Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Adobe Photography Subscription Survey Regarding New Subscription Pricing  (Read 7531 times)

vjbelle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 410

I received a survey from a marketing group questioning my reaction to a new Photography plan and new pricing.  Two new plans are being considered - one with an enhanced Lightroom only that would sync across multiple platforms and 1TB cloud storage -
 Price $9.95 per month. The other plan would include both Lightroom and Photoshop without cloud storage for $19.95 per month.  That is double the price of the current Photography subscription.  There was no plan for Photoshop only.  I'm sure others will receive the survey. 

Victor
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10501
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive. The community should come out loud and clear demanding an explanation why Adobe all of the sudden needs to double the subscription price for the same services we are now receiving. The consumer price index has nowhere near doubled since the time this plan was started. Are they putting twice the incremental effort into improving these applications? Do they have a particularly onerous component of costs inflating well beyond the CPI? What increased value for money should we be looking forward to? Does the survey give one the option to raise such questions, or is it an effort to whitewash a price increase?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Jack Hogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 633
    • Hikes -more than strolls- with my dog

I have both CS5 and CC installed but I keep using CS5 because I am used to it and I can find the functions I use most faster in it.  I am sure there must be performance differences but for my uses I have not noticed any.  Thanks for starting this thread: I don't use LR and it reminded me that I wanted to cancel CC's subscription.

Jack
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
    • A Goldhammer Photography

I downloaded Affinity Photo the other day ($49.95 US for a perpetual license!!!).  Looks pretty much like photoshop and it can be integrated into Lightroom.  I'm staying with the perpetual license Lightroom as I've not gone into the subscription model and don't intend to.  Adobe is making a big mistake here.
Logged

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 675

So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive. The community should come out loud and clear demanding an explanation why Adobe all of the sudden needs to double the subscription price for the same services we are now receiving. The consumer price index has nowhere near doubled since the time this plan was started. Are they putting twice the incremental effort into improving these applications? Do they have a particularly onerous component of costs inflating well beyond the CPI? What increased value for money should we be looking forward to? Does the survey give one the option to raise such questions, or is it an effort to whitewash a price increase?

So far I've managed to get along with CS6 and not give in to the temptation to move to the cloud, although there are certain reasons that I might take the leap at some future date.  This information from Adobe is not a surprise to anyone I would think.  Once in, one would tend to build all image enhancement and management around the Abode cloud I would imagine, so what better time for Adobe to take advantage and push up the prices?  However, there are two other reasons I can think of for Adobe to reap as much profit as possible before the cloud perhaps gives way to a couple of other apps on the market now, Affinity Photo and Luminar.  I have both apps to explore, but at this point I would still use PS exclusively.  However, those two apps might be enough for many to steer away from Adobe in the near future.  Just speculation on my part of course, but I think plausible at least.  Of course there's also the contradiction to that thought.  If Adobe is indeed feeling the pinch, perhaps this is not the best time to double the subscription price to those who have been loyal to the cause for some time.  The two aforementioned apps are still in their infancy in many ways, but they certainly show signs of growth in a professional manner I believe.  Just a few thoughts for a rainy day.

EDIT: Sorry Alan, your post obviously came in as I was writing, but we seem to be on that same path here.

Gary   

   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 11:17:37 AM by Garnick »
Logged
LuLa - The source of ALL! -- "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" -- Ansel Adams
Even though a big part of my life has been spent dealing with negatives, they generally end up being positives -- gan

owinthomas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31

So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive.

And so it begins ... trap set and about to be triggered. And as soon as it does Adobe gets dumped and Phase One and Affinity Photo start getting my cash.

Just saying
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10501
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess. And there is the sacrifice of an integrated workflow from Develop to Print without converting a file. LR has some real advantages. Their new proposal may induce many users to buy the LR plan for 9.95 and drop Photoshop. For the number of times I need Photoshop, it may be worthwhile doing exactly that, especially as I have a legacy permanent license hanging around for some version or other that does anything I need that LR doesn't do.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Kevin Gallagher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 506
    • http://

 I got one yesterday and used the comment spaces to let them know exactly how I feel about them doubling the price. Today I get an offer to get the whole CC boat of applications for a "Teaser" price that would revert to whatever the full price is one year from now, no thanks guys.

