Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Bryan Conner on April 24, 2012, 12:21:19 pm
-
I purchased a CS5 upgrade in November because I was afraid to wait due to the fear caused by Adobe's announcement of the change in policy. Adobe caused me to be afraid to wait, and now, the ones that waited are being rewarded with a complimentary upgrade. If I would have waited until after the end of March instead of acting quickly, I would now have a free upgrade to CS6. I had a chat online with Adobe Customer Service this morning. Of course, I am not eligible for the free upgrade to CS6. The customer service chat person "Junaid" has told me that the contact information of the proper person for me to express my opinion to is not available. Adobe does not have email support. I must pay Adobe for the privilege of speaking with them on the telephone. I am very disappointed. I started with Photoshop 5.5 and upgraded to 7, CS, CS2, CS3 and finally CS5. I feel like I have been taken advantage of by Adobe.
-
Same here. I have not even installed CS5, as the only reason I bought it was the threat of the new upgrade policy.
-
I just ended another chat session with Adobe. My case has been elevated to a higher level. The agent ended my session with the following: "This is in terms of the Adobe upgrade policy which was previously announced and hence we will look into it so that something can be done to the products purchased in the time after getting the previous message.". We shall see.
-
I am very disappointed. I started with Photoshop 5.5 and upgraded to 7, CS, CS2, CS3 and finally CS5. I feel like I have been taken advantage of by Adobe.
I can see how you might feel that way but I'm not sure approach was really optimal. I know some people like to wait a long time before upgrading. There is some logic behind deferring an upgrade a couple of month so that the kinks in a new version is ironed out. However, that approach isn't the best approach from a return on investment basis. To get the best ROI, the best way would be to always upgrade as soon as a new version is available. Then you have the entire life of that version to depreciate the cost of the upgrade.
The question of whether or not to get an actual upgrade is a different matter. You skipped version CS4 and upgraded to CS5 under duress. Can't say I blame you for skipping CS4, but if you are using Photoshop professionally, CS5 had a lot to offer vs. CS3. If you had upgraded to CS5 when it was first released, then you wouldn't be in this pickle.
I will say I think Adobe mishandled the whole 1 version back announcement and extension of the grace period. I think it sucks...but it is what it is, a blunder (and not the first blunder by Adobe over the years). When Adobe changed the "any version to the current version" policy back in the CS or CS2 period, there was some complaining then as well. But not as much as the whole point product vs. suite upgrade policy meaning if you got a suite you had to upgrade the entire suite...
There are business reason why Adobe is trying to transition from a perpetual license to a subscript license and a lot of it has to do with revenue recognition and accounting practices. As it stands, the way Adobe accounts for the cost of the development for an upgrade must be deferred over the entire life of that version and the only changes that can be made are bug fixes and compatibility maintenance updates. The engineers are precluded from adding new features or functions because of accounting (you can blame Enron for that).
Thus major version upgrade end up getting feature lock for usually 2 years, which sucks for the engineers and the users. If Adobe can transition to a subscription basis, new features and functionality could be added at any time so the problems of compacted development schedules would be reduced. Note, I'm not trying to defend Adobe's handling of the 1 version back policy change, I'm just trying to explain why things have come to this.
-
Just to clarify my own situation: I am on CS4 and never planned to go CS5, as many others do (i.e., upgrade every other version). At this point, I have not yet installed, nor activated the CS5 I bought "under duress". I do not know if the fact that it has not been activated would have any bearing on the matter.
-
I would contact Adobe. As of now, I have not been emailed by Adobe (I need to check my spam folder!). I will keep you informed about the next steps.
-
Just to clarify my own situation: I am on CS4 and never planned to go CS5, as many others do (i.e., upgrade every other version). At this point, I have not yet installed, nor activated the CS5 I bought "under duress". I do not know if the fact that it has not been activated would have any bearing on the matter.
I quite agree Jeff but it still feels like you have been "done over" as I have always used registered Adobe product I feel a little let down to say the least.
