Adobe moving to the web

[BernardLanguillier]

Good move.

I did actually reread the whole thing... and Adobe did in fact just reduce the pain for existing CS3 and 4 users. The basic direction seemingly remains otherwise the same for future releases (meaning upgrade now only possible from n-1 release).

If my understanding is correct then this remains just as bad...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

If by bad you mean, "now in line with the rest of the software market", then, yes.

[BernardLanguillier]

If by bad you mean, "now in line with the rest of the software market", then, yes.

Mostly bad for the many customers who have been supporting Abode's business for many years... and who do now feel like they are being milked.

Arguably, this is a lot worse on OSX since Apple seems to be unable/unwilling to release OSX iterations that do not affect the ability of older versions of software to run without issues.

We should all be aware that using Adobe on OSX platform is going to cost us 2/3 of the price of the Abode package we own each time we change our Apple hardware. In my case this will probably mean a yearly additional cost in excess of 300 US$... with zero value compared to the current model. Put it otherwise, using Adobe products on OSX will cost me one extra mid end laptop everything else being equal...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

That looks about right, price-wise.

We'd all like to have the lowest possible costs, but look at it this way - how much have you saved because of Adobe's extremely generous policy to date?

[BernardLanguillier]

We'd all like to have the lowest possible costs, but look at it this way - how much have you saved because of Adobe's extremely generous policy to date?

Sorry, I don't see what is generous about it. Those criterias were part of our purchasing decision.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

It was generous compared to the competition.  Yes, it was part of your purchasing criteria, but it doesn't change the fact that you saved a considerable sum.

Now, it's also a part of your purchasing criteria and you're counting the extra cost, so it's reasonable to count the previously saved amount.

Also, a portion of that is attributable to Apple (as you said).

[BernardLanguillier]

It was generous compared to the competition.  Yes, it was part of your purchasing criteria, but it doesn't change the fact that you saved a considerable sum.

Now, it's also a part of your purchasing criteria and you're counting the extra cost, so it's reasonable to count the previously saved amount.

Many software companies provide similar conditions, so again I am not willing to look at the original Adobe conditions I signed for as generous, and even less as an anticipated cost saving.

It is only common sense and widespread business practises in software and in other domains:
- To be able to upgrade when you real need to and see value,
- To benefit from an important discount compared to new customers even if you are upgrading from an older release.

On top of that, the Adobe suites is very likely to be the most expensive piece of software owned by most photographers, pros and amateurs alike. The impact of a change of conditions or of tougher conditions is therefore much larger.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Farmer]

If you're refusing to admit that the standard in software upgrades is one version, then any further discussion is pointless.

No one's suggesting that there's no impact, and I' not saying it's a good or bad move, just that virtriolic dribble aimed at Adobe for daring to change their business practices to be inline with the industry standard is absurd.

By all means tell them you don't like it and by all means vote with your feet, but let's stop demonizing the company or the executives or the staff (and, no, I don't work for nor have shares in Adobe) and let's stop postulating silly arguments about how Adobe "owes" this or that.  Yes, their communication has been poor and they've rightly taken flak for that, but again this is by any reasonable industry measurement a reasonable upgrade policy and the previous policy was generous.

[Farmer]

PS - no one's stopping you from "upgrading when you really need to and see value".

[BernardLanguillier]

PS - no one's stopping you from "upgrading when you really need to and see value".

Sure... but the cost becomes huge if you wait more than 1.5 years.

I am not sure who your comment about Adobe demonization is directed at. I don't believe I have gone there.

I am just a customer who likes the product but really hates to have to spend time looking seriouly at other options since these conditions are just unacceptable to me.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JBerardi]

If by bad you mean, "now in line with the rest of the software market", then, yes.

Oh joy.

Here's the thing: "correct" pricing for software is an abstract concept. Unhappy customers are real, tangible things that exist. You can guess which one I think Adobe should focus on.

[Farmer]

Bernard - to clarify - that was a general comment, not directed at you.  My apologies for any confusion.

[Steve House]

I did actually reread the whole thing... and Adobe did in fact just reduce the pain for existing CS3 and 4 users. The basic direction seemingly remains otherwise the same for future releases (meaning upgrade now only possible from n-1 release).

