then Adobe has been able to extort you to do it. They are happy if they force users to either buy CS6 or get a cloud subscription. They win in both of those cases.

    If you want to protest Adobe, don’t give them another dime! Look for alternatives (they do exists)!

    • Exactly. Adobe is trying to put a tiny bandage on a major trauma wound by offering CS6 with updates and compatibility through the next OS releases.

      No thank you! If it says Adobe on the label it may as well say strychnine.

      Yes. Alternatives exist, and they are only going to start getting better since Adobe has opened the door wide for customers to leave, and has given them plenty of motivation to walk through them.

  8. Another argument is: Adobe will dictate you hardware requirements. As Updates are delivered automatically your only chance is (if you can´t or will not do a hardware upgrade) to use the old version (they say they will provide…) and pay for the newest version. This distribution model is a total nonsense, half-thought forcing thing. I will never subscribe! Once loved the apps a lot but it´s time to change.
    Stop CC & keep CS6 alive as long as you can.
    (Maybe Adobe will make more notice of a -10% at stock market since May 6 – and -12% below rising NASDAC development)

    • That is an interesting point. Never thought about it. What I suppose would happen in practice, however, is that Adobe would use hardware compatibility as an excuse for why they are having trouble innovating and pushing out new features.

      “Well, we have some really great stuff coming, which would otherwise have already been distributed, but since many users are on older machines we cannot offer it yet.”

      So they have a convenient excuse for not putting out new features. “Not our fault! Tell your buddies to upgrade their machines!”

      So, the wallet drain just gets bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

  9. And here is the new overwhelming great solution from MS: Winidoofs most creative cloud.

    Nothing changed, but you´ll get 1 gb of online store and a few other useless gimmicks (….and we can name it “cloud” that way).

    And all that for a little monthly fee of $50!!!

    No longer great barrier to use winidoofs and your PC!

    Always get automatic updates like Pissta or winidoofs 8 (without the possibility to aware!)

    It´s so absolutely great. So sugar glossy (BS)!

    The small print:

    Winidoofs will connect to your bank account and when there is enough money it will start up. Else not.

    Yes, we have access to all your cloud files and can do what we like with them. Even we can cut the access. But we will not do… may be… trust us…

    You will never lose full editable access to your files (as long as you pay)

    No, there are not so many Apps (in most cases none) that can read and FULLY edit your creations. We tried to not tell you this. Xuse, that we don´t pointed out better.

    No, we are not longer motivated to do updates (we never were a lot), as you will have to pay anyway.

    And yes, we will not longer sell other packaged OS, as we indirectly promised a few month ago when we said, that our latest OS will be the last upgradeable.

    Yes, you will always have to upgrade your hardware if we decide, it´s necessary. Elswise you can use our provided old version (we will not give our non subscribing long time users) but you have to pay for the latest. Sorry for that.
    Ehm, and, yes, you are a kind of Beta-Tester in future. Ehm, and we don´t give any warranty for anything. Ehm, good luck (May be our new updates – if they ever come to table – will not break any workflow like in the past. And if: Now you can be sure it hurts all users not only that, who installed first).

    No, YOU don´t have to decide if it´s good for you or not. So it´s not an option any longer. It´s a must you must like.

    Yes, it´s right, we bought also the competitor with the hooked fruit and all the others, so we are a monopolist right now. But you have enough choices to go to. So take it or not.

    No, we are not listening to any concerns.

    And we even don´t care about you.

  10. I read this, I don’t like a subscription based system. But what you’re complaining about is just complete nonsense. Adobe aren’t forcing you to do anything, you can take your copy of Photoshop and keep using it for as long as you like. You can export your images to many different file formats. You can use many different editors, be it a Corel product, GIMP or even Pixlr.

    Your hammer analogy just doesn’t make sense, your “old” hammer that your bought isn’t going to break! It will continue to work as well tomorrow or next year as it does today. You can export your dog house and use any hammer you like to fix it up.

