Adobe lowers prices on PS Lr cc combo

[tuthill]

Any Photoshop CS3 or above version will work...it doesn't matter if it's an upgrade version.

Even though I've had the Master Suite since CS4, I've also always upgraded my single Photoshop license even if I had the suite. I primarily do that because I need Photoshop on 3 computers (even though I usually only use one at a time). So, even though I've now got the full CC suite, I'm also going to upgrade my single Photoshop CS6 to the Photoshop CC/Lightroom bundle. in the past I've also had a Photoshop Windows license for those times I needed to run Photoshop on Windows. Now with the cross-platform license for CC I don't need to worry about that.

That cross platform aspect played a part in my cancelling my cancellation of Photoshop CC.  I have a Mac desktop and laptop as well as a Win laptop.  Up until now I was running Photoshop CS5 on the Win machine.  With CC I can have it on both Macs and if I want to use it on the Win machine I let it sign off the Macs temporarily.  Works really nice.

The other thing that played into my decision is that I decided that it wouldn't too expensive to purchase another perpetual licensed version of Lightroom if I was to cancel my subscription in the future thus not placing my catalog at risk.

I'm a happy camper now:-)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The other thing that played into my decision is that I decided that it wouldn't too expensive to purchase another perpetual licensed version of Lightroom if I was to cancel my subscription in the future thus not placing my catalog at risk.

Hi,

Just a thought. If too many subscribers do not purchase a perpetual license for Lightroom, and wait till a later time when they do not want to, or cannot, continue with a Lightroom CC included subscription, they may find out that there is no longer a perpetual license version, due to lack of interest or a change in policy.

So the only safe approach seems to be to also keep updating the perpetual LR license version, which then effectively turns the Photoshop+LR for photographers subscription into a somewhat less attractively priced Photoshop 'only' subscription.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rhossydd]

I try to tell the truth as I see it.

The problem with your view of this is that it isn't the same as a lot ordinary users that are evaluating if they can commit their hard earned money on this.
You're an Adobe evangelist, you sell your product to Adobe (parts of PKS in Lightroom), you make and sell a product specifically for an Adobe product (PKS etc), you make money selling books and tutorial videos about Adobe products and you're an Adobe share holder.

It's hardly an objective unbiased view of this issue.

[mistybreeze]

We just received an email from Adobe, announcing their "special" for existing CS customers (as far back as CS3), which will expire Dec 3, 2013. With a 1-year commitment, they are offering Complete Creative Cloud for $29.99 a month. One can only assume when the year is up, the price will jump to $50 a month, the current price for Complete.

What photographer in his right mind, whose business is still struggling since the 2008 financial catastrophe, will want to work on files for 12-months and then face the possibility of having to cancel the service?

Here's the truth: most photographers who bought into the Suite "deal" don't need upgrades to InDesign and Dreamweaver to perform routine tasks. Many photographers do not use the other programs offered in Complete. I'm sure many photographers, possibly thousands who bought into the Suite deal, would like to stay current with Photoshop, but they can't afford to financially commit to Adobe's CC when the business of photography is so expensive and insecure.

The saga continues…

[Schewe]

It's hardly an objective unbiased view of this issue.

Show where I ever claimed to be "unbiased"? I'm totally biased...(and not for the financial reasons you mention because, well, that really doesn't influence me) but because the Photoshop and Lightroom engineers are friends...and I don't like it when they get dumped on...

BTW, I notice you don't take issue with my statement "I try to tell the truth as I see it."

:~)

[Rhossydd]

because the Photoshop and Lightroom engineers are friends...and I don't like it when they get dumped on...

No one here is "dumping on" the software engineers, the very opposite.

The problem is with Adobe's change in sales method. I'm sure that's driven from much higher and deserves every kick it gets.

[Dustbak]

Sorry if you didn't read the fine print...Caveat emptor.

Kind of sounds like a lot of financial institutions, shows exactly with what kind of company you are dealing with. Watch your back or you will be screwed? Shake hands but make sure you count your fingers afterwards?