Jon
-
Thanks for your input Jeff. I understand, and agree in the sense that from a business standpoint I probably would have done the same thing to create both an environment where improvements and innovations can be shared with the public faster and smoother and an environment where the cash flow is also steadier. But, the way that they did this was lacking integrity. The flip-flopping is what bothers me. Adobe's policy change in November told me that CS3 users would not be able to upgrade to the upcoming CS6....we would have to purchase a full version. So, I bought the upgrade even though I had previously decided to wait for CS6. I had no problem with this. But, a few months later, presumably after thinking about the damage that the decision had done to their customer relations, Adobe said that CS3 customers could wait...and that those that had purchased a CS5 upgrade in the last few weeks could go to CS6 for free.
This is a matter of principle with me, it is not a matter of the money. Adobe has decided to offer some of the customers that took their policy change information to heart an upgrade to CS6 when they purchased a CS5 or 5.5 upgrade---other customers that took their policy change to heart and spent the same money are not allowed to upgrade without paying for two upgrades. I think that this is bad business...and it leaves a bad feeling in me.
I will probably either upgrade to CS6 or purchase Lightroom 4 regardless of what happens concerning this issue. I am a big fan of Adobe's products...just not a happy fan at the moment.
-
I hate to state the obvious, but if Adobe thinks there is some incremental value in subsequent releases, why not simply provide an incremental upgrade price?
In that respect Adobe seems to try to do the exact opposite of what the rest of the world is trending to. There is a distinct trend towards fragmentation of functionality for a tiny price. Be it publishing, the music industry, or the creation of images. So what the h*ll is the (business) sense in a creative suite or a subscription model?
Maybe that is the problem: neither accounting nor engineering should have anything to do with feature sets or business-models. What Adobe seems to lack is some decent innovation experts. (Innovation in this case meaning some sense of the intersection of market, technology, and economics. Not necessarily meaning revolution in just one of these areas.)
And yes, I am also a disgruntled customer. Purchasing a different language for a 30% premium because of the Euro, and then expecting to be able to install the US english version. I understand translations and multi country distribution costs additional money. No problem. I do not understand however why this is a 30% increase, nor why this is a sudden mutually exclusive feature.
Perhaps Adobe should deconstruct the Adobe applications to some universal core editor and then provide satellite or modular add-ons, and allow customers to purchase and upgrade these individual modules. Whether these modules should (also) be available through a web-based cloud-based service package can be decided on a case by case basis. Customers should at the very least be able to purchase these services in some highly customized/individualized fashion. Adobe's current service and pricing model already reeks of customer lock-in and exploitation, and in no way reflects the ubiquitous availability of similar functionality all over the internet cloud.
Or to put it entirely differently:
It is getting increasingly difficult to think that Adobe has the customer's interest in mind, no matter how many times the evangelists tell us otherwise. So even if it is the case that the customer comes first, Adobe should be aware that this is becoming less obvious in the general perception. (That is: I think I do not speak for just myself.)
-
There are business reason why Adobe is trying to transition from a perpetual license to a subscript license and a lot of it has to do with revenue recognition and accounting practices. As it stands, the way Adobe accounts for the cost of the development for an upgrade must be deferred over the entire life of that version and the only changes that can be made are bug fixes and compatibility maintenance updates. The engineers are precluded from adding new features or functions because of accounting (you can blame Enron for that).
Thus major version upgrade end up getting feature lock for usually 2 years, which sucks for the engineers and the users. If Adobe can transition to a subscription basis, new features and functionality could be added at any time so the problems of compacted development schedules would be reduced. Note, I'm not trying to defend Adobe's handling of the 1 version back policy change, I'm just trying to explain why things have come to this.
