Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: The real cost of renting software from Adobe  (Read 3792 times)

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1504
The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« on: May 05, 2017, 07:45:35 AM »

Why are Adobe's fortunes doing so well since it released the "cloud" versions and monthly rental payments for its software?

Look here:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/creative-cloud-keeps-getting-more-expensive-in-australia/

Year 1: $359.88 (2014)
Year 2: $599.88
Year 3: $695.88
Year 4: $871.07
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1646
    • Pieter Kers
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2017, 07:55:48 AM »

That is one of the basic problems of the new system.
Final cut pro-x is very low cost if you need video software.
As a photographer i see other software coming up on the level Photoshop at low cost.

In the mean time i stay on CS6; with that i can do everything i want.
Only the lack of support of new cameras is making it difficult so maybe i end up buying a perpetual version of Lightroom- as long it exists.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6702
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2017, 08:39:06 AM »

Why are Adobe's fortunes doing so well since it released the "cloud" versions and monthly rental payments for its software?

Look here:
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/05/creative-cloud-keeps-getting-more-expensive-in-australia/

Year 1: $359.88 (2014)
Year 2: $599.88
Year 3: $695.88
Year 4: $871.07

Yes, it's been obvious all along why they changed to a subscription model. Get the people hooked/dependent on the product at a reasonable level, then start milking the already mature products with price increases beyond innovation rate.

And an often used excuse is exchange rate, but that's just a distraction because the exchange rate has not changed as much as the prices have (see attached), and inflation has been low.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2017, 10:44:03 AM »

This is why I am using CS6 as long as possible, which will be until it is no longer compatible with my OS. 

In reality, Adobe stopped producing upgrades that actually made a difference to me years ago.  The last one I remember that actually made a difference was from CS3 to CS4 where they improved the Vanishing Point filter. 

On top of this, Capture One is a much better RAW processor then Lightroom. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2316
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2017, 05:50:49 PM »

The photography subscription (Ps, Lr, Br, Cr) is AUD14.29 a month on the new pricing from June (but if your plan is current it won't go up until the end of your 12 months - so mine goes up in August, as an example).

A$171.48 p.a. including local taxes (GST is 10%, so Adobe is getting (AUD155.89).  That's less than A$0.47 a day.  For a pro, the cost would be one of the lowest input costs for the business.  As an enthusiast, it's one of the cheaper aspects of the hobby of photography.

If you want the whole package, which consists of 29 desktop and 21 mobile apps, plus cloud storage and so on, you pay more but presumably you're either extremely keen as a hobbyist (in which case it's still pretty cheap for an annual hobby cost for tools), or you're pro in which case it's still a tiny fraction of your input costs because you would be making money by using those apps.

I'm not saying you have to like it and use it, but objectively it's not expensive.  If you're as student or teacher, you get 70% off.

And, no, I don't work for Adobe.  Yes, it's important to watch pricing and review it and discuss it and make decisions about what suits you, but Adobe is a company trying to make money - that's the point of them - and you either find their products worth the cost or you don't, but if you think these are expensive for what they are as a hobby or a pro, I think you have a very distorted view of the cost of things.
Logged
Phil Brown

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1646
    • Pieter Kers
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2017, 05:10:24 AM »

...
If you want the whole package, which consists of 29 desktop and 21 mobile apps, plus cloud storage and so on, you pay more ..
That is another aspect:  it is photography or all...
If you would only like to use Premiere than you have to take the whole package... expensive i think.
I used to have premiere + photoshop is an affordable small package with a perpetual license.

And you are right;  for photography it is not much money; leaves me the renting model that i do not want to be addicted to; and as said nothing really new after already some years of photoshop CC...
ultimately- as this thread begun- you do not know how the price of renting it will evolve over the years...
For me there is just no reason to take the step.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6702
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2017, 07:56:30 AM »

This is why I am using CS6 as long as possible, which will be until it is no longer compatible with my OS. 

In reality, Adobe stopped producing upgrades that actually made a difference to me years ago.  The last one I remember that actually made a difference was from CS3 to CS4 where they improved the Vanishing Point filter.

Yes, same with me. CS6 Extended (which had some additional features that mattered to me) is doing fine for editing, although I'm using Affinity Photo more and more as I've noticed. While things work mostly similar, it's also more cleverly designed in several aspects. And despite its young age (the Windows version was introduced in December 2016), Affinity Photo already becoming very stable and feature-rich.

Quote
On top of this, Capture One is a much better RAW processor then Lightroom.

Yes, although LR is more than simply a Raw conversion application. But LR's development does look pretty stagnant, where Capture One's is growing, and becoming better in Editing functionality as well, and its DAM functionality is improving.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

David Anderson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 715
    • http://www.twigwater.com
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2017, 08:08:19 AM »

I think the Adobe Photoshop subscription model is great and I don't find the cost is really any more or less than buying regular upgrades in the past.

Logged
www.twigwater.com My fly fishing blog.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6702
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2017, 09:29:25 AM »

I think the Adobe Photoshop subscription model is great and I don't find the cost is really any more or less than buying regular upgrades in the past.

