Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Jimbo57 on April 29, 2015, 06:26:20 am
-
If I buy the "perpetual licence" upgrade to take me from LR5.7 to LR6, I get a substantial cost saving over a newbie buying into the software for the first time.
But if I decide to switch to Adobe CC I get no discount on the extortionate £8.57 per month as a registered LR5.7 (and Photoshop CS6) user.
Even a 50% discount for the first year might have persuaded me to switch. At least that would have made the cost of the first year of CC similar to the cost of the LR6 upgrade.
Are Adobe missing a trick here?
-
Are Adobe missing a trick here?
No, it's a 'smart' way to get, and keep, people on board of the subscription train. People start paying the full subscription price, because that generates more cash for Adobe faster, and the penalty for quitting feels larger (it actually is, as well, when quitting prematurely), because it represents more 'value'.
I purchased a Lightroom 5 perpetual licene upgrade 2 years ago, if I recall correctly for something like € 80. So that has cost me € 3.33 per month over those 24 months (and I'm still able to use all features, so the cost/month keeps dropping). Early subscribers, after some hassle over reduced prices, paid 3x as much. That did include Photoshop, but I already had that (CS6), and that also didn't cost me a cent since (after the one time upgrade fee).
Now that people have 'invested' all that money in Lightroom CC through their subscription, it each month becomes harder to stop.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If I buy the "perpetual licence" upgrade to take me from LR5.7 to LR6, I get a substantial cost saving over a newbie buying into the software for the first time.
But if I decide to switch to Adobe CC I get no discount on the extortionate £8.57 per month as a registered LR5.7 (and Photoshop CS6) user.
Even a 50% discount for the first year might have persuaded me to switch. At least that would have made the cost of the first year of CC similar to the cost of the LR6 upgrade.
Are Adobe missing a trick here?
I am not a subscriber but the "extortionate" price doesn't put me off. I don't need the extras that CC brings. As I type this I am listening to Spotify Premium. I could listen for free but I rate the service so I pay for it. If you are broke then I suppose it is "extortionate"? BTW I am not an apologist for free enterprise capitalism.
-
But if I decide to switch to Adobe CC I get no discount on the extortionate £8.57 per month as a registered LR5.7 (and Photoshop CS6) user.
Wile there are many legitimate reasons to find the CC subscription licensing model undesirable. if you analyze it in a realistic fashion, the cost of use is not unreasonable or prohibitive for what you receive in return.
Prior CS owners do get a $29.99 (U.S. reg. price $50 per month) per month rate for the first year for the whole package offering and $19.99 (U.S. reg. price [email protected] for month-to-month) for single app subscription. Even at your rate of £8.57 per month for both Lr CC and Ps CC is not an unreasonable rate considering the capabilities of the two apps. Heck, if you just subscribed to Ps for a single app it would be $20 (U.S.) for an annual subscription by itself ... If you can't recognize the bargain in the Photography Package pricing, there is little hope any price point would truly suit your needs.
If you don't utilize those offerings to the point to see a return on that investment ... well that is another issue and not the fault of Adobe.
-
If I buy the "perpetual licence" upgrade to take me from LR5.7 to LR6, I get a substantial cost saving over a newbie buying into the software for the first time.
But if I decide to switch to Adobe CC I get no discount on the extortionate £8.57 per month as a registered LR5.7 (and Photoshop CS6) user.
Even a 50% discount for the first year might have persuaded me to switch. At least that would have made the cost of the first year of CC similar to the cost of the LR6 upgrade.
Are Adobe missing a trick here?
So for $60 or so you would be swayed to subscribe to CC? Seems like a piddly amount when you are looking at the amount you'd pay for the subscription over the years. Don't forget you are also getting an upgrade to photoshop with the subscription.
