So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm having a lot of difficulty working out where your complaint lies. The last version of PS which I bought was CS5. It cost about £800.

Hi Jeremy,

And upgrades cost only a fraction of that (I remember US$ 269, or was it US$ 169?), and were skipped a version by many, cutting the upgrade cost to 1/3rd of that fraction per annum. You also were granted access to your earlier works-in-progress without limitation.

I'm now paying around 1% of that amount per month (and if I'd not bought a perpetual licence for LR5 before all this blew up, I'd be getting that thrown in); it will be nearly 8 years - 8 years! - before I've paid as much as that single copy of PS cost, excluding the use I can get out of the cash which I've not paid to Adobe as a lump sum.

Given the above, you may now understand that the logic is flawed. Besides, the introductory price will not stay the same, and you'll have to keep paying for access to the software and the proprietary parts of your work. Depending on one's method of work, unrestricted access to one's IP is very important.

Frankly, I'm wondering why they're being so generous.

Because, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. They have not converted to philanthropy, instead they think they can make more money. Somebody will have to pony-up that money. You, me?

Cheers,
Bart

[CoyoteButtes]

Notwithstanding all the yelling and screaming I did when the subscription policy was started I finally subscribed to the Photoshop CC and Lightroom package for previous Photoshop license owners. I am very happy with it.

[dseelig]

to me when you create software for art it is a sacred trust one. Photoshop is a monopoly and adobe is taking advantage of that. You establish how it is to be paid for and then one day you change and you wonder why people are upset. For a hobbyist not a big deal you guys can make a lot of money in the world for me being a photographer in this day and age is very hard. Photography for me had been a religion.  A way of life. through my work I have taken kids to rehab have seen people change there life to be healthy lost close friends to addictions. Adobe has decided to squeeze as much as they can out of us. I do not know one working photographer who has not felt anger for this shift. With the subscription model for the tablet on light room coming you see where they are going. I had bought cs 5 waiting for 7 when the news broke. I got light room 5 for free yes legal I was always proud i never had an illegal copy of photoshop which I have owned since 1995. Sorry Adobe I guess you will not have my nickels to play with. I just hope Aperture keeps going.

[Farmer]

How do they have a monopoly?  In what way are they preventing others from entering the market?

This "sacred trust" thing is just rubbish.  It's a business transaction and no one has stopped you from using the products that you already have bought and paid for and at no time did they ever guarantee to make future versions.  How did your skipping a version come into the supposed covenant?  The reality is you only want it your way with no concern for their requirements - that's not a deal, certainly not a sacred one.  And,  again, how dare you target Adobe staff and suggest they are to blame if they didn't argue against the model, and suggest they are somehow bad people.

What is the actual financial cost to you?  Have you even calculated it?  What is that as a percentage of all your other annualised costs and annualised revenue?

[dseelig]

Lightroom I have gotten free from my leica actually do not like it use Aperture. Photoshop until 6 came out got every version then seeing diminishing returns did not get 6. I call them like I see them when this was announced I wrote everyone I could and did what I could. Still not stopping. Call it rubbish but those are my feelings calling out people for non action is my choice and I would do it again. I come form people that look out for the world . for me as I said photography is a religion and you can disparage it is that any different from what you are accusing me of.

[Farmer]

I'm not disparaging photography or your passion for it - I'm saying you're way out of line to attack people you don't even know for not standing up for your particular pet peeve/passion/call it what you will. 

Put it this way - why are you right and they wrong?  Who made you a moral arbiter?  If they're acting legally, they will succeed or fail as the market (those who would be customers) sees fit.

Photoshop is a luxury item and suggesting that it's not "looking out" for the world in relation to any aspect of it is ridiculous.

[LesPalenik]

$120 per year seems like a very attractive price. The question is how long the price will stay at that level. If next year the subscription price goes to $240/year, in 3 years it would cost you almost $600. Which by itself is still tolerable.
The bad thing compared to traditional software purchase, is that once you stop paying after forking out all that money, you have nothing.

[Simon Garrett]

$120 per year seems like a very attractive price. The question is how long the price will stay at that level. If next year the subscription price goes to $240/year, in 3 years it would cost you almost $600. Which by itself is still tolerable.
The bad thing compared to traditional software purchase, is that once you stop paying after forking out all that money, you have nothing.

Adobe have said that the price won't change "substantially".  I read something that said it might change with inflation, or a general Adobe price rise, but it won't change out of proportion to other CC prices.  Make of that what you will. 

[Damon Lynch]

This "sacred trust" thing is just rubbish.  It's a business transaction

Your perspective is not uncommon. But there are others too, which are as powerful, where doing good work is never just solely financial returns. Work should be meaningful and part of that means being part of a broader community than your company. The subject matter of this excellent investigative article is relevant (not directly so of course): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/22/amazon_open_source_investigation/

[LesPalenik]

Adobe have said that the price won't change "substantially".  I read something that said it might change with inflation, or a general Adobe price rise, but it won't change out of proportion to other CC prices.  Make of that what you will. 

Unfortunately, Adobe does not have exactly a stellar record when it comes to trust. Not with your personal information, nor with their guarantees. Just in the last six months, they flip-flopped several times on the subscription price and the sign-up deadline at the introductory price.