I disagree. I used to skip an upgrade if the new/improved features were not relevant enough to impact my work. And I've not upgraded since CS6 and LR5.7, so I've saved a lot of money and not missed much innovation that I could also get elsewhere. It also used to force Adobe to come up with improvements/innovations that mattered for a new release.

Since the subscriptions, I've seen some improvements, although very few, and lots of updates that created new bugs (as if users are paying beta-testers). That means accumulating cost for very little progress.

The whole SAAS model is good for shareholders, not for stakeholders/users, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2017, 10:34:26 AM »

I disagree. I used to skip an upgrade if the new/improved features were not relevant enough to impact my work. And I've not upgraded since CS6 and LR5.7, so I've saved a lot of money and not missed much innovation that I could also get elsewhere. It also used to force Adobe to come up with improvements/innovations that mattered for a new release.

Since the subscriptions, I've seen some improvements, although very few, and lots of updates that created new bugs (as if users are paying beta-testers). That means accumulating cost for very little progress.

The whole SAAS model is good for shareholders, not for stakeholders/users, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart

This is absolutely true, I have seen very little in terms of features added that do anything for me.  The only reason I will have to eventually upgrade is when CS6 no longer is compatible with my operating system. 

The real issue at hand here is that Adobe Photoshop is virtually the only image editing software.  Sure, insofar as RAW editors, we have options.  Photoshop is the only game in town for image editing, so, as with the Post Office, it doesn't really matter to Adobe what they do. 

Eventually though, this is going to catch up with them and we will start to see other products that compete. 

I just now started to explore motion and I am amazed at all the softwares out there that do virtually the same thing, and the pricing is not that high. 

We need more competition in the image editing market. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Alan Goldhammer

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2505
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2017, 10:37:58 AM »

We need more competition in the image editing market.
I'm surprised with all the anger towards Adobe that there is not a Crowdsource movement to create new software.
Logged

Dominique_R

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 138
    • Dominique Robert Photography
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2017, 12:02:55 PM »

Yes, same with me. CS6 Extended (which had some additional features that mattered to me) is doing fine for editing, although I'm using Affinity Photo more and more as I've noticed.

I too am staying with standalone Photoshop (CS5.1, in my case) and standalone Lightroom, latest version in order to be able to develop RAWs from recent cameras. That version of Photoshop does all I need.

I looked into Affinity, it looked great at first, but the lens library they're using (lensfun) does not include many professional-grade lenses, and almost none of those I use. I find the possibility to quickly and automatically correct for optical defects a very pleasant option, even if I don't always use it (and sometimes only partly), and therefore I gave up on Affinity, at least for the time being.

I talked to the Serif team but they have no plans to move to another, more comprehensive lens library for the foreseeable future.
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1023
    • advantica blog
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2017, 03:20:50 PM »

I think the Adobe Photoshop subscription model is great and I don't find the cost is really any more or less than buying regular upgrades in the past.

The Adobe subscription model is great for some users, and a nuisance and unnecessary cost to others.
Adobe by not providing a perpetual version of their software is giving away a sizeable portion of the potential market. A telephone user can elect whether he wants to rent the phone or own it outright. Image editing user should have the same choices.

Fortunately, the competing products are getting more numerous and much better, so as Hank Williams Jr sings, they (Adobe) can kiss our a$$.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9551
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2017, 03:34:18 PM »

One plus: with the subscription model your software always is up to date. I'm loading the latest Photoshop update as I write this. I've used Photoshop for -- don't know, more than a decade -- and I've used Lightroom since it first came out. It's been my experience that the cost of keeping my "permanent" versions of Photoshop and Lightroom up to date was more than what it's costing me to keep my Photoshop/Lightroom subscription up to date, and with the subscription they're always more up to date. But I agree: there's always something to bitch about. If Photoshop/Lightroom were free we'd find something else.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2017, 06:39:27 PM »

One plus: with the subscription model your software always is up to date. I'm loading the latest Photoshop update as I write this. I've used Photoshop for -- don't know, more than a decade -- and I've used Lightroom since it first came out. It's been my experience that the cost of keeping my "permanent" versions of Photoshop and Lightroom up to date was more than what it's costing me to keep my Photoshop/Lightroom subscription up to date, and with the subscription they're always more up to date. But I agree: there's always something to bitch about. If Photoshop/Lightroom were free we'd find something else.

The problem with PS and LR is they do not really provide many updates that actually matter to a professional.  I mean the progress in improvements over the last few years has been pretty slow. 

If you compare LR to Capture One, C1 has jumped leaps and bounds over the last few generations. 

The other thing I kind of hate about PS & LR, is that they seem to have abandoned the professional and pay too much attention to hobbyist.  LR is a nice raw processor, but has no tethering capabilities, something a professional really needs and something that has been asked for for years by pros. 

