So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[chez]

Someone a short while back in another thread, did a breakdown of the costs of moving from the perpetual licence to CC for his small design studio. And it was phenomenally more expensive.

The PS/LR bundle is I think pretty good value, but that only came about because of the huge outcry and interestingly the deadline for the this limited offer and who can take it, keeps being knocked back.
The other thing about the mere £8 p/m for pro photographers is that many now also do some video to make ends meet and then you suddenly need to pay £48p/m instead to get Premiere Pro as well. This I think is the main issue for CC, it's a bit all or nothing. If you use all the software it's a bargain, but the reality is very, very people will do that, so not so much of a bargain after all. Even when I did design + web work as well as photography stuff, I still never used all the Creative Suite.

I guess if you use a whole spectrum of products from Adobe, you have to pay more. Thus seems very logical to me. Use more product, pay more money. Wouldn't it be the same thing to upgrade those same suite of products 3 years ago...you would be paying more than just the $200 PS upgrade cost?

[chez]

Lightroom will actually do all the work most photographers require and that includes the pros. Photographers make up a surprisingly small percentage of PS users, less than 10%.
But imagine if Adobe could make them customers.....

The low cost of entry into PS at only $10/month is very enticing for new photogs that could not swallow the initial $700 cost of buying Adobe. I think you'll see a bunch of new photographers sign on that just would have not bought Adobe outright.

[jjj]

I guess if you use a whole spectrum of products from Adobe, you have to pay more. Thus seems very logical to me. Use more product, pay more money. Wouldn't it be the same thing to upgrade those same suite of products 3 years ago...you would be paying more than just the $200 PS upgrade cost?

Grief! Did it ever occur to you to try reading a post before responding with another dumb response?

[stamper]

I looked at the offer of about £8 for an annual fee and was tempted to go for it but for some reason it only applies if you have bought an Adobe product DIRECT from Adobe. I bought CS6 and LR5 from Amazon who I presume bought them from Adobe. Now why should THAT make a difference?

[jjj]

I thought it currently applied to everyone again. 

[LesPalenik]

Posts: 279

Quote from: LesPalenik on Today at 03:55:54 AM
The irony is that normally, many of the PS CS3-CS6 users would have at some point upgraded to CS7. As it stands now, many of those users will never upgrade to the CC and some will migrate to other programs.

By chez
Really, I'm hearing the opposite here. Most say their current version does everything they ever need. Why would they upgrade?

We must be reading different forums. Quite a few posters (myself included) stated, that the financial outlay is not the problem, but the rental model is. If you pay $120 a year for subscription, in two years it would be about the same as the upgrade payment with the important difference that if you buy the upgrade, you can use the program indefinitely (even if only once every few months), whereas if you pay two years of subscription and then stop, you have NOTHING.

 
 

[chez]

Posts: 279
We must be reading different forums. Quite a few posters (myself included) stated, that the financial outlay is not the problem, but the rental model is. If you pay $120 a year for subscription, in two years it would be about the same as the upgrade payment with the important difference that if you buy the upgrade, you can use the program indefinitely (even if only once every few months), whereas if you pay two years of subscription and then stop, you have NOTHING.

 
 

I don't plan on stopping from using PS so I don't see the need to stop paying for a subscription. The day I stop paying is the day I'll use another product. I'm OK with this. My mindset has gone from using a physical product to using a service. Once I stop paying for the service, I stop the use of that service.

[chez]

Grief! Did it ever occur to you to try reading a post before responding with another dumb response?

JJJ, your personal attacks are getting a little tiring. Please refrain, have another coffee, take another drag or whatever you need to do...but please stop your idiocy.

[jjj]

Well seeing as you post replies that indicate you haven't had the good manners to read what you are responding to chez, expect to be called out on it.

You seem to be the typical anonymous tinterweb troll at times.

[stamper]

I thought it currently applied to everyone again.  

http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/ccm_photoshop_app_offer.html

I think I may have mis read it. How can one purchase a subscription if you don't phone them? I thought it applied to the qualifying products.

[stamper]

 Michael indicated he would suspend members from posting if they carried on with personal comments. It looks as if one or two are about to be hung?

[jjj]

http://www.adobe.com/store/en_us/popup/offer/ccm_photoshop_app_offer.html

I think I may have mis read it. How can one purchase a subscription if you don't phone them? I thought it applied to the qualifying products.

"This offer is only available to customers who purchase directly from the Adobe Store or by calling a regional Adobe Call Center"

So go online and get credit card out. 

[jjj]

I've now put chez on ignore as he seems to contribute nothing to forum.

I think anonymous posters should be culled from the forum. There is zero need for anonymity on a forum like this.

[stamper]

Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how does the members know it is their real name?

[ButchM]

I'm OK with this. My mindset has gone from using a physical product to using a service. Once I stop paying for the service, I stop the use of that service.

Frankly, the only aspect of using Ps CC has that is similar to a "service" is the billing cycle ... Unless Adobe is going to send someone to my studio to adjust sliders for me ... I can't really equate the month-to-month use of software with being equated to a "service."

The phone company does not ask me to provide my own communication towers or configure the switching stations. I simply dial the number I want to reach. The cable company does not require me to purchase the latest and greatest hardware ... any old TV will do ... they also don't require me to produce my own content to be viewed ... I just need to tune in ... Netflix does not expect me to produce my own original programming ... all I need to do is select a video and push play ...

As long as running Adobe software requires state of the art hardware and OS and requires me to not only make all those slider adjustments on my own volition ... but also know why I am adjusting those sliders ... I fail to see where the "service" portion of the transaction lies ...

[Rhossydd]

Is JJJ your real name?

Have you looked at his profile ? would you go to that much trouble with a false name ?
I haven't noticed John Beardsworth apologising for the same failure to read a profile at reply #414 .

[jjj]

Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how does the members know it is their real name?

It's a nickname. But as a link to my website and contact details are in my signature and profile, I'm hardly anonymous.
I don't expect people to post all their bank details, but a link to a working website showing that they are actually a photographer and not simply a keyboard warrior is hardly a big barrier to taking part.
Seeing people's work can also give context to their posting. One thing I've noticed is that those who are cannot do good post processing, tend to slag off PS as cheating/not real photography.
And if say you are debating about how to do good nature photography, a stunning portfolio of animal shots may give you more credence than someone who is a studio photographer.

[jjj]

I haven't noticed John Beardsworth apologising for the same failure to read a profile at reply #414 .

This post?

Wow, two trollish posts in succession. Just goes to prove what I always think about those hiding behind pseudonyms....

Both people John is referring to, chez + Isaac are indeed anonymous.

Isaac has often been asked if he is indeed a photographer. As opposed to someone who likes word play.

[john beardsworth]

Have you looked at his profile ? would you go to that much trouble with a false name ?
I haven't noticed John Beardsworth apologising for the same failure to read a profile at reply #414 .

Huh? In that post I was referring to both "chez" and "isaac". Both hide their identity. So what exactly do you imagine I should apologise for? Maybe it's you who should apologise, because I am so deeply offended, really, or maybe not.

Is JJJ your real name? The problem is that even if someone posts their real name how does the members know it is their real name?

The point was anonymity, not pseudonyms. On your second point, sure it's easy to try to make the perfect the enemy of the possible, but culling anyone who is obviously hiding behind a pseudonym would definitely improve the atmosphere.

[Rhossydd]

Huh? In that post I was referring to both "chez" and "isaac".

Sorry, I'd assumed you were having a pop at jjj as well.