Adobe lets you pay now and later and later again

The time was January 1995. The smooth, Philly soul and pleated pants of Boyz II Men ruled the airwaves. I had finally, seven months after ending my academic wanderings, wrangled a full-time job. I owned a miniature pig named Elvis the Tiny King. Life was good.

But enough about my porcine past. That first job was at a small ad agency. I was their lone copywriter, a complement to their lone art director. Yes, much loneliness was afoot. Not surprisingly, the agency was a Mac shop. I believe I had the privilege of piloting a Centris 660AV while my graphics-crunching cohort had some form of Quadra, possibly a 610. Our DTP weapons of (very limited) choice: QuarkXPress 3.1 for page layout, Photoshop 3.0 (the first with layers) for image editing, and Illustrator 5.5 for recreating vector logos from client-provided GIF files.

This triumvirate of print production would remain de rigueur for several years. Sure, Adobe had PageMaker, which it had acquired from Aldus in 1994, but it never really posed a serious threat to the usurper Quark’s hegemony. Adobe and Quark kept rolling out periodic updates, and the advertising and publishing industries dutifully upgraded as cash flow permitted. Which, I’d be willing to bet, wasn’t as often as either company would have liked. That’s foreshadowing.

Quark, drunk on money, power, and an estimated 90% market share, started behaving like a moneyed, power-hungry boor. It was slow to innovate, slow to fix bugs, offered poor customer service, and extracted premium fees for its products. Which wouldn’t have been so intolerable if the first three issues, well, weren’t. Adobe, never a company to turn its back on increased market share, decided it was time to bring page layout into the company in a way PageMaker never really could, and it launched InDesign 1.0 in 1999. But it wasn’t until versions 2.0 (the first OS X version) and 3.0 (the first Creative Suite version) that InDesign really started hammering away at QuarkXPress’s user base. (I couldn’t find any current market share numbers between the two products, but anecdotally, I don’t know any ad agencies still using QuarkXPress. I still see internal corporate communications departments running it from time to time, but even that is a rare spotting. Still, my sample size is small. That’s not a euphemism.)

Today, Adobe runs a bit roughshod through the marketplace. Their Creative Suite of design/publishing/web/video products is now up version 6. Getting the loaded Master Suite of all 16 CS programs runs a nifty $2,599. This is not really an obscene amount if you’re one of the 11 people who use most of the programs. Of course, you can also opt for smaller bundles of Adobe love with a Design, Web, Design & Web, or Production (as in video) collection. And these may or may not be offered in Premium and/or Extended versions. I’d explain it all to you, but I know you don’t care. Which is nice, because I don’t, either. We’re left with a cavalcade of options, prices and variables such that I’m surprised Adobe doesn’t sell a separate app to tell you which one to buy. In my case, I purchased an academic version of Master Suite CS4 a few years ago since I needed programs that didn’t come bundled in a sub-suite. Which, I’m sure, is another part of the Grand Schematica of Maximum Purchasification. I have not upgraded since then, because I don’t really need new features (as much as I dig the content-aware stuff in newer Photoshop releases), I couldn’t afford it anyway, and you can’t upgrade an academic version. My company is currently on CS5.5, so I can use newish tools if the need arises.

So, Adobe’s cycle of upgrades and corresponding upgrade fees has gone on for about 20 years. The problem, for Adobe, is that releasing a new version of CS doesn’t guarantee the installed base will automatically whip out a collective purchase order and pony up for the new auto-liposuction tool. Where’s the steady cash flow in that? And how can Adobe get the nabobs at Boondocks Advertising & Stick Whittlin’ to finally dump Illustrator 88 and join the glorious future in the present?

The obvious, to Adobe, solution: mimic everyone’s favorite industry: wireless telecoms! Now let’s pause a moment to admire the double colon action of the preceding sentence. And scene.

Yes, Adobe announced earlier this week that it will no longer be releasing versions of Creative Suite in order to focus on its Creative Cloud applications. In a probably-not-entirely-accurate nutshell, Creative Cloud is a subscription plan in which you, Userboy, pay a monthly fee to access Adobe applications. You don’t, however, run applications from the cloud—you still install them on your hard drive. Which is smart. The cloud part, as far as I can suss out, is the 20 gigs of online storage you get, along with the ability to collaborate with team members or any Anonymous members who hack your idiot roommate’s account.