I'm pretty familiar with accounting rules and Sarbanes/Oxley (the law that dealt with the Enron mess) and am not certain that these rules preclude Adobe from doing what you say. My only quibble with Adobe's practice is that for users of LR/PS combination, one is kind of forced to upgrade both in tandem even if one perceives that the new PS is of only marginal benefit. I don't mind Adobe or any other company maximizing their revenue stream (that's our capitalist system which functions pretty darn well) and I think we users are understanding of this. I did go on the Adobe website yesterday to see if there is an easy way to communicate with the company on this matter and there really is not. A lot of companies have on-line forms that allow you to communicate with senior management and the Board of Directors; Adobe doesn't so I guess those who would be interested would need to send a snail-mail to the CEO to register complaints.
-
I did go on the Adobe website yesterday to see if there is an easy way to communicate with the company on this matter and there really is not. A lot of companies have on-line forms that allow you to communicate with senior management and the Board of Directors; Adobe doesn't so I guess those who would be interested would need to send a snail-mail to the CEO to register complaints.
Exactly!
-
I'm pretty familiar with accounting rules and Sarbanes/Oxley (the law that dealt with the Enron mess) and am not certain that these rules preclude Adobe from doing what you say.
Agreed, also from being (too) familiar with them. But they're perfect to hide behind.
-
There are business reason why Adobe is trying to transition from a perpetual license to a subscript license and a lot of it has to do with revenue recognition and accounting practices. As it stands, the way Adobe accounts for the cost of the development for an upgrade must be deferred over the entire life of that version and the only changes that can be made are bug fixes and compatibility maintenance updates. The engineers are precluded from adding new features or functions because of accounting (you can blame Enron for that).
It isn't the accounting rules that preclude engineers from adding new features or functions, it's Adobe management. Management might have some reason for liking the accounting results of a subscription model better than the accounting results of a perpetual license, but they are free to adopt either approach.
Typically, the SOX and accounting rules are an excuse to do something unpopular that management wanted to do for other reasons. As Alan says, the rules are perfect to hide behind.
-
I am currently chating with a rep from adobe. I am running and educational version of CS4 Design Premium. It seems one can directly upgrade to a standard license. I too didn't want to go to CS5 but it seems now it would save me about $300 if I did so and received CS6 free.
-
I just placed my order for CS5.5. I feel a bit sick, I did not intend to spend $650 today... But such is the price to pay...
-
I'm pretty familiar with accounting rules and Sarbanes/Oxley (the law that dealt with the Enron mess) and am not certain that these rules preclude Adobe from doing what you say.
I am also pretty familiar with the accounting rules for software development related to commercial products.
Don't blame Enron ... there is plenty of history within the software industry itself to account for the current rule set ...
FASB Statement 86 is the governing statement and it dates back to the mid 1980's.
-
Thanks for your input Jeff. I understand, and agree in the sense that from a business standpoint I probably would have done the same thing to create both an environment where improvements and innovations can be shared with the public faster and smoother and an environment where the cash flow is also steadier. But, the way that they did this was lacking integrity. The flip-flopping is what bothers me. Adobe's policy change in November told me that CS3 users would not be able to upgrade to the upcoming CS6....we would have to purchase a full version. So, I bought the upgrade even though I had previously decided to wait for CS6. I had no problem with this. But, a few months later, presumably after thinking about the damage that the decision had done to their customer relations, Adobe said that CS3 customers could wait...and that those that had purchased a CS5 upgrade in the last few weeks could go to CS6 for free.
This is a matter of principle with me, it is not a matter of the money. Adobe has decided to offer some of the customers that took their policy change information to heart an upgrade to CS6 when they purchased a CS5 or 5.5 upgrade---other customers that took their policy change to heart and spent the same money are not allowed to upgrade without paying for two upgrades. I think that this is bad business...and it leaves a bad feeling in me.