Sure, Phase One caters a little too much to the (rich) hobbyists too, but they also understand the professional. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2017, 06:51:46 PM »

Like some here, I am using standalone LR for 98% of processing with Affinity Photo for the other 2% and refuse to go down the lifelong path of CSS. While I detest the subscription model, I understand the business model behind it.

When ever faced with questions about the sensibility of costs like these and others associated with photography, specifically for non-pros (who cannot "write off" costs), I try to put photography into perspective by comparing it to the game of golf. CSS subscription fees are like the annual dues one pays to belong to a club, but, from what I understand, significantly cheaper. If you want to play at Club Adobe, you must pay the fees. The name even carries the same cachée as some of the better golf clubs.

By the way, I also say the same thing to photographers who enjoy a "free" day out in a public place/park or on a volunteer-run trail, like the Bruce Trail here in southern Ontario: pay your "green fees" and help support these free days out with a donation or membership equivalent to the cost of a round of golf.

I used the same analogy in a situation where the spouse of a photo-hobbyist was complaining "You never make any money from his photography!" I asked if she expected him to make money when he went golfing? At first she was confused, but then she got it.

And, after a poor day of shooting, I think, "Yup, just like golfers we have good days and bad." And my friend Kerry Little reminds me, "Even a bad day of photography is better than a good day at the office."
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com.
Flickr Account;
PhotoBlog – Read and subscribe!

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2646
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2017, 03:41:06 AM »

If you compare LR to Capture One, C1 has jumped leaps and bounds over the last few generations.
Only because it needs to catch up with LR which still has far, far more to offer most photographers.

The real issue at hand here is that Adobe Photoshop is virtually the only image editing software.
Affinity Photo does most things you'll ever need from an image editor at a very low cost, similarly Photoline is very well respected, even the Gimp is quite capable too.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4175
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2017, 07:24:15 AM »

The problem with PS and LR is they do not really provide many updates that actually matter to a professional.  I mean the progress in improvements over the last few years has been pretty slow. 

Right, all the content aware stuff doesn't count? The changes to Liquify don't count? Lightroom's Reference View? etc. Maybe the problem is that it's hard to show the value of new, better tools to those who make their living from taking pictures? After all, their old ways aren't actually broken.

The other thing I kind of hate about PS & LR, is that they seem to have abandoned the professional and pay too much attention to hobbyist.  LR is a nice raw processor, but has no tethering capabilities, something a professional really needs and something that has been asked for for years by pros.

If you had said C1 does tethering better, that would be a fair statement. But no tethering capabilities in LR? That's simply wrong, and shooting into a layout was a feature added specifically because of studio photographers' requests.
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2017, 07:49:11 AM »

Only because it needs to catch up with LR which still has far, far more to offer most photographers.
Affinity Photo does most things you'll ever need from an image editor at a very low cost, similarly Photoline is very well respected, even the Gimp is quite capable too.

To me, color and grading is the most important aspect of a RAW processor, and LR doesn't hold a candle to C1. 

Also, something many photographers do not need to worry about, but I also need to preform Lens Cast Corrections with my technical cameras.  C1 is very good at doing this; LR I believe requires a plugin that does not work all that well.  (As pixels get smaller and we move into mirrorless, I think this overall is going to become more of an issue with most cameras.) 

I will give you that LR's HDR feature is pretty nice though.  Also, if you're a wedding or event guy, the presets in LR are probably better then in C1, and that fact that layers in LR can be preserved as layers in PS is nice I guess.  (Here though I am not sure if I agree in the end; the beauty about RAW processing is that you are editing the data, not the image.  If you keep your layers active, they become image editing, not raw data editing, which degrades the IQ faster.) 

Insofar as my other comment, Photoshop is the only really well-know image editing software.  I think we need a little time and a great disappointment for the others to take where we will have well-known options. 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 08:08:33 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The real cost of renting software from Adobe
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2017, 07:54:43 AM »

Right, all the content aware stuff doesn't count? The changes to Liquify don't count? Lightroom's Reference View? etc. Maybe the problem is that it's hard to show the value of new, better tools to those who make their living from taking pictures? After all, their old ways aren't actually broken.

If you had said C1 does tethering better, that would be a fair statement. But no tethering capabilities in LR? That's simply wrong, and shooting into a layout was a feature added specifically because of studio photographers' requests.

I never found the content aware tool to work that well, even when it came to editing simple things like repetitive patterns.  Try using the content aware tool to remove outlets on walls with wall paper; it fails miserably.  Insofar as the Liquify tool, what am I going to use that for as an architectural and studio photographer? 

Like I said, the Vanishing Point Filter was a great improvement going from CS2 to CS3, and then CS4.  When I jumped to CS6, which was after Club Adobe was announced, I found nothing of great improvement for things that would actually matter.  Sure, the layout of the sidebar was a little better, but that is a moot point.

As for tethering is LR, can you control the camera through LR?  Does LR have a live view mode?  You mention an additional layout; does this mean you need to operate in another window to use its tethering capabilities?  Can you apply adjustments to your last captured image and have those automatically applied to the next captured image?  (My knowledge may be a little outdated on this.) 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 08:04:02 AM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up