The shift from CS to CC theoretically allows Adobe to push out upgrades and bug fixes faster. Which is true if you’re still installing Photoshop from 24 .sea files on DSHD floppies. What it most certainly allows is for Adobe to enjoy a steadier stream of income. Even though you can pay for CC a month at a time, the more likely scenario will be a set-it-and-forget-it mentality. Like your Hulu Plus account and coke habit. But more like your coke habit because it’ll bleed you drier faster. Which is the main complaint I’ve been seeing online. Depending on which plan you opt for and which previous version of CS you own, you could spend anywhere from $240 to $840 a year using CC apps. For many, that will be a higher average annual cost than biennial upgrades. And, of course, you never own the software (and please don’t toss out EULA garbage about how all software is really just a usage license). So once you stop paying, the software stops working, dubious workarounds notwithstanding.

As someone who helps run a business, I understand the desire for more consistent cash flow. Yet I fail to see how this move is any kind of win for the majority of CS users. While some rather nice alternatives for certain Adobe products (especially for Photoshop) exist, I’m not sure the pain of this switch will cause even a significant minority to leave the fold or, at the end of the day, go off the reservation, but I’m just a focus group of one. So there it is: Adobe’s betting that they’re just not going to anger people enough to bother switching and ditching. Quite a way to build brand loyalty.

Right, Quark?

Later,

Fox

Comments closed
    • seeker010
    • 6 years ago

    not sure when this went up, and not sure how much business Corel is going to steal from Adobe, but I couldn’t help but smirk at this.

    [url<]http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=14900014[/url<]

    • --k
    • 7 years ago

    My company is considering iRise, a fancy pants functional prototyping tool for the enterprise at at about 7000 per user/annually. Considering how much Adobe software gets used, I would consider their pricing scheme more than fair.

    • dashbarron
    • 7 years ago

    Entertaining as always Mr. Fox. And I enjoyed the history lesson. Thanks.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    You just know that Microsoft–despite their blog post to the contrary–is watching this with smacking lips. They want this. They want it bad enough they can taste it. They just know they can’t get away with it… yet. But if Adobe DOES get away with it, Office and Windows won’t be far behind in exclusively being offered as a service. They’re already testing a version of it with the subscription model for Live that subsidizes an Xbox 360 (or the new Xbox if rumors are to be believed) and the Office service.

    Adobe can get away with this mostly because businesses are not going to switch programs without a lot of due process and a lot of reason to. Cost will have to get truly outrageous to outweigh retraining, testing, and transitional legwork necessary to make a change.

    But cost will get there eventually. Businesses will just have to spend a few years worth of subscriptions before they start seeing the bottom line as unacceptable and start considering alternatives.

    I still can’t believe Adobe really thinks they can charge what they’re charging the consumer (not businesses) for this when they could have easily made this SEEM like a great deal to the consumer with just a smidge lower price that they could easily raise in a few years once everyone was used to the scheme.

    Instead, they’re drunk on power. They started with the insane price and they’re almost certainly going to go up from here. It’s a real shame businesses are so slow to make changes (for the reasons stated above) because that’s the only thing that would compel Adobe to change their pricing.

    • Thanato
    • 7 years ago

    I’ve been using it for 4 months now at my new job. It’s depressing, though the company pays for it I get emails stating verification of the last payment, reminds me of paying rent, which reminded me how 99% I am.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      In the us about 70% ‘own’ their home.

      I say ‘own’ because all land is leased. If you don’t pay the lease in the form of the property tax, your home and land will be reposessed.

      The ‘rent’ you pay has a home ‘owner’ is about 1% , but could be much higher.

      In that model, you would buy software , then still have to pay to use it.

      Btw, almost no one can buy a home without a mortgage…. All home owner pay a monthly fee to live in their house… Again, don’t pay and your out.

