PhotoShop CS6 upgrade discount available only 1 version back?

[RFPhotography]

Adobe's original blog post was very unclear and some of the intial links to FAQs were also incomplete. 

So for Photoshop and other CS applications this isn't a true cloud computing environment.  That obviates my previous concerns about an internet connection and speed.  It also appears that users won't be forced to pay for access to applications they don't want or need.  Whether that's a clarification of the previous position or a revision to reflect negative customer feedback, I'm not sure.  What this move, essentially, amounts to then is a pretty massive price increase.  In other words, Adobe is effectively Netflixing its customers.  Trying to pass on that kind of a price increase in such a dubious economic environment isn't the smartest business move.   

[JBerardi]

What this move, essentially, amounts to then is a pretty massive price increase.  

Which, honestly, I wouldn't even have that much of a problem with. It's the fact that instead of simply raising the price, they created yet another layer of obfuscation and complexity as to what their stuff actually costs. Buying from Adobe is like walking into an Apple store and being told that an iMac starts at $3,999, but I can get an iMac bundled with a MacBook Air and an iPad and a couple iPhones and a bunch of random accessories for only $4,000! Or I could rent all this crap for yet another price... wow, what a generous offer, guys.

Hey, here's a crazy idea: make a product and sell it for an honest, consistant price, instead of using your pricing structure to coerce customers into buying a bunch of stuff they don't need or want (but hey, you're getting a great deal on it!). And to be clear, this isn't some message board bitching about how Adobe are a bunch of jerks for not pricing pro grade software for my amateur grade budget. This isn't about how I deserve to be able to buy Photoshop at whatever price I deem fair. If they want to charge a high price, well, they're the ones who invested in the software and they can charge as much as they want for it. Fine. Just don't piss down our backs as users and tell us it's raining. Or maybe more accurately, piss down our backs and tell us that it's a new miracle ointment that improves your complexion, cures the common cold, and alleviates social anxiety disorder! This isn't being done for our benefit, so please don't tell us that it is.

[JonathanRimmel]

Which, honestly, I wouldn't even have that much of a problem with. It's the fact that instead of simply raising the price, they created yet another layer of obfuscation and complexity as to what their stuff actually costs. Buying from Adobe is like walking into an Apple store and being told that an iMac starts at $3,999, but I can get an iMac bundled with a MacBook Air and an iPad and a couple iPhones and a bunch of random accessories for only $4,000! <i>Or</i> I could rent all this crap for yet another price... wow, what a generous offer, guys.

Hey, here's a crazy idea: make a product and sell it for an honest, consistant price, instead of using your pricing structure to coerce customers into buying a bunch of stuff they don't need or want (but hey, you're getting a great deal on it!). And to be clear, this isn't some message board bitching about how Adobe are a bunch of jerks for not pricing pro grade software for my amateur grade budget. This isn't about how I deserve to be able to buy Photoshop at whatever price I deem fair. If they want to charge a high price, well, they're the ones who invested in the software and they can charge as much as they want for it. Fine. Just don't piss down our backs as users and tell us it's raining. Or maybe more accurately, piss down our backs and tell us that it's a new miracle ointment that's going to that improves your complexion, cures the common cold, and alleviates the social anxiety disorder! This isn't being done for our benefit, so please don't tell us that it is.

I wholeheartedly agree. Well said.

[RFPhotography]

Except that the quantum of this price increase is pretty huge. 

In June 2010, nearly 18 months ago, I paid just under $400 to upgrade from PSCS3 Extended to PSCS5 extended.  I'm not exactly sure of Adobe's historic timeline for new versions of PS but let's say for argument sake that it's about 15 months.  Like many who've commented here, I upgrade every other version; so every 30 months.  That puts my annual cost at about $160 (excluding the original purchase price).  And the actual timeline is probably a bit longer than 15 months so the actual annual cost is a bit lower still.

Under the new scheme, I have to upgrade every version.  Assuming the upgrade cost remains at about $400 my annual cost is going to double to $320 for the perpetual license.  A 100% increase.  And I think that assumption on upgrade pricing staying steady is a pipedream.  It'll likely be closer to the subscription cost.  But if I want to go with the subscription version my annual cost is going to be $588 ($49/month for PS Extended).  That's a nearly 300% increase in price over my current cost and an 84% increase over the perpetual license cost based on the last price I paid.

Adobe's having its problems.  Stock price is down.  Financial performance isn't as good.  It's cutting jobs.  If company management thinks these kinds of price increases are the way out of its problems.....  What other enterprise, except maybe mob protection rackets, could justify that kind of price increase?  Hell, even my car insurance only went up about 40% in price this year.  Thing is, I can shop around for car insurance.  Editing software, mmmmmm........ not so much.  Sort of like mob protection. 

[Farmer]

The releases are typically 18 months apart, so "every second" would mean 3 years between, which based on $400- an upgrade is $133.33 p.a.

If that doubles (and note the price hasn't increased, just the valid period for upgrades has reduced), then it's $266.66 p.a.