[Alan Klein]

Adobe will attempt to raise their CC pricing to a point where they will maximize their profits with the number of subscribers they keep and balance against the profits they will lose if subscribers go to their competitors.  Time will tell where that sweet spot will be. 

They could also miscalculate by raising prices too fast and lose too many subscribers before they realize the subscription prices are too high.  Because once lost, they won't get subscribers back.  It's a big balancing act on their part.  I'm sure they're spending a lot of sleepless nights trying to figure out where the sweet spots for monthly fees are.  But promises to hold the pricing is just that - promises.  A decision to change the business model has been made.  They're operating in a different world.

[digitaldog]

I'm not disparaging photography or your passion for it - I'm saying you're way out of line to attack people you don't even know for not standing up for your particular pet peeve/passion/call it what you will. 
Put it this way - why are you right and they wrong?  Who made you a moral arbiter?  If they're acting legally, they will succeed or fail as the market (those who would be customers) sees fit.
Photoshop is a luxury item and suggesting that it's not "looking out" for the world in relation to any aspect of it is ridiculous.

Brilliant, sums up my feelings and I suspect other's to a tee. The attack (and it was) on every and all Adobe employee is cause to ignore that poster further, despite his passion. It's pure rubbish.

[digitaldog]

Adobe will attempt to raise their CC pricing to a point where they will maximize their profits with the number of subscribers they keep and balance against the profits they will lose if subscribers go to their competitors.  Time will tell where that sweet spot will be.

And one could substitute many, many companies names instead of Adobe's. For me personally, Verizion, CrashPlan, Comcast, Sirius xm etc.

[Alan Klein]

You're right from the standpoint of the company.  However, from the standpoint of the consumer, the difference with Verizon and those others   is that you don't have a major investment in time and product as in Adobe where you have to make a major purchase and learn a whole new product and convert your entire past product - all the work on your photos.  With Verison, you just make the switch and save money.

Of course the high cost of the conversion is what makes Adobe's business plan more effeective than those others.  It's why they'll be able to charge more ant not lose consumers.  Many are really locked in to Adobe.  That's the anguish with so many users.  They feel locked in with no place to go and feel they're being taken advantage of.  It's like being on a drug that's been saving your life for ten years and now they're raising prices arbitrarily and you have no where to go.  

[chez]

You're right from the standpoint of the company.  However, from the standpoint of the consumer, the difference with Verizon and those others   is that you don't have a major investment in time and product as in Adobe where you have to make a major purchase and learn a whole new product and convert your entire past product - all the work on your photos.  With Verison, you just make the switch and save money.

Of course the high cost of the conversion is what makes Adobe's business plan more effeective than those others.  It's why they'll be able to charge more ant not lose consumers.  Many are really locked in to Adobe.  That's the anguish with so many users.  They feel locked in with no place to go and feel they're being taken advantage of.  It's like being on a drug that's been saving your life for ten years and now they're raising prices arbitrarily and you have no where to go.  

Each and every one of us who has been using Adobe fully realized we are using a proprietary format so we have no one to blame other than ourselves if we choose to move away from Adobe for whatever reasons. I new long ago I was hooked into Adobe big time and would need to do a bunch of work ( and lose some of the flexibility ) if I ever decided to move away from Adobe. Blaming Adobe for "hooking yourself on a drug" is just looking for excuses.

[Alan Klein]

I'm not blaming Adobe.  If I was advising them, I'd recommend the CC approach.  I used monthly charges in my own business on proprietary systems and kept most customers for twenty years.  The trick was to never make the cost of replacement including downstream service charges lower than the short term cost to replace my services. 


Having said that, many of my customers, and they were all in business and understood these things, were pissed about the deal.  No one wants to feel they have limited options or none at all.  But, I still took them to lunch and they were happy about that.  Many of Adobe customers are not so business oriented if at all.  So they feel more "used".  It's something that Adobe has to consider in their business plan, that's all.   Of course they can't buy their customers lunch.  However, if they were smart, and they are, they should throw in a few more benefits that the CC users aren't expecting.  That would ease the bad feelings a lot.  And they can send me a check for the advice.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think that the comparison with a life-saving drug is quite appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Adobe be nationalized and Photoshop included in the Obamacare.

[digitaldog]

...difference with Verizon and those others   is that you don't have a major investment in time and product as in Adobe where you have to make a major purchase and learn a whole new product and convert your entire past product - all the work on your photos.  

All the pictures I worked on are worked on, so the product provided what I asked of it. The investment and work paid off. Future work on the same image? That's a different story and the price of jumping ship of which I feel is foolish. But I could. The proposition is such I'd be silly to do so. The same is true of nearly every software product I own too. Jumping ship from Intuit (Quicken) to iBank took time, money, some work on my part and missing functionality. No one made me do so. In that example, I'd do it again. But I understand what the cost is moving from a solution I'd been using since about 1989 to 2011 (when I made that switch).

[Misirlou]

I think that the comparison with a life-saving drug is quite appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Adobe be nationalized and Photoshop included in the Obamacare.

That made my day. I'll be smiling for hours now.

[kers]

I think that the comparison with a life-saving drug is quite appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that Adobe be nationalized and Photoshop included in the Obamacare.

I think considering the price you already get Obamacare... In the EU the price point is 12,29€ vs 10$ in the US   - ; so  16$ vs 10 $