        • Thanato
        • 7 years ago

        Now I’m just more depressed. I used to be able to buy my “house”, the 1% can afford to buy their “house(s)” no sense in getting a mortgage.

        as far as taxes.., only two things are sure in life, maybe Adobe is going for three.

          • shaq_mobile
          • 7 years ago

          if you cant see the sense in a mortgage, you probably arent at a point in life where you should get into one.

            • Thanato
            • 7 years ago

            wtf, if you can afford it you can buy the house outright….. it’s so much cheaper than paying interests on a 30 year loan, which about doubles the cost of a home. That double in cost is the cost of being poor, mortgage’s are for poor people. reality is a….

            now with photoshop the rates can go up year after year so it’s more or less like renting, but at least with a house you have the option to buy. which can be cheaper in the long run depending.

            • peartart
            • 7 years ago

            If you are rich and mortgage rates are low enough, it can make sense to take a mortgage. Especially if you can deduct the interest.

            • Chrispy_
            • 7 years ago

            That’s not how interest works:

            £400,000 paid now is a loss to me of £400,000 right now.

            If I borrowed £400,000 to buy my house and then used that £400,000 to do other things, I’m £400,000 worth of [i<]'other things'[/i<] better off. If I borrowed £400,000 to buy my house and then invested my own £400,000 somewhere with better interest rates than the mortgage, I'm making money. Thanks to taxation and high mortgage rates, that's not an easy task but it's definitely not impossible.

            • Thanato
            • 7 years ago

            It’s a nice allusion, after you do all the math which make you feel like a smart guy (and probably are) you through tremendous effort find a way to make a profit, which is more likely to not be true thanks to inflation. Still a bank makes more with less effort, more or less some one has a thumb in your till for all your effort and is taking your money then raises inflation to make sure you don’t become rich. Now one might live with idea that life is a matter of how much debt you can afford, but it’s more a cultural brain wash in favor of the 1%. So if you think a mortgage is smart then your not rich your poor. Interests just forces a pyramid of rich and poor because they dangle the carrot that someday you to can be rich enough to live off the interest on the cash you have. But the endgame is that not everybody can get payed for doing nothing.

            Not owning something you buy means you have nothing and yet still have to pay for it. By making things less “black and white” you are going to be screwed over and be powerless to do anything about it when the “screwing” starts.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Even if you pay in cash you still have to pay 1% or more of the total value of the land and home each year.
            If you don’t pay, it’s also ever increasing, at a rate close to inflation, the state will ‘repossess’
            You home and auction it.

            Most rich people have mortgages… Because money makes money, having it stuck in a home never makes sense.

            Also by the time you save to buy a home 10 to 20 years might elapse, all going toward rent.

    • Laykun
    • 7 years ago

    Will the CS Suite work on a computer that doesn’t have an internet connection?

    • BIF
    • 7 years ago

    Okay, so help me think this through.

    We’re pretty sure this stuff all works on Windows 8, right?

    So what if I just bought Master Collection CS6 for $2600 and just use it for the next ten years?

    That would break down to $260 annually, or $21 per month for 16 products.

    The drawbacks would be no upgrades, and if it breaks five years in my cost will have been $42 per month. Not much of a discount from the $50, but at least it’s not a subscription.

    • crabjokeman
    • 7 years ago

    [url<]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29[/url<]

    • danny e.
    • 7 years ago

    The move is a good one. Most of the angry people will be those that Adobe doesn’t care about.
    The one thing they probably should do is have another price point and lower the cost for one application.

    Still, 2,500 = 50/month * 50 months = 4.166 years. I paid 2,500 for CS5.
    I subscribed on the 30/month plan (CS5 owner discount for a year).

    Most of those complaining in this thread never purchased Creative Suite.
    The few who did, including the author, don’t keep up to date… there’s nothing preventing you from staying on your old version.

    I think Adobe should probably have a price structure more like:
    10 – single
    30 – 4 applications
    50 – full

    This, because I use 4 applications 🙂

    let the down votes commence!

      • David
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. Keep 30/month as a useful price point and I’ll hang around.

      I got in on the 30/month plan as a new user. You just had to find the right sign up button.

        • BIF
        • 7 years ago

        But guys, you’re forgetting something.