This is how I see this situation too. I upgraded last October as we have been told we can't upgrade to CS6 from other versions than CS5. Otherwise I would wait till CS6. It is not fair …
Regards, Filip
----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
-
Perhaps Adobe should deconstruct the Adobe applications to some universal core editor and then provide satellite or modular add-ons, and allow customers to purchase and upgrade these individual modules. Whether these modules should (also) be available through a web-based cloud-based service package can be decided on a case by case basis. Customers should at the very least be able to purchase these services in some highly customized/individualized fashion. Adobe's current service and pricing model already reeks of customer lock-in and exploitation, and in no way reflects the ubiquitous availability of similar functionality all over the internet cloud.
Or to put it entirely differently:
It is getting increasingly difficult to think that Adobe has the customer's interest in mind, no matter how many times the evangelists tell us otherwise. So even if it is the case that the customer comes first, Adobe should be aware that this is becoming less obvious in the general perception. (That is: I think I do not speak for just myself.)
This is interesting, I was thinking yesterday about similar model. Just to have a "Core" version and some modules for web designers, 3D artists, film makers ...
Regards, Filip
----------------------------
http://shotworldwide.com
-
I am also pretty familiar with the accounting rules for software development related to commercial products.
Don't blame Enron ... there is plenty of history within the software industry itself to account for the current rule set ...
FASB Statement 86 is the governing statement and it dates back to the mid 1980's.
But I think it's a real stretch to think that FASB 86 applies to incremental advances. If interpreted too literally it would also directly apply to updates of existing software, e.g., version 1.3 -> 1.4; but that's only my opinion.
-
Update: I still have not gotten the promised email or any other contact from Adobe. I am still waiting patiently.
-
But I think it's a real stretch to think that FASB 86 applies to incremental advances. If interpreted too literally it would also directly apply to updates of existing software, e.g., version 1.3 -> 1.4; but that's only my opinion.
I'm not a CPA (nor do I play on on TV) but the way it was explained to me (by engineers), Adobe doesn't allow adding new features and new functionality between major dot releases (think CS 5.0 or CS 5.5). It doesn't impact bug fixes and maintenance updates...that's what "management" is trying to change with software subscriptions...
That's why ACR versions released within the quarter that the main release was released can add features (like ACR 4.0>4.1 and ACR 6.0>6.1 and presumably ACR 7.0 and 7.1).
-
Update: I tweeted on the Adobe Care twitter page (I am not a twitterer...LOL is it a page?) ok, a very nice person named Bev looked at my info and she has offered me a goodwill gesture of a complimentary copy of Lightroom 4. I am not a lightroom user, but the main reason that I would have waited on CS6 instead of CS5 was the upgrades to ACR. So, a big thumbs up to the Customer Service team at Adobe Care. They have restored my trust in Adobe's Customer Service.
-
I'm not a CPA (nor do I play on on TV) but the way it was explained to me (by engineers), Adobe doesn't allow adding new features and new functionality between major dot releases (think CS 5.0 or CS 5.5). It doesn't impact bug fixes and maintenance updates...that's what "management" is trying to change with software subscriptions...
That's why ACR versions released within the quarter that the main release was released can add features (like ACR 4.0>4.1 and ACR 6.0>6.1 and presumably ACR 7.0 and 7.1).
There is a big difference between how a subscription - which is a "service" - and how a license - which is a "good" - are accounted for with respect to the recognition (ie timing) of revenue and associated expenses.
But ... any business that makes strategic decisions based on accounting rules is foolish.
All that matters is cash. When you spend it, when you get it. None of that is impacted by accounting rules or treatment.
I'm sure Adobe's decision to move to a subscription/cloud-based model has everything to do with real costs and real opportunity and nothing to do with accounting.
-
Update: I tweeted on the Adobe Care twitter page (I am not a twitterer...LOL is it a page?) ok, a very nice person named Bev looked at my info and she has offered me a goodwill gesture of a complimentary copy of Lightroom 4. I am not a lightroom user, but the main reason that I would have waited on CS6 instead of CS5 was the upgrades to ACR. So, a big thumbs up to the Customer Service team at Adobe Care. They have restored my trust in Adobe's Customer Service.