For a business, that's an operating cost and so it would typically be before tax (although I realise tax systems work differently in different parts of the world), effectively make it even cheaper.  But even at $266.66 p.a., how does that compare as a total of a pro's expenses for a year?  A very small part of it - even for an amateur that's a small price.

[RFPhotography]

We don't know that the price hasn't increased.  The price for an upgrade to CS6 hasn't been announced, I don't believe.

Whether it's a business expense or not isn't overly relevant.  Many professional photographers are finding their margins squeezed in recent years.  It still represents a massive price increase.  Businesses still need to manage expenses and budgets. 

[Farmer]

Except that the quantum of this price increase is pretty huge. 

Err, Bob, you're the one who said that the price had increased...

This may or may not be a good move by Adobe in terms of overall revenue - no one here is in a position to know the answer to that, though we're all free to theorise to our heart's content.

However, when people say it's too expensive, I think it's reasonable to put it in relative terms.  What percentage of your revenue, as a pro photog, is $266.66 p.a. before tax (if applicable)?  More importanly, let's look at the quantum of the increase being $133.33 p.a.  Then you make a commercial decision.  You can look for an alternative or your can wait longer and then pay full price to upgrade (in which case you need to work out how long you need to wait to make that worthwhile).

[Rob C]

I'm reading all this with a sense of increasing bewilderment. Rather than just with reference to price, isn't there another way of looking at it? I'm the first to admit that my PS skills are minimal in that I know what I need to know in order to convert files into either print or screen images in a manner more pleasing to the eye that would otherwise be the case straight from camera, that I have very little interest in technology for its own sake and that it's important to declare that I do this mainly for 'fun' or to pass the time and prevent possible/probable mental breakdown.

My question is this: do all professional photographers really need to upgrade even after every two lots of changes to the system? Is there not some sense of the Jones's here, some kind of fear of seeming to be old-fashioned or not quite up to scratch, that even if it's not broke there's the need felt to fix it, that it's a self-driven thing rather than any actual commercial need? If the latter, then I suggest the solution is clear: keep the card firmly inside the wallet, as some already suggest.

Rob C

[john beardsworth]

I'm sure some do upgrade for its own sake, but equally there are plenty who close their minds to real benefits because of the fear that all they would be achieving is to keep pace with the Jones's.

[BFoto]

I have no interest in Cloud anything software!

I pull what remaining hair i have left when using dropbox to share files, to have to rely on the internet ....no thanks.

[JBerardi]

My question is this: do all professional photographers really need to upgrade even after every two lots of changes to the system? Is there not some sense of the Jones's here, some kind of fear of seeming to be old-fashioned or not quite up to scratch, that even if it's not broke there's the need felt to fix it, that it's a self-driven thing rather than any actual commercial need? If the latter, then I suggest the solution is clear: keep the card firmly inside the wallet, as some already suggest.

Rob C

But that's the worst part, isn't it? So many photographers do skip a version or two of PS, because it's cheaper and because the older versions are still extremely capable. Now, Adobe seems to be tailoring it's upgrade policy to force people to upgrade every version.

I mean, I'm on CS3. I'd been planning on getting CS6 when it came out. So now what am I supposed to do? Go out and buy CS5 so that I'll then have the privilege of being able to buy CS6 of a reasonable price in a few months, or risk being stranded? It feels like extortion. Like I said, if they want more money from me, fine. But just raise the stupid price! Don't make me buy and and install an upgrade that I don't even want just so that I can get the one I do want. It's ridiculous, and it's no way to treat your customers.

[RFPhotography]

Yes, Farmer, it is a price increase.  By requiring users to upgrade every version, those who didn't do that in the past are going to be out of pocket more money than they have been.  That's a price increase.  Pure and simple. 

I've already stated that the argument 'well, it's a business expense so who cares' is flawed.  In terms of what proportion of my revenue it represents, I already addressed that too.  If you think I'm actually going to give you numbers about my business, you're seriously mistaken. 

Rob, sure, there are some who upgrade just because.  But I think many of the people in here who skip and upgrade every other version are actually making exactly that kind of decision you reference.  For me, going from CS3 to CS4 made little sense.  CS5; however, had a bit improvement in HDR processing and for me that was worthwhile in combination with the other improvements.  You also shoot film, correct?  Digital camera users have RAW files to deal with.  Adobe only updates Adobe Camera Raw till the next version of PS comes out.  You buy a new camera, you need to upgrade PS.  You can, of course, convert the RAW files to DNG which would allow you to use previous versions of ACR but that's a very time consuming process.  If you're shooting any kind of volume, that conversion to DNG will seriously slow down the workflow.  And you're left with double the hard drive space eaten up which means additional cost. 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Adobe only updates Adobe Camera Raw till the next version of PS comes out.  You buy a new camera, you need to upgrade PS.  You can, of course, convert the RAW files to DNG which would allow you to use previous versions of ACR but that's a very time consuming process.  If you're shooting any kind of volume, that conversion to DNG will seriously slow down the workflow.  And you're left with double the hard drive space eaten up which means additional cost. 