        For freelancers and home users, the subscription model is awful, absolutely awful.

        Get laid off with kids in college or otherwise hit a dry patch and you might have to reduce your family expenses. The first things to go are usually subscriptions, cable/satellite ($50-120 per month), newspaper (what’s that? wait, I still get one, it’s about $300 per year), even newsletters at $59 per year, your Amazon Prime membership, health club memberships, etcetera.

        With a “subscription only” model, the customer can’t even choose whether or not to pay all up front. He is forced into a monthly or annual commitment and is forced to give up the ability to flex the family finances as necessary to adapt to changing conditions.

        Allow me to buy. Please.

      • ULYXX
      • 7 years ago

      I really dont think Adobe is going to care about your price suggestions seeing how you’re already one of the few being herded into this happy go lucky. The whole rest of this page has good reasons to be against this subscription motto and If Adobe is ballsy enough to do this in the first place, they will ballsy enough to RAISE the price on you in the future Mister.

      • Thanato
      • 7 years ago

      all those numbers can change on a per month basis. I know there’s a annual commitment but what’s to stop em from changing the rates, nickle and dime their way to better stock value.

    • oldog
    • 7 years ago

    I am most intrigued by Microsoft’s communications officer Clint Patterson’s comments regarding Adobe’s move. He went on record as saying users shouldn’t be “hurried” into the cloud.

    Does this weaken an MS OS based business model?

    reference – [url<]http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/cloud-services/microsoft-not-racing-adobe-to-the-cloud-1150005[/url<]

    • not@home
    • 7 years ago

    My current version of Photoshop is 5. I usually buy the upgrade every other release. I was waiting for CS7, but I guess Adobe does not want my money anymore. Stupid move on their part. I will never ever buy a subscription based product.

      • LostCat
      • 7 years ago

      Nah, they want money from the people still using CS3 or earlier products.

      And to stop supporting earlier versions so long.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      Uh, you already buy the subscription based product, just you don’t like the shortened terms.

        • not@home
        • 7 years ago

        Not really. If I stop paying their subscription based crap, I no longer have photoshop. If I decide to no longer get updates, I still have CS5 forever.

      • danny e.
      • 7 years ago

      If you bought CS5 and were planning to upgrade to CS7, then the new model would save you money.

        • BIF
        • 7 years ago

        No it doesn’t! It is a “forever payment” arrangement.

        Like alimony that never ends. Or kids that never leave the house. Stop the madness, please!

        When you buy a license, it might be more money up front, but then at least you can plan your finances and amortize the cost however you wish.

        • xeridea
        • 7 years ago

        Subscription based software is stupid. There is exactly 1 reason companies like them, they can continue to suck money from customers indefinitely. If one doesn’t need to have all the latest and greatest features all the time because they are not a power user, they will just be paying $50/month for the rest of their life, costing them more than a new car. MS is also doing subscriptions for Office. Subscriptions sound cheaper to the average brain dead user, but always cost more in the end, always.

          • peartart
          • 7 years ago

          Both companies are just catering to their main customers, businesses that get significant value out of the software. A business would prefer a monthly subscription to a large upfront investment with almost no residual value, and they prefer that enough that they are willing to pay more in present value. How much more is what Adobe and Microsoft are trying to find out.

            • xeridea
            • 7 years ago

            So you are saying businesses prefer software companies to figure out how much money they can squeeze out of them before they start a riot? Businesses are about keeping costs low, and overhead down. Subscriptions cost significantly more in long run, and it’s one more thing to keep track of. Imagine if every piece of software you ever used was subscription, you would have like 87 monthly charges on your credit card.

            Adobe, as a business is trying to figure out a way to have guaranteed monthly income, just not necessarily in the right way. Not as bad as the RIAA, the MIAA, and the cable and phone companies who just plain refuse to catch up with technology. There are some scenarios where subscription would be better, but outright requiring it is stupid, especially since there is basically 0 added value for subscription model.

            • indeego
            • 7 years ago

            Businesses #1 cost is labor. Software probably isn’t even in the top 10 for most businesses. It’s also frequently a write-off for taxes.