-
I purchased a Lightroom 5 perpetual licene upgrade 2 years ago, if I recall correctly for something like € 80. So that has cost me € 3.33 per month over those 24 months (and I'm still able to use all features, so the cost/month keeps dropping)
That's it. The rental bundle is for those who need Photoshop in addition and for whom the idea of renting works.
-
But if I decide to switch to Adobe CC I get no discount on the extortionate £8.57 per month as a registered LR5.7 (and Photoshop CS6) user.
£8.57 sounds extortionate to you? How much do you spend a month on coffee or tea?
-
Grow up guys. A vendor offers you a deal (in this case a choice of two deals). You take it, or you leave it. End of story (or should be)
Dave
-
£8.57 sounds extortionate to you? How much do you spend a month on coffee or tea?
Less than £5
-
£8.57 sounds extortionate to you? How much do you spend a month on coffee or tea?
I just returned from the bank and on my way back I stopped to eat a slice of pie with a capuccino and a small bottle of sparkling water. The price was about the same of one month of LR+PS CC subscription.
One may not like the whole subscription system, that is ok, but I can't understand how someone (who buys photo gear) can think it is expensive.
-
I just returned from the bank and on my way back I stopped to eat a slice of pie with a capuccino and a small bottle of sparkling water. The price was about the same of one month of LR+PS CC subscription.
One may not like the whole subscription system, that is ok, but I can't understand how someone (who buys photo gear) can think it is expensive.
It makes perfect sense. So can you buy me a subscription?
-
You also get LR Mobile and a small chunk of cloud if you subscribe; these extras are not available with a perpetual licence.
-
It makes perfect sense. So can you buy me a subscription?
Of course I can... and, obviously, I won't. ::)
The matter here is not if a person can or can't afford it, but if £8.57 per month to use some serious piece of software can be called "extortion".
I am not crazy about the subscription model, but calling this price extortion or prohibitive is, at least, an exaggeration.
-
I get LR and PS for $10 a month, $120 a year. This has given me numerous incremental improvements to PS, without waiting for a .X upgrade or a new PS X,0 release. Now LR adds this same potential. IMO, this is cheaper than the non-subscription model.
I understand Adobe and others are going to subscription because it levels out their cash flow, rather than the income spikes associated with the upgrade model.
-
From where I am standing, people pay monthly rent for a phone landline, mobile phone, SKY satellite, Internetflatrate, take your pick.
Extortion? I can choose to have a SAT TV, mobile, landline, iNet flat etc. not?
Wanna talk extortion? How about 17.50 Euro per month without my signature on any contract. Just because the state sees fit to decide that every household will have to cough up this monthly fee for using a Television to cover for the official propaganda corporate/state channels. Now, THAT is extortion!
I am paying 10 Euro per month for both Photoshop and Lightroom because I chose to do so.
-
Grow up guys. A vendor offers you a deal (in this case a choice of two deals). You take it, or you leave it. End of story (or should be)
Dave
Nope...this story has been going on for the last couple years. If someone does not like the price or details of a product...go buy something else. Whining about these things obsessively does no good.
-
If I buy the "perpetual licence" upgrade to take me from LR5.7 to LR6, I get a substantial cost saving over a newbie buying into the software for the first time.
But if I decide to switch to Adobe CC I get no discount on the extortionate £8.57 per month as a registered LR5.7 (and Photoshop CS6) user.
Even a 50% discount for the first year might have persuaded me to switch. At least that would have made the cost of the first year of CC similar to the cost of the LR6 upgrade.
Are Adobe missing a trick here?
I really don't understand people's obsession with CC pricing. It seems like a damn good deal. Here in the US I get the latest Lightroom and Photoshop for $10 a month. Jesus, I loose that much change in my couch each month ;). Seriously, when I look at my expenses this is trivial. Latest camera? $1,400. Camera before that? $2400. Latest lens? $900. Full set of inks for my printer? $1200. Five rolls of canvas for printing? $700. And I am going to whine about $10 a month for software that is essential to my work?
No.