This is a big deal for me as well, I hate LR with a passion (hate library system, hate black editing space, hate having to process in ProphotoRGB for an sRGB output, hate the GUI compared to ACR, etc, etc).

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I'd be curious to know roughly what percentage of photographers using Photoshop are professionals as opposed to serious amateurs. And of the latter, what percentage are not independently wealthy.

I suspect there are a large number of us in this last category, who can't write PS off as a business expense, and Adobe's new system is going to lose a large number of us as customers.

Eric

[JBerardi]

I'd be curious to know roughly what percentage of photographers using Photoshop are professionals as opposed to serious amateurs. And of the latter, what percentage are not independently wealthy.

I suspect there are a large number of us in this last category, who can't write PS off as a business expense, and Adobe's new system is going to lose a large number of us as customers.

Eric

Well, just to quickly nitpick, most people who use PS aren't photographers.

It's also just going to exacerbate the piracy problem. Back when I was in photo school, we had maybe 60 students in one of our labs. The school's IT guy is addressing the group, and he asks "how many of you have Photoshop on your personal computer?". 60 hands go up. "And how many of you PAID for the copy on your personal computer?". Two hands. Maybe three. When you establish a piece of software that's as dominant as PS is, people feel like they need it. And if it's prohibitively expensive, well, people will find other was to acquire it.

Then he told us that the school had negotiated a great price with Adobe and basically every one of us ponied up for a legit version. What lesson can we learn from this? If you're Adobe, apparently nothing.

It's a little bit like the music industry wanting to sell expensive DRM crap; if people really want music and you're not giving them a reasonable way to access it, they'll find their own way to access it and you'll be left with nothing.

[RFPhotography]

I'd wonder at that split now.  Given the other tools available now for graphic arists that weren't when PS was first introduced I wonder if the split hasn't shifted in favour of photographers as users of PS. 

Adobe isn't the only company that offers educational discounts.  Most software makers do.  Most students don't have as much money so the discount makes it more affordable.  It's also a loyalty building tool.  Get 'em young and keep 'em. 

[Les Sparks]

My objections are not that the software is cloud based but that the software is offered as a subscription.
The two biggest problems I see with the subscription model are:
1. No matter how long you subscribe or how much you've paid, you lose all rights to use the software if you allow your subscription to lapse. So basically you're giving Adobe lifetime right to your bank account.
2. Adobe has the right to change terms and prices of your subscription whenever they want. If you don't like the new terms, then you lose all rights to use the software.
A third possible problem is--what happens if Adobe goes out of business? Do you suddenly find yourself without access to your software? Don't suggest that this could never happen. The software world if full of dominant companies that no longer exist.

The whole idea of subscription seems  to  have no value added to the user.
Now if Adobe offered short term rental so that I could rent a particular piece of software when I needed it (same as I can rent a lens, camera, etc.) then there might be some value added. However, given the steep learning curves of most software, I doubt if software rental could be useful in most situations.

Les

[JBerardi]

Adobe isn't the only company that offers educational discounts.  Most software makers do.  Most students don't have as much money so the discount makes it more affordable.  It's also a loyalty building tool.  Get 'em young and keep 'em. 

I'm not really commenting on student pricing; I'm more just making the point that there is a limit to what Adobe can charge people before they'll seek alternate solutions. If Adobe is really going to really and truly price itself out of the amateur market, then that opens up opportunities for someone else to get 'em young... and potentially to keep them even as they graduate to the pro ranks. 

[ProDesignTools]

The releases are typically 18 months apart, so "every second" would mean 3 years between, which based on $400- an upgrade is $133.33 p.a.

Actually, the Creative Suite Release Schedule is now public with major versions every other year, and mid-cycle releases in the years between.

We don't know that the price hasn't increased.  The price for an upgrade to CS6 hasn't been announced, I don't believe.

Yes, that's correct - no other upgrade pricing has been announced yet, and likely won't until the product is released.
     

[feppe]

However, when people say it's too expensive, I think it's reasonable to put it in relative terms.  What percentage of your revenue, as a pro photog, is $266.66 p.a. before tax (if applicable)?  More importanly, let's look at the quantum of the increase being $133.33 p.a.  Then you make a commercial decision.  You can look for an alternative or your can wait longer and then pay full price to upgrade (in which case you need to work out how long you need to wait to make that worthwhile).

You and others are correct that PS represents a small portion of overall business expenses for any professional photographer. But Mr Fisher is right; a more appropriate question is to ask yourself "how much is PS's price increasing compared to my margin increases, and those of the overall photographic and graphics industry?" If Adobe increases their prices more than you increase your margins, you are getting squeezed - perhaps even exploited given PS's dominance.

Just because PS doesn't represent a material business expense doesn't mean Adobe should be let off the hook if they engage in capricious pricing, or abuse their near-monopoly by price gouging.