            If CS saves a business on x hours a year timewise, it’s worth it.

            I wish my company understood this. They hired someone recently to do the job that hardware/software has been capable of for many years automatically (Document scanning/OCR.)

            • peartart
            • 7 years ago

            If I had accountants and lawyers doing my credit card bill and my subscriptions were used to generate profit instead of waste time, infinite subscriptions wouldn’t be so bad. It’s similar to the decision between leasing office space and buying a building.

            ‘Catering’ was the wrong word. The point is that they are trying to get more profit out of their best customers, and they are willing to let marginal customers fall away to do it, and that it is not crazy for Adobe to be doing it in this way.

    • Star Brood
    • 7 years ago

    It works as an alternative to financing the cost. That’s about it. People who would have bought it up front are getting shafted with “interest”. Oh yeah, and the financing is pretty much eternal.

    • redwood36
    • 7 years ago

    Its simply amazing that no one has managed to step into the market with a fresh killer app, esp considering all the people involved in application development. I guess a full on desktop media program isnt as sexy as a new iphone game but still. PS, ILL, IND are strong staples in the print industry (where I more or less reside). Adobe is losing the web battle, with Dreamweaver being that bane of any of the web guys I know. Flash is on the outs. This is definitely the kick in the pants needed to tell everyone that they wont need to upgrade for a good long while. The only ones who have really reaped the benefits of Adobes last few versions have been the iPad market hungry magazines and newspapers, publishing dedicated app versions of their apps to the market. They will follow hook line and sinker. Unfortunately, since they are the ones that are suffering the most, million dollar industries that they are.

      • Scrotos
      • 7 years ago

      Apple bought up and developed some pieces. Final Cut. Logic(?). They got a RAW camera thing that I forget the name of. They don’t get much press and I don’t know the current state of them so they might have languished like Google does with their acquisitions.

      Final Cut had bad press with their move to a new workflow but from what I understand it’s been updated and not as evil anymore. I think the damage was done to the product line, though, with people moving to Avid and Premiere.

      Opensource stuff is all crap and no one wants to use them. GIMP? Inkscape? I don’t see any places dumping their Adobe products for them anytime soon.

        • redwood36
        • 7 years ago

        One doesnt have to dump their products to stop using them. I know people still running on old versions, like cs3. In some ways they tend to run better, hogging less resources. I’ll also add our Jason Fox above to this list, being that hes running cs4.

      • indeego
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]"Its simply amazing that no one has managed to step into the market with a fresh killer app, esp considering all the people involved in application development."[/quote<] Killer app in what way? You don't write the PS suite in a year, let alone 5, without bumping into hundreds of patents and other restrictions. [quote<]"I guess a full on desktop media program isnt as sexy as a new iphone game but still. PS, ILL, IND are strong staples in the print industry (where I more or less reside). Adobe is losing the web battle, with Dreamweaver being that bane of any of the web guys I know. Flash is on the outs."[/quote<] Adobe recognizes this and has LOTS of HTML5 tools to help you there. Flash support is 10+ years out, and is still installed on most desktops, and those desktops still account for 85%+ of website browsing. [quote<]"This is definitely the kick in the pants needed to tell everyone that they wont need to upgrade for a good long while. "[/quote<] No, your two points aren't really connected, at all. [quote<]"The only ones who have really reaped the benefits of Adobes last few versions have been the iPad market hungry magazines and newspapers, publishing dedicated app versions of their apps to the market. "[/quote<] What? I don't understand this sentence. You then say they are suffering the most.

        • redwood36
        • 7 years ago

        1: PS has dominated the market for far longer than 5 years. Nothing else in my experience comes close. Painter 8 was around a while back, but fell by the wayside and no one talks about it ever anymore. Assuming your aware that PS has held the field for a good long while, is your argument that it is somehow IMPOSSIBLE to make a better application?

        2: Adobe recognizes and helps with HTML 5, but as far as the online dialogue Ive seen with webdev, no one cares. Flash has a strong user base, but the web is moving in another direction. I’m also not somehow talking about mobile devices, for desktop use also the web is moving away from flash.