Hi Bryan Adobe also offered me a free copy of lightroom but i don't use it (can't get on with it Aperture user with all catalogue on aperture) I refused and they have escalated the case i have had this feed back from them so far
"John posted additional details about this in January. I'll have someone from customer care contact you to address your questions/concerns.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2012/01/..."
fingers crossed
Jon
-
The problems with Adobe and the way their practices preclude periodic improvements paves the way for competition. Right now I can see no real alternative to Photoshop, their version model, and the clumsy "Suite" restrictions. But you could look back far enough and say the same for makers of Wordstar and Viscalc.
Personally, I'd welcome a subscription model from Adobe for Photoshop.
-
Personally, I'd welcome a subscription model from Adobe for Photoshop.
Next month you can get one for $20/month.
-
Next month you can get one for $20/month.
Isn't that just an introductory price for the first year ?
Given their recent behaviour with upgrade policies etc I'd be very wary of transferring to a subscription based model.
-
Isn't that just an introductory price for the first year ?
You know, I'm not sure. I saw that mentioned as the price for subscribing to any of the applications.
I guess this scheme will gain Adobe some new customers, but as an existing Photoshop user I see no advantages. At $20/month it's considerably more expensive than the current $199 upgrade fee that comes along every 18 months or so. It's loaded with requirements that I assiduously avoid -- automatic charges to my credit card, monthly activation checks and the necessary reliance on an internet connection.
And another thing I've started to wonder about is the stability of these updates that are supposed to come flowing along. Right now we have months of public beta testing before the final release. Then it takes a month or two (or three) before plugins get updated to reliably work with the new version. How is this supposed to work with constant updates to the program? Maybe Jeff can shed some light on this.
I'm sorry to sound so negative about Adobe's "Cloud", but it holds no advantages for me and Adobe seems hell-bent on making this their business model.
-
Adobe's offering both models. My bet would be that they will see how this works, what the numbers look like, and then continue to adjust as they see appropriate in the market.
-
Adobe's offering both models.
For now...
-
Yes, and they will assess how the market reacts and make decisions accordingly. If the subscription model doesn't have much uptake, they will likely look to adjust it. If it's very successful, they may still look to change it, but in a different way.
-
Yes, and they will assess how the market reacts and make decisions accordingly. If the subscription model doesn't have much uptake, they will likely look to adjust it. If it's very successful, they may still look to change it, but in a different way.
I'd like to see a metered, pay-for-play version of "photoshop as a service".
I use it soooo infrequently now, but I do need it every now and then and would love to be able to fire it up for 2 or 3 hours and pay $3/hour or something.
-
I'd like to see a metered, pay-for-play version of "photoshop as a service".
I use it soooo infrequently now, but I do need it every now and then and would love to be able to fire it up for 2 or 3 hours and pay $3/hour or something.
I think that model is being made available, but not on an hour by hour basis, or day by day, it's month by month.
That makes a degree of sense if you're doing a one off project and need, say, InDesign or Premiere+After Effects.
I wonder if we'll see the trial versions disappearing or having significantly shorter periods ?
-
Yes, they have a $30/month per application offering. To get the $20/month pricing, you need to sign up for a year. So I guess you could just pay $30 to use Photoshop for a month if you needed it for a project.
-
I'd like to see a metered, pay-for-play version of "photoshop as a service".
Does $1.99 per hour work for you? As a PS slave, I'm not sure 5¢ an hour would be a particularly good deal for me.
-
At the end of the day what we need is some serious competition for Adobe.
-
At the end of the day what we need is some serious competition for Adobe.
+1
-
Hi All
Adobe saw sense and upgraded me to CS6 after the update before December the 31st or else debacle .
"We are contacting you regarding your comment on the Adobe forum for the upgrade Photoshop CS6.
As an exception we have processed an order for Photoshop CS6 under the reference ******, the order will ship by the end of next week at the earliest as it is not yet available.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.
Thanks
Regards
Nicolas
Adobe Support"