If my understanding is correct then this remains just as bad...

Cheers,
Bernard

At least Adobe are still offering some upgrade discount.  The trend is to charge full price to all comers, be they new users or upgraders.  For example, as I recall there is no special pricing available from Microsoft for an upgrade to Office 2010 from any previous release, even 2007, nor to Win7 from an older OS.  Neither does Intuit discounts for upgrades to current releases of Quicken or Quickbooks.

[BernardLanguillier]

At least Adobe are still offering some upgrade discount.  The trend is to charge full price to all comers, be they new users or upgraders.  For example, as I recall there is no special pricing available from Microsoft for an upgrade to Office 2010 from any previous release, even 2007, nor to Win7 from an older OS.  Neither does Intuit discounts for upgrades to current releases of Quicken or Quickbooks.

The difference of price between the 2003 -> 2007 upgrade of Word compared to the full version of 2010 is... 30 US$.

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Word-Version-Upgrade-VERSION/dp/B000HCVR5S
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-059-07628-Word-2010/dp/B0039L6G00/ref=sr_1_2?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1326808967&sr=1-2

If adobe decided to make upgrades impossible but prices Photoshop CS7 within 30 US$ of the price of a CS5 -> CS6 upgade I swear I will stop complaining. 

Cheers,
Bernard


Cheers,
Bernard

[joofa]

Arguably, this is a lot worse on OSX since Apple seems to be unable/unwilling to release OSX iterations that do not affect the ability of older versions of software to run without issues.

Doesn't appear to be entirely Apple's fault.

When I was in school I was exposed to this phenomenon that when professors who held grudge against each other had to take it out on each other students because many times they could not do any direct harm to the other professor. Seems the same between Apple and Adobe. Adobe refused to do Premier video editing program for Mac sometime ago and it seems as a revenge Apple is locking them out of stuff such as Flash on iPads, or properly disclosing on how to manage software switch from Carbon to Cocoa libraries, etc. I don't know how much it is hurting Apple or Adobe, but it seems to be hurting people who have nothing to do with this row.

[BernardLanguillier]

Doesn't appear to be entirely Apple's fault.

When I was in school I was exposed to this phenomenon that when professors who held grudge against each other had to take it out on each other students because many times they could not do any direct harm to the other professor. Seems the same between Apple and Adobe. Adobe refused to do Premier video editing program for Mac sometime ago and it seems as a revenge Apple is locking them out of stuff such as Flash on iPads, or properly disclosing on how to manage software switch from Carbon to Cocoa libraries, etc. I don't know how much it is hurting Apple or Adobe, but it seems to be hurting people who have nothing to do with this row.

You can add to that the initial release of Photoshop Touch for Android only...

The typical mid-term outcome of such situations is that both players get sidelined and replaced by more customer friendly platforms. I just feel sorry for the talented engineers at Adobe that business agendas seeingly driven by stock holders and investors keep alienating the end users who like their products.

Cheers,
Bernard

[joofa]

What I have not understood is that Adobe could have alleviated the problem of running older Photoshop plugins in CS5 in 32 bit mode on OS X. I have not fully understood the issue but I have read that 64-bit plugins for CS5 need to be ported over to Cocoa instead of Carbon. However, PS CS5 could be forced to run in 32-bit modes. But it seems that PS, when run as 32-bit on even 10.6 OS, does not want to run 32-bit plugins from a pre-CS5 version. It seems that this is an Adobe PS issue not wanting to run them and perhaps not necessarily an Apple issue.

Sincerely,

Joofa

[john beardsworth]

You can add to that the initial release of Photoshop Touch for Android only...

Selective facts? Other touch and tablet oriented software has initially come out on iOS first.

[BernardLanguillier]

Selective facts? Other touch and tablet oriented software has initially come out on iOS first.

Oh sure, but my point was that Adobe selected Android which might lead in terms of mobile devices market share globally, but not in the tablet space, and certainly not among photographers/artists where - if my surroundings are any representation - the ipad has nearly 100% market share...

Since Photoshop touch makes a lot more sense on tablets than on phones... releasing it on Andoid first seems like a very strange business decision.

Cheers,
Bernard

[john beardsworth]

Strange, but not every strange business move is a result of the Flash wars.