        3: Absolutely the points connect, since those are 2 significant fields to which adobe holds claim, print and web. Without an audience in these spaces adobe is left with very little. Other than that there is video, which as far as I know has been held with apple software.

        4: Right, adobe has been catering to the magazine crowd with the last few releases of the CS. 5.5 was basically ONLY a major upgrade for indesign, which saw a slew of tools all designed around the creation of the epub. They will be suffering, because they have to upgrade in order to keep with the times. Makers of books, illustrations, vector graphics and photo-manipulators can all rely on the current tools and will do pretty well.

          • indeego
          • 7 years ago

          1: Nope, not my argument. My argument is that it’s a very large uphill battle to make one better, provide a support structure for it equal or better than adobe, provide all the support packages and plug-in architecture that users need, at a profitable number that whomever backs it will see a return on investment.

          This is why LibreOffice isn’t replacing Word. You don’t have Outlook. Making a better photoshop won’t dent photoshop. You have to cover the entire suite.

          2: Adobe is well aware of yours and many others rage/hate for Flash, hence they are taking up HTML cloud based tools that even subvert web devs. For a LOT cheaper. Adobe doesn’t really care if flash dies in a fire. They want to be your source when you realize it.

          3: Their audience isn’t going anywhere. Adobe would not make a move where they saw customers flee. CS cloud is just “cloud” in very real quotes, the executables are very much local. It’s basically making authentication real-time, all the time. That is the real-point of cloud: control over the bits.

          4: Cool, then let them do so. I can’t comment on this as I havn’t subscribed to a magazine in a decade, and I don’t really understand the migration to the epub format as beneficial versus a more dynamic and interactive format, it just seems weird as part of your entire point.

            • redwood36
            • 7 years ago

            1: Right, so you are saying its so difficult that for all intents and purposes it’s impossible. Sounds like a smart someone could make a buck. Not everyone needs Content-aware fill or plug-in architecture.
            Word is not comparable since it is not a tool for skilled users. Word is all about its macros. Fill er up and ship it out. Word isn’t even a great example, since I frequently see large companies sticking to old versions of word. Like XP versions. Thats why you hear about companies that no longer need complex document editing moving into programs like google docs.

            2: What tools? Taking up HTML cloud based tools that subvert web devs? As in the NEED of web devs, or subvert their intentions?

            3 & 4: What apparently your not seeing is that these are the people who will buy into this cloud based service if they haven’t already. Fact is, for several years Adobe has been offering a cloud based tie in to IND that creates an app for ipads and (now) more than likely android devices. This was a selective program that was offered on a subscription basis at extremely high cost to the buyer. Seeing the profit they made off that is probably when they started to see the dots and crosses. That and its piracy issue.
            Adobe has largely served the print crowd first and foremost. If you dont understand that Adobe springs from a print tradition than I don’t see where your coming from.

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    Newegg sell photoshop cs6 for $~600
    And now the latest version of photosop will be available for $20 for 30 days ($240 a year).

    So from what I can see this new model only affect a certain class of heavy users (that use the software every month) but only upgrade every 3+ years. For anyone else it a saving.

    My feeling is the only real loosers from this new model are re-sellers….

    But I see the biggest winners to be the occasional users (that dont pirate software)
    I could never warrant to buying photoshop or premiere for $600 a pop, use it a a while and let it sit unused for month. only later to be greeted with a new version that require a 200-$400 to upgrade.
    Now I could pay 20$ use the software for my pet project.. and a year later pay another 20$ and still get access to the latest and greatest.

    Sadly most software I bought, dont run on my PC anymore. So the value of buying software outright is not always that great. (and for the one that work, they didn’t age well at all)

      • cynan
      • 7 years ago

      There is a reason Adobe pulled the upgrade versions of CS6 before now. If these were still available, they would almost certainly make this subscription based model look like the money grabbing scheme it is.

      • danny e.
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. Adobe would probably be wise to lower the single application cost to 10/month. or 15 at max.

      $20/month for 1 and $50/month for 10+ doesn’t seem quite right.

    • d0g_p00p
    • 7 years ago

    Any reason why comments don’t show up on the portable version of the site?