 Kevin in CT
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
    • A Goldhammer Photography

Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess. And there is the sacrifice of an integrated workflow from Develop to Print without converting a file. LR has some real advantages. Their new proposal may induce many users to buy the LR plan for 9.95 and drop Photoshop. For the number of times I need Photoshop, it may be worthwhile doing exactly that, especially as I have a legacy permanent license hanging around for some version or other that does anything I need that LR doesn't do.
I've always exported TIFFs to PS for further work.  The same process works fine with Affinity Photo:  http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2016/4/how-to-use-affinity-photo-as-an-external-editor-for-lightroom   I just don't do enough to warrant paying the subscription price.  We'll have to wait and see what happens if Adobe tries to eliminate the perpetual LR approach.  I think that there are some enterprising software developers out there who are starting to see the crack's in Adobe's model.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2658

The Adobe Photo subscription plan started out as a good deal.  Actually, maybe a great deal.  The idea of frequent updates along with a reasonable monthly price was very appealing.  I certainly went for it after waiting a couple of months.  For the most part it works well for me as I use both Lr and PS.

What's galling though is Adobe might be looking for more money for this plan now.  Their updates over the last year have included a LOT of new bugs and ooopsies (a feature used to work fine but got screwed up in the update process).   

Initially Adobe sold the subscription plans to the financial sector as a way to even out their revenue and it worked well.  Wall Street was pleased and Adobe profits did well.  I guess they're looking for more profits now.

I'm not going to panic over a survey though.  If they didn't survey their customers we'd think they'd lost touch.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10501
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

I've always exported TIFFs to PS for further work.  The same process works fine with Affinity Photo:  http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2016/4/how-to-use-affinity-photo-as-an-external-editor-for-lightroom   I just don't do enough to warrant paying the subscription price.  We'll have to wait and see what happens if Adobe tries to eliminate the perpetual LR approach.  I think that there are some enterprising software developers out there who are starting to see the crack's in Adobe's model.

I almost NEVER export from LR to do further work in Photoshop. LR has become so capable it's almost never necessary and just creates file size bloat. I don't want to go back to rendering files and committing gobs of storage to TIFF or PSD. A great many people likewise. So abandoning this workflow would be a real issue, and of course Adobe knows it.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

owinthomas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31

Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess. And there is the sacrifice of an integrated workflow from Develop to Print without converting a file. LR has some real advantages. Their new proposal may induce many users to buy the LR plan for 9.95 and drop Photoshop. For the number of times I need Photoshop, it may be worthwhile doing exactly that, especially as I have a legacy permanent license hanging around for some version or other that does anything I need that LR doesn't do.

My workflow doesn't lock me into Adobe, I keep my raws, all changes are made as tiffs, I generate jpgs as and when I need them deleting afterwards and my folder structures keep me straight.

As for switching all I would need to do is import my images files implace and start using a different raw editor and pixel masher.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2017, 07:50:46 PM by owinthomas »
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2469
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald

So basically it's a sub-text to double the subscription price for what we now receive. The community should come out loud and clear demanding an explanation why Adobe all of the sudden needs to double the subscription price for the same services we are now receiving. The consumer price index has nowhere near doubled since the time this plan was started. Are they putting twice the incremental effort into improving these applications? Do they have a particularly onerous component of costs inflating well beyond the CPI? What increased value for money should we be looking forward to? Does the survey give one the option to raise such questions, or is it an effort to whitewash a price increase?

We live in a system of (mostly) free-market capitalism. Adobe can charge whatever they want and it should come as no surprise that their price should increase one day. Magazine subs have always been like this, cable subs, too.

What is surprising is the timing - just when some viable alternatives start to make waves, like Affinity Photo.

The Adobe Photo subscription plan started out as a good deal.  Actually, maybe a great deal.
What's galling though is Adobe might be looking for more money for this plan now.  Their updates over the last year have included a LOT of new bugs and ooopsies (a feature used to work fine but got screwed up in the update process).   

Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com.
Flickr Account;
PhotoBlog – Read and subscribe!

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1038
    • advantica blog

Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.
+1

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10501
    • http://www.markdsegal.com


Many would disagree with the notion of the subscription plan being a "good deal". It was a lousy deal from the start for anyone who does not want to be licked in to paying the piper in perpetuity.

Actually, at the current pricing it's a pretty good deal when you compare it with what we used to pay on the 18 month update cycles for PS and LR - it came close to about 300 dollars for the two applications every 18 months, which is about 16 dollars per month. Now we are paying about 10 for the same thing. Increasing it to 20 is another story.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1668
    • Pieter Kers

Apple is also playing with the idea to bring the rentmodel to the APP-store.
One reason is it is hard to make an upgrade system within the store; another is obviously easy profit.
So 'Affinity photo' may be for rent in the future like Adobes software.