I have no financial worries of coughing up the monthly fees but I certainly don't feel comfortable enough with Adobe to go into a subscription relationship with them.

I somehow do not feel like a real customer to them....

[mistybreeze]

No one here is "dumping on" the software engineers

And I don't think we can stress that point enough.

Frankly, I can't help but feel sorry for the Adobe engineers and be concerned about the utter frustration they must feel through this awkward transition. Reasonable people know that the engineers are not running the company.

If only the suits were as smart and talented as the engineers...

[madmanchan]

Random note:  I've been informed that the new bundle deal will be available starting next week (the week of September 16).  Just wanted to pass it on.

[judymcintosh]

   the Photoshop and Lightroom engineers are friends...and I don't like it when they get dumped on...


:~)

Ditto to the other comments regarding this..."dumping on the engineers"? What are you smoking?
No one is dumping on the engineers, we have huge respect for them for what they do, for fronting up to videos, message boards etc and helping to alleviate concerns, advocate for the photographic user of the products which is their focus of their employment and very much their creation ( you mean Thomas has to plead with the execs to get this done... We listen to his every word because we respect his genius etc) and most of all because we can see what they are up against in their place of employment! And we hear from what they say and reading between the lines ( as well as your commentary Jeff which i think is often quite anti adobe the corporation, not the engineers, friends or otherwise) that frustration in all of this matter is clearly not the exclusive domain of some "self centered  amateur photographers" ( or similar derogatory terminology that has been used) nor is the confusion (eg  Mike Chambers has given Conflicting remarks re the latest offer: undoubtedly in good faith, but maybe the rules are being written as we wait?). So to be clear Jeff this is not an assault on Thomas, Eric etc anymore than if you don't like what happens at the White House it means you want to disband democracy.

Personally, I am glad that the engineers see a silver lining in the freedom from production lining to release dates, but as you and others have noted that is not the reason that the model has changed. When many of us ( Michael R amongst us) saw value to have a 3 year ( skip version) update for PS historically it certainly wasn't the photographers that were driving development to "headline"but less than satisfactory improvement priorities on an 18 month timeline...it was the execs ...presumably...Am I wrong? So the subscription model may give photographers a chance to see over a twelve month ( or longer) timeline if the small interval improvements that are going to be streaming out are worth the ongoing costs. It's no surprise though, present events inparticular, that just as they might have found out x years after moving from PS standalone to a creative suite bundle that their options reduce, that people are a bit sceptical.......so as you say Jeff, "caveat emptor". You got hole in one...that's what much of this now more mature discussion is about, not insulting engineers.

[chez]

Kind of sounds like a lot of financial institutions, shows exactly with what kind of company you are dealing with. Watch your back or you will be screwed? Shake hands but make sure you count your fingers afterwards?

I have no financial worries of coughing up the monthly fees but I certainly don't feel comfortable enough with Adobe to go into a subscription relationship with them.

I somehow do not feel like a real customer to them....

What is your true alternative that will provide the same flexibility and results you get from Adobe?

[Schewe]

So to be clear Jeff this is not an assault on Thomas, Eric etc anymore than if you don't like what happens at the White House it means you want to disband democracy.

When you or others claim that Adobe won't be interested in advancing development with the subscription model because there's no motivation to make new features, that's a direct slap at the engineers who are indeed motivated by doing good work and advancing the product development regardless of the motivation. Adobe is a corporation filled with people...when you slam the company, you slam the people and some of those people are friends...so I don't take that kindly...

I have not "defended" Adobe's move to the subscription only model, I thought and said it was a bad idea with poor execution. I have tried to explain why they thought they had to do it. Some people refuse to believe the truth because it doesn't fit with their view of Adobe as a money grubbing greedy corporation (which isn't really true although they are really, really cheap :~).