      • Damage
      • 7 years ago

      …they should.

        • Scrotos
        • 7 years ago

        Just tested on my iPhone, I get a Loading box at the bottom that’s just perpetually loading. The article loaded quickly. Going on a full minute now on the comments for this article. Ayup.

    • GatoRat
    • 7 years ago

    The only Adobe product I like is Premiere* and this is very helpful for those occasional projects where I need an industrial strength video editor. Purchasing upgrades for even one project every four years would cost thousands of dollars, this is a fraction of that.

    Also note that my reading of the announcement is that you can still buy the product, just not in a physical box.

    Finally, you can rent each individual piece of software so this would be beneficial to small businesses.

    *While I like Premiere, for my last project I tried the trial versions of both it and Vegas. Vegas had some quirky things and Premiere can do some edge things Vegas can’t, but I found Vegas a whole lot easier to work with.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    I can imagine many people sticking with their older versions or going with GIMP if they don’t have Adobe yet.

    Now if only GIMP is a more polished, more complete product. I use it for basic graphics stuff but it’s pretty crummy at times.

      • MEATLOAF2
      • 7 years ago

      I agree, GIMP is very unpolished, I use it when I work with Blender for little projects here and there, and Blender is like a fully featured paid product in comparison to GIMP. I’ve seen plenty of videos of PS in action and it is like a dream when comparing it to GIMP as well. From what I can tell, GIMP isn’t very actively developed anymore either.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Bang!

    Adobe just shot itself in the foot.

    • Alexko
    • 7 years ago

    “Quark, drunk on money, power, and an estimated 90% market share, started behaving like a moneyed, power-hungry boor.”

    What did you expect? He’s a Ferengi, it’s in his blood.

      • BIF
      • 7 years ago

      You just saved me the trouble of making a Star Trek reference, and that’s good because mine would have been lame. +1 for you and the Gorn you rode in on.

      • Krogoth
      • 7 years ago

      [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmkFX0myYU4[/url<]

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    This blog title is spot on, Jason.

    I’ve looked at typical usage for our current company (an SMB) and also a larger firm of over 500 that I occasionally consult for. Since the Master Collection is overkill for even most of the die-hard Adobe users, Adobe are effectively discontinuing the suites that 99% of the market actually use – replacing it with something that is massively more expensive. Even for volume purchases, Adobe are offering little of value and ramping up costs without an incentive to buy into Adobe CC.

    I fail to see anything but hideous backlash and rampant increase of Adobe piracy in the corporate world (which is their major revenue stream; AdobeCS is already one of the most heavily pirated products among consumers, last time I saw a report it had piracy rates quadruple that of even MS Office and Windows!).

    CS6, the last standalone suite may become the common-denominator format for the various files CS produces, and I would be overjoyed if Adobe’s revenue bottomed-out because AdobeCC was such a “screw-you” gesture to buyers of all sizes.

    The ‘must-have’ feature that makes AdobeCC worth moving off CS6(standalone) is going to have to be of [i<]game-changing[/i<] importance to make CC even worth [b<]considering[/b<]. Cloud-based collaboration is [i<]not even close[/i<] to being that feature, when everyone already has it for free (or cheap) via 3rd-party tools.... [i<]edit - typos[/i<]

      • canoli
      • 7 years ago

      “The ‘must-have’ feature that makes AdobeCC worth moving off CS6(standalone) is going to have to be of game-changing importance to make CC even worth considering.”

      Agreed – 100%. Great move modeling yourself after the U.S. cellphone industry. Just brilliant.

      I resent Adobe doing this. Open your wallet forever to us – or else.

      I understand the “or else” = don’t use their software, it’s my choice. That’s fine in theory except that Adobe’s software is everywhere; you can’t avoid it if you hope to compete for work in graphic arts, publishing, even Hollywood FX houses use AfterFX to some degree.

      Maybe they’ll come to their senses if enough of us refuse the subscription model and just stick with what we have. But I doubt it because the businesses who get 90% of the industry work will buy into it, because for them it’s a good deal. What’s $50/month to a big ad agency? Or a service bureau (printing/publishing)? Not a lot. But to us freelancers it’s a major commitment…one that I won’t make willingly until like Chrispy says there’s a game-changing improvement.