    Now the fact that no other company makes hammers that are good enough? Is that Adobe’s fault? Of course not, they can sell their product to whoever they like for as much as they like. It’s a free market and you are equally free to buy it or not buy it.

    Like I said at the start, I hate the concept of subscription based software. But it’s for none of the reasons you list above!

    • Luffer,

      Sorry I missed your comment until now.

      We are almost in agreement. I agree that Adobe can set up their business and offer their wares any way they want . . . as long as it’s not dishonest.

      What I think you aren’t quite seeing is, I think what Adobe is doing IS dishonest. They aren’t being up front about the fact that when someone joins the CC, files they create are no longer realistically editable if/when they stop subscribing. If they are completely open about that and every customer understands that from the get go, fine; do what you want Adobe.

      But, Adobe won’t do that because they know that customers won’t agree to that. Adobe is already spinning things to make it sound as if this is a good deal for the consumer, and that they won’t lose access to their files. Well, of course they won’t lose access to their files. They’ll lose editability, though! That is a WORLD of difference compared to a perpetual license.

      Again, the benefit to Adobe’s software is it’s flexibility. That very flexibility, now, only remains relevant as long as you pay, and pay, and pay. Be open about that fact and I just drop Adobe like a hot rock and don’t care. Don’t be open and I’m going to complain and rant until people know the truth, or the FTC does something about it.

  11. Absolutely not agree. Microsoft was punished by law here in the Eu, as they tried to integrate Internet Explorer into OS. A joke if I compare to the move of Adobe. They had to stop and pay a penalty for the try. Yes, we have free markets. But that does not mean everything is allowed. Especially if you are a monopolist (and in the graphical industry Adobe is. For the replacement of Photoshop: Coral isn´t comparable for professionals by missing CMYK support. GIMP also. There simply are NO competitors in full functionality of PS). Many users bought their products under different conditions. Trusted in Adobe (who forced it´s users some month ago to upgrade their older versions to CS6 because this will be the only upgradeable in the future. And now it isn´t. There is no CS7. CC is a different product – no upgrade). and spend enormous amounts in PlugIns and Workflows (My After Effects PlugIns are still more expensive than my whole Master Collection). Spend time learning.They just changed the product I once bought. Thats´s it. And it is very good, that our free markets don´t allow everything. Everything else is short thought.
    If you are a producer of a medicament against cancer, and you are the only one in market – Do you really believe you should be allowed to sell it, for what ever price you want to? That´s the world you would like to live in?

    • Raischub, that’s EXACTLY the world we live in, why do you think there are so many patents in medicine?

      The product you own (CS6) has not changed, Adobe have released a new product called Creative Cloud. You are free to use it or not, but your copy of CS6 will continue to work just fine.

      It would be just the same if Adobe decided they’d had enough of Photoshop and killed the product completely. What would you do then? You’d just continue to use CS6 which is perfectly fine. Eventually something new would come along to take its place.

      • Sorry, that I have to disagree again. This isn´t the world we are living in. A monopolist in medicine (and not only there) can be stopped by law to sell his products with overweight prices. Happened often all around the world.
        That´s also the sense behind the existence of cartel authorities.
        BtW: If PS was sold as a hiring software from the beginning, I would not have anything against it. If someone starts under that conditions (and I don´t think, many would do) it´s OK. But this is a change in distribution. The product which is developed and sold in future is still the same product. That´s a point why EU-lawyers are seeing a problem with that. Well, time will tell. My point is made behind Adobe. You have your sight and I have mine. Let´s go on with that.

    • As far as I’m concerned Adobe are free to do what they want with their new product, they can charge what they like, they can adopt whatever model they decide. You are totally free to use it or not, it’s ludicrous to say they are a monopoly. There are lots of other packages available, it’s now up to the competition to take loyal Adobe customers away.

      They will live or die by their decisions, if they’ve made a wrong choice they will either change their distribution model or go out of business. That’s how it works, we don’t need lawyers or courts to get involved, let the economy do its thing! Unlike Cancer medication, this isn’t live and death!

  12. Pingback: Photoshop CC Isn't All Good: From a 23-Year Old |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s