Adobe has made a lot of mistakes that have shot themselves in the foot going way back to the Creative Suite (and even before). Some things I harbor a grudge over–in particular the whole Adobe Stock Photo fiasco...Adobe has a long history of having poor marketing messages and poor executive decisions...none of this is new to the CC situation. But I don't see Adobe as an evil empire because I know the people at Adobe and they really do try to do the right thing. Sometimes they don't but not for the reasons so many people who hate Adobe seem to think.

Photoshop (and Illustrator and InDesign and the other apps) are so successful in spite of everything Adobe does, not because of what Adobe does. It's the engineers and product managers who drive the product to be the best it can be. And in spite of all the stumbles and bad decisions made by Adobe, their applications are still the industry leading apps.

Time will tell if Adobe has made a crucial mistake that sees Adobe falling back and new competitors step to the front. The real secret weapon Adobe still has is their engineers teams like Thomas and Eric (and the many, many Photoshop engineers).

While you may not like the subscription model, I think it's here to stay so your only real choice is to adapt or move on...I've looked at all the other Photoshop-like apps recently and there's nothing else I can possibly use instead of Photoshop.

[judymcintosh]

When you or others claim that Adobe won't be interested in advancing development with the subscription model because there's no motivation to make new features, that's a direct slap at the engineers who are indeed motivated by doing good work and advancing the product development regardless of the motivation. Adobe is a corporation filled with people...when you slam the company, you slam the people and some of those people are friends..

Well Jeff others may have said that but I didn't! What I said was buyer beware ( quoting you in agreement, because you don't know what the ramifications might be. And as an aside nor could anyone know as you even said adobe didn't think about this bundle on offer at the beginning of the subscription and that Thomas has been working behind the scenes for months pushing for it etc)
 I'm not suggesting all of us have the same concerns or needs.. But we can learn from the discussion which, a few outliers excepted, is pretty constructive and usually limited by lack of certainty, lets face it!

The rest of your reply goes on to why one might beware..stock options, and succeeding despite itself, poor communication and executive decisions..you are the one who has informed us . I was simply agreeing that the talent of the creative/engineers is the value, and not withstanding your suggestion that to criticise Adobe is a " direct slap" in the face of these great people which I disagree with you about, I was explicitly now and before saying I appreciate them  and their huge contribution to create this and undoubtedly behind the scenes support the photographers case ( access, concerns, product feedback that Eric says is being folded into development pipeline) thats pretty straight forward thanks isnt it? THANKS!

Btw I have little doubt about motivation, these guys seem to love doing a great job ( and you know that better than I) and they have stated now an impediment to doing the bits they want to has been removed ( removed by their management  also people who also work for adobe). We can judge it by the results plain and simple. The decision is get on now or wait to see how it pans out. lr4 ( and probably 5 to come) and cs5 is fine for me, but improvements if helpful at my level and wants will be welcomed etc.
Hey, subscription as a model won't/ can't work or suit everyone, anymore than perpetual suits adobe anymore.
I'm cool with that....

[Dustbak]

What is your true alternative that will provide the same flexibility and results you get from Adobe?

quite frankly there is none, speak about a monopoly and taking advantage of it... There is a very fine line between using that advantage and abusing it. The relation between Adobe and their 'customers' is not particularly healthy because of that, IMO.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

quite frankly there is none, speak about a monopoly and taking advantage of it... There is a very fine line between using that advantage and abusing it. The relation between Adobe and their 'customers' is not particularly healthy because of that, IMO.

Hi,

The answer also depends on one's definition of a 'true alternative'. Several alternatives give better results than Photoshop does. They are therefore not 'true' alternatives, but better alternatives. Unfortunately, these alternatives could also perform worse on other aspects (e.g. less convenient workflow but better quality output). So it depends on how much weight one attaches to the different aspects of an alternative. The question is therefore impossible to answer in general, and for everybody. It depends on the particular situation.