    • Anvil
    • 7 years ago

    This seems like a way to cater to larger business customers where keeping an Adobe subscription is just a business expense, but this move is going to screw over the small business and home user who might not need the all or even some of the latest tools pretty badly.

    What’s the over/under on this being some sort of anti-piracy measure on Adobe’s part?

      • brute
      • 7 years ago

      it may be, but it’s likely just being implemented to secure reliable and sustainable revenue. they aren’t so bound by upgrades with this delivery model, as it’s now pay-to-play. i can see how it could benefit a home or small business user, though. not having to pay an upfront $2600 would be pretty nice.

      if it affects piracy rates of the software, that’d jsut be a side benefit.

      • Thrashdog
      • 7 years ago

      As one of said larger business customers, we’re mad as hell. We really only needed the base Design Suite package, and if it weren’t for Adobe’s backwards compatibility shenanigans with InDesign we’d only even need to upgrade once every few years. Now we’re being forced to spend something like 300% more than we used to for access to Adobe products. Worse still, while Creative Cloud for Teams is a little better than nothing in this regard, Adobe still doesn’t allow true floating licenses for non-educational users. This means we either have to buy licenses for everybody who will ever use the suite (expensive), manually reassign licenses every time somebody needs to get into the suite (IT nightmare), or force our users to remote desktop into a limited pool of VMs for any graphical work (user PITA). (FWIW, we’re looking at a hybrid model with PS Elements deployed universally, and the full Suite installed on remote desktops.)

      Between Adobe and Autodesk, we’re forking over ludicrous sums per user annually, and the costs keep going up while the value added keeps going down. This is nothing more than a shameless cash grab on Adobe’s part, and I can’t wait for someone to do to them what they did to Quark.

        • Chrispy_
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Adobe's backwards compatibility shenanigans with InDesign[/quote<] Shenanigans is definitely the right word! We have bought 55 CS6 Design Standard licenses since CS6 came out, only to install CS5.5 because they can't make Indesign read its own files from one year to the next. The minute you install CS6 on one machine everyone needs CS6, and backsaving ruins formatting in most cases. There's no way I'm buying another 80-odd CS6 licenses to "upgrade" our existing CS5.5 users. Expecting me to do that is [b<]JUST PLAIN RUDE.[/b<] Frack you, Adobe; Frack you very frackkin' much.....

        • indeego
        • 7 years ago

        “or force our users to remote desktop into a limited pool of VMs for any graphical work (user PITA). ”

        RemoteApp is a PITA for users? It’s literally the same double click you would use on a desktop!

          • Spunjji
          • 7 years ago

          Yes, and you only have to invest up to your eyeballs in infrastructure to make it perform even a little bit like a native app. Herpaderp.

    • Shambles
    • 7 years ago

    Are there any viable alternatives to CS out there?

      • brute
      • 7 years ago

      Corel Suite (I don’t know how good it is), and GIMP

      here at my work, we use Pre-CS photoshop. my version of indesign is 3.0.1. everything is super old, on this new model, my department’s software costs would skyrocket.

        • brute
        • 7 years ago

        i lied. i’m on photoshop and illustrator CS 1, and Macromedia Dreamweaver MX

      • Spotpuff
      • 7 years ago

      I’m not sure, but Adobe probably shouldn’t have made people want to even ask that question.

      • NovusBogus
      • 7 years ago

      Not yet but if they keep this up there will probably be some competitors popping up as well as renewed interest in open-source packages like Inkscape.

      • joselillo_25
      • 7 years ago

      You can use Photosohop CS2 free and download from the adobe web page. It is better than GIMP IMHO.

    • willyolio
    • 7 years ago

    I guess CS6 will be the Windows XP of the A/V world, then?

      • voodootronix
      • 7 years ago

      Considering how many I people I know that are perfectly happy on legacy versions of Adobe products, and considering what an obscenely powerful program Photoshop CS6 (all I personally use) is I can see a vast number of people deciding not to go down the CC route.

      • Celess
      • 7 years ago

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This