Phil Schiller : http://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/features/phil-schiller-upgrade-pricing-google-home-amazon-echo-swift-1690180
Quote
I think for many developers, subscription model is a better way to, go than try to come up with a list of features, and different pricing for upgrade, versus for new customers. I am not saying it doesn't have value for some developers but for most it doesn’t, so that's the challenge. And if you look at the App Store it would take a lot of engineering to do that and so would be at the expense of other features we can deliver.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 03:40:41 AM by kers »
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2660
    • http://www.paulholman.com

Well, before switching to other stuff, there is the consideration of all our LR files edited in raw format with XMP sidecars. Those, or those converted to DNG, need to be readable by whatever one switches into, otherwise it could be a mess.
If you're writing to sidecars, CO picks up all the metadata (keywording,ratings etc). You will loose develop settings which will need to be recreated, but updating process versions in LR has similar issues.

For me LR perpetual is still the best option, but moving to CO would not be a major difficulty and it does add some good features that LR hasn't got.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10501
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

You will loose develop settings which will need to be recreated, but updating process versions in LR has similar issues.

For me LR perpetual is still the best option, but moving to CO would not be a major difficulty and it does add some good features that LR hasn't got.

Well, thanks, but the Develop settings is the KEY, the heart, of photo editing; the rest of it - star ratings, keywords, etc, is secondary. I don't know about you, but for me, most of the "sweat-equity" in creating good post-capture photographs is the time invested in "Developing" them. Lose that and I've lost significant assets.

Whatever we think about the pricing and the changes to the pricing, there are obvious, major benefits to the integrated workflow within LR from Import to Print, and that between LR and PS whenever we need to leave the "raw" domain and render the image. We can't take that away from Adobe, and it isn't clear to me that this strength is easily or fully replicated outside those two applications.  None of that, however, addresses any particular justification for doubling the price of the subscription. If they are really going to do this, my mind is open and I would like to know why. Is it to increase rate of return to investors, are corporate earnings insufficient to sustain investor interest, or will there be incremental customer benefits to such a move? Adobe's customer base is huge, it has a lot of derivative intellectual capital in a way locked-in with this company and it has been loyal for many years, so we deserve, at least, to understand the reasons for what they are obviously contemplating.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2522
    • A Goldhammer Photography

Well, thanks, but the Develop settings is the KEY, the heart, of photo editing; the rest of it - star ratings, keywords, etc, is secondary. I don't know about you, but for me, most of the "sweat-equity" in creating good post-capture photographs is the time invested in "Developing" them. Lose that and I've lost significant assets.
Quite right and Adobe has refined the LR workflow so that it works extremely well.  For event photographers, the DAM features are extremely important (two women who worked for me several years ago in the pharma industry moved on to become event photographers and both rely heavily on that feature of LR).

Quote
Whatever we think about the pricing and the changes to the pricing, there are obvious, major benefits to the integrated workflow within LR from Import to Print, and that between LR and PS whenever we need to leave the "raw" domain and render the image. We can't take that away from Adobe, and it isn't clear to me that this strength is easily or fully replicated outside those two applications.
There are some very good raw converters available and the more I have used Affinity Photo the more impressed I am with it.  You are right about the integration of the Adobe programs and that's something that is difficult to replicate.
Quote
None of that, however, addresses any particular justification for doubling the price of the subscription. If they are really going to do this, my mind is open and I would like to know why. Is it to increase rate of return to investors, are corporate earnings insufficient to sustain investor interest, or will there be incremental customer benefits to such a move? Adobe's customer base is huge, it has a lot of derivative intellectual capital in a way locked-in with this company and it has been loyal for many years, so we deserve, at least, to understand the reasons for what they are obviously contemplating.
Don't hold your breath waiting for Adobe to disclose anything.  Unless you have a seat on the project management team you are not going to find anything out.  This is a typical case of a company being able to raise the price without anyone outside of a few people on LuLa complaining.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10501
    • http://www.markdsegal.com

Don't hold your breath waiting for Adobe to disclose anything. Unless you have a seat on the project management team you are not going to find anything out.  This is a typical case of a company being able to raise the price without anyone outside of a few people on LuLa complaining.

Very likely. And I'm trying to hold my breath over as little as possible these days. I'm just putting on the record what I think they SHOULD do, because we have an opportunity to make our views known and we should partake of that opportunity. There's nothing to lose and perhaps something to be gained - who knows for sure until it's all done. 
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up