Cheers,
Bart

[jrp]

When you or others claim that Adobe won't be interested in advancing development with the subscription model because there's no motivation to make new features, that's a direct slap at the engineers who are indeed motivated by doing good work and advancing the product development regardless of the motivation. Adobe is a corporation filled with people...when you slam the company, you slam the people and some of those people are friends...so I don't take that kindly...

The argument is not that the subscription model means that the software engineers will relax and stop innovating, it's that the mangement will decide that there should be fewer engineers (or at least fewer engineers working on the stuff that people in this forum are interested in) because engineers are expensive so should be taken off work that leads to no additional revenue.

I would guess that the stuff that the management would think could promote the growth of Adobe is the cloud plumbing -- transferring work to and from mobile devices, etc -- and the business intelligence side of the business (ironically), not more camera raw features.

Adobe will not want to get left high and dry, as Microsoft has found itself, putting resources into a declining segment of the market (the world of PCs and digital cameras) when a new way of working is prospering (mobile).

[chez]

The argument is not that the subscription model means that the software engineers will relax and stop innovating, it's that the mangement will decide that there should be fewer engineers (or at least fewer engineers working on the stuff that people in this forum are interested in) because engineers are expensive so should be taken off work that leads to no additional revenue.

I would guess that the stuff that the management would think could promote the growth of Adobe is the cloud plumbing -- transferring work to and from mobile devices, etc -- and the business intelligence side of the business (ironically), not more camera raw features.

Adobe will not want to get left high and dry, as Microsoft has found itself, putting resources into a declining segment of the market (the world of PCs and digital cameras) when a new way of working is prospering (mobile).

Yes Adobe most likely is looking really hard into the future with cloud storage and mobile devices...and I am really glad they are. We need to keep moving forward and it is companies like Adobe that keep us going forward. Wouldn't it be a sad day if all camera manufactures moved at the pace Kodak did when transitioning to digital. I personally see a huge potential with cloud storage and nice portable devices that I can not only display my photos on...but actually do image processing on, all without having to have my entire library of photos with me.

Please Adobe, keep moving forwards....

[DeanChriss]

I can some benefits cloud computing could bring, but serious editing of photos on mobile devices won't be one of them for me until mobile devices come with 26" monitors.

[jrsforums]

When you or others claim that Adobe won't be interested in advancing development with the subscription model because there's no motivation to make new features, that's a direct slap at the engineers who are indeed motivated by doing good work and advancing the product development regardless of the motivation. Adobe is a corporation filled with people...when you slam the company, you slam the people and some of those people are friends...so I don't take that kindly...

For you to make that statement shows that you are either naive about the development process in a major corporation....or believe we are.

Development projects have budgets, which are driven by the return ( profit/ revenue ) expected from them.  Thomas, in the recent video interview with Michael, mentioned the marketing driven "demo-able" features that they needed to work on for each major release.  Unsaid, but alluded to was that these tied up work that could have been better spent in other areas.

Questioning Adobe's future action....that is the actions of a profit driven corporation...in no way reflects on the creative workers in the trenches.  It is not unreasonable to fear that once the subscription model is driven into our hearts that Adobe...the corporation...could not "cash cow" the product.

I have not "defended" Adobe's move to the subscription only model, I thought and said it was a bad idea with poor execution. I have tried to explain why they thought they had to do it. Some people refuse to believe the truth because it doesn't fit with their view of Adobe as a money grubbing greedy corporation (which isn't really true although they are really, really cheap :~).

In the beginning, you attempted, unreasonably, to beat down all complaints.  In fact, you probably did more to feed the flames then the actual action by Adobe did.

[Rob Reiter]

When you or others claim that Adobe won't be interested in advancing development with the subscription model because there's no motivation to make new features, that's a direct slap at the engineers

That's quite a leap...engineers receive their marching orders from higher up the chain. No one on this forum is denigrating the efforts and motivations of the people in the trenches, but they do have to focus on what comes down from their superiors and that is the part of the Adobe structure that many of us have lost faith in. I certainly hope this expressed concern is misplaced, but I sympathize with and understand those who worry.