Originally Posted by Superbass
... Adobe's update cycle is 2 years, and the Master collections is $900 to upgrade and includes 13 programs, plus the Bridge. That comes to about $70 per app, which is much less than upgrading Logic or Final Cut, and on par with most OSX updates.
True, but the fallacy of this approach is twofold:
(a) How phenomenally rare are the people who actually needs/uses all 13 applications?
Even if we count those instances where the 'fuzzy borders' of the various tools means that one needs 2-3 Apps to get a certain something done, there's invariably specialization that occurs, so your "Photoshop Go To Guy" isn't necessarily going to be the same guy for all 12 other tools.
Adobe knows this, which is why they set that price point where it is: if one compares it to how many individual upgrades this same $600 will buy, then you quickly figure out that the typical developer really only uses 2-3 of the 13 Apps.
(b) How much longer is it going to be until Adobe has their next
"Bundle reorganization", which will replace "Creative Suite" with "Some New Name"?
The point of this question is to highlight that with Adobe CS, Adobe is using it to "break" bundled upgrade paths, so as to extract more money from Licensees. If you hadn't noticed, those developers who owned licenses of EVERY Application pre-CS bundling aren't eligible to easily "CS-ize" them into a bundle for the purposes of getting a lower upgrade price: the only 'deal' that Adobe offers is a "own one, get to upgrade to the suite for a mere $800".
The net result is that the licenses not used for that upgrade get orphaned, yet still have value.
For a large enterprise, this might not be too bad of a thing, since there's invariably some amount of incidental piracy ... but this does backfire, since it does alienate the individual who advocates for the latest copy (out of the group's budget) and he was
(past tense) your anti-piracy advocate within that group.
Similarly, for the small independent shop, this residual value becomes a headache, since now they'll be motivated to go recoup that expense by reselling the old license on eBay.
I think most Lightroom users are very happy with it's workflow as a photograph cataloguing and developing program. (Hence the name Lightroom). Adding a bunch of extra features would take away that workflow. Photoshop is for deeper photo editing and manipulation.
But it is still for PHOTO editing - not Video editing, not imports of 3D CAD images, etc. How much of its bloat is because of this scope creep which should have really been given its own dedicated app? Which is why one needs it for photos, since there's still a lot of adjustments that Lightroom simply can't do.
Also, John B.: You can buy Photoshop CS4 Standard, and not have the 3D editing features or the extra cost. 3D is only available in Photoshop CS4 Extended. I think we can assume Adobe will continue this product model as there are lots of folks who only work in 2D.
More like: "...a lot of people who recognize that since they don't need 3D, they don't want to be forced to pay extra for it...."
The reality out of all of the above is that an increasingly large percentage of Adobe's customer base no longer feels the need to buy every upgrade - - the improvements simply aren't compelling enough at the price point that Adobe is asking. Thus, these customers perform "Skip-Upgrades
Does this create a vicious circle where Adobe is prompted to try to compensate by charging higher upgrade prices? Yup. Afterall, a 2 for 1 skip-upgrade cuts Adobe's revenue by 50%, and a 3 for 1 skip-upgrade cuts Adobe's revenues by a whopping 67%.
The solution, of course, is to make sure that your products are compelling and have value...not blame your customers for not buying it.
Unfortunately, the 800lb Gorilla is Microsoft and their business model of the Enterprise, where 'standardization' is frequently more often important than product value. That's a path to long term stagnation.