And if you stop paying your monthly dues to Adobe, everything you did in those three years will be inaccessible.
That's kind of nonsense. If you use the software and create a movie, it's NOT inaccessible. If you use photoshop and produce some piece of art, that's not going away. If you actually finish something with these tools, it's going to come out in a format that isn't locked to Adobe software. The only thing will be inaccessible is the intermediary pieces of your final output.
Just because it's something no one has brought up that I'm aware of …
It would be easier to take the subscription model if they did like everyone else and make it cheaper that way. A lot of software is moving to the cloud and going subscription, but typically the company makes this type of software cheaper, both to soften the blow and also because volume is generally increased so they can afford to. It's like a reward you give your customers for the nasty "lock-in" they have to endure or a reward for them voting for your product or whatever.
Adobe on the other hand, who already has a product that's outrageously overpriced by most standards, has actually raised the price for the subscription-software-in-a-cloud-that you-don't-even-own-product.
So to me, it's like a giant "fuckk you" from Adobe. They take the software even more "out of your hands" than it already is. They raise the prices significantly. They don't even give you the option of not upgrading anymore.
Whether they raised or lowered the price depends on which suite you used. Creative cloud is really the former Master suite which was $2600 with $1200 upgrades. So even using the "I only upgrade every 3 years" example above, creative cloud is much cheaper. However if you were on the other end of the spectrum of Design Standard $1200 with $250 upgrades the new creative cloud is much more expensive.
One other option that was not covered is that there is also a month to month option for $75. So if you only need the software a couple of months a year, this is cheaper still.
I started using Creative Cloud last year, For what I use, the 3 year cost were similar and not having the huge up front payment tipped the scales for me.
Just want to correct your math there. A subscription to Photoshop CC runs at $20 per month, which is $240 per year, or $720 for 3 years. Not much more than buying outright. plus if you had upgraded in that time, it would have cost you more.
For users who purchase the Master Suite - Creative cloud is WAY cheaper.
But the one thing you're not factoring in is that at the end of those 3 years and $720 outlay for Photoshop CC, you still own *nothing* but a nice requirement to keep on paying that $240 a year just to be able to open all the work you've created. With a perpetual license, on the other hand, you can continue to use the program near indefinitely.
Ownership of a perpetual license is a tangible asset that must be factored into any value calculations. When done so, CC is not WAY cheaper in the long run, not by a long shot.
Creative Cloud is the equivalent of leasing a car over 3 years, paying the full outright cost during that time, and then having to turn the car back in and walk away with absolutely nothing. But even that's not bad enough. To truly see how bad the deal is, after turning in your car, you'd also be prohibited from driving on any roads you drove on while using that car.
To summarize: After 3 years of CC, you've paid more than buying the software outright, and this assumes you bought a full, retail version as opposed to upgrading from an older version. From that point, you can stop paying, loose access to the application(s) and any edibility of anything you've created during that time, or you can continue to pay indefinitely.
After 3 years ownership of a perpetual license, your investment is likely long since recovered and you can continue using your software for however long it continues to run on whatever OS/platform you use. 10 to 15 years is not an outrageous estimate. You maintain full access and edibility to anything you created, and anything you subsequently create. You could upgrade to the latest version for a relatively small amount. Or you could sell or transfer your license to another person if you no longer need it.
What's really sad/scary is how incapable people are at fully evaluating value in a purchase. Think about it. People are arguing that paying the same amount for something over 3 years, yet owning nothing is more valuable than buying something outright. I'm not saying there aren't scenarios where the subscription model doesn't have advantages, but value is *never* one of them. Never. There is no value in renting.
Whether they raised or lowered the price depends on which suite you used. Creative cloud is really the former Master suite which was $2600 with $1200 upgrades. So even using the "I only upgrade every 3 years" example above, creative cloud is much cheaper. However if you were on the other end of the spectrum of Design Standard $1200 with $250 upgrades the new creative cloud is much more expensive.
One other option that was not covered is that there is also a month to month option for $75. So if you only need the software a couple of months a year, this is cheaper still.
I started using Creative Cloud last year, For what I use, the 3 year cost were similar and not having the huge up front payment tipped the scales for me.
First of all, the Master Collection does not cost $2600. I just purchased CS 6 last year from Amazon, and it was $2300. So, let's do the real numbers:
CS6 Master Collection, over 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Creative Cloud monthly over 3 years: $1800 total outlay
CS6 to a CS7 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $3600 total outlay
CS7 to a CS8 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $5400 total outlay
CS8 to a CS9 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $5900 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $7200 total outlay
CS9 to a CS10 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $7100 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $9000 total outlay
CS10 to a CS11 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $8300 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $10,800 total outlay
etc...
Or, how about we do what a lot of people do and skip every other major version.
CS6 Master Collection, over 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Creative Cloud monthly over 3 years: $1800 total outlay
Skip CS7 and continue using CS 6 for another 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $3600 total outlay
CS6 to a CS8 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $5400 total outlay
Skip CS9 and continue using CS8 for another 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $7200 total outlay
CS8 to a CS10 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $9000 total outlay
Skip CS11 and continue using CS10 for another 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $10,800 total outlay
And it must be stressed that at no point in the Creative Cloud subscription do you own *anything*, where for perpetual licenses, you can not upgrade at any time, never pay another dime and happily continue using your applications indefinitely.
First of all, the Master Collection does not cost $2600. I just purchased CS 6 last year from Amazon, and it was $2300. So, let's do the real numbers:
CS6 Master Collection, over 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Creative Cloud monthly over 3 years: $1800 total outlay
CS6 to a CS7 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $3600 total outlay
CS7 to a CS8 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $5400 total outlay
CS8 to a CS9 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $5900 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $7200 total outlay
CS9 to a CS10 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $7100 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $9000 total outlay
CS10 to a CS11 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $8300 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $10,800 total outlay
etc...
Or, how about we do what a lot of people do and skip every other major version.
CS6 Master Collection, over 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Creative Cloud monthly over 3 years: $1800 total outlay
Skip CS7 and continue using CS 6 for another 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $3600 total outlay
CS6 to a CS8 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $5400 total outlay
Skip CS9 and continue using CS8 for another 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $7200 total outlay
CS8 to a CS10 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $9000 total outlay
Skip CS11 and continue using CS10 for another 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $10,800 total outlay
And it must be stressed that at no point in the Creative Cloud subscription do you own *anything*, where for perpetual licenses, you can not upgrade at any time, never pay another dime and happily continue using your applications indefinitely.
Very good analysis... and it's exactly the same discussion that popped up a year ago when Creative Cloud was announced.
Back then we had the choice of perpetual licenses or Creative Cloud subscriptions.
Sadly... the only way to get Adobe software today is with Creative Cloud subscriptions.
So where do we go from here? Is it time to switch to Pixelmator, Inkscape, Avid and Blender? Is Adobe software no longer useful since you can only get it with expensive subscription plans?
Also... I like how you've figured out the cost differences over 18 years... but I doubt anyone plans software purchases that far ahead.
I totally understand your logic... and you do save money over time... but I don't think it will be a big deal to most people. If they like Adobe software... they will do whatever they have to do in order to keep using it.
Or we'll have to see if the alternatives take all of Adobe's customers.
I'm more heartbroken realizing I will be spending $20,000 for a smartphone over the next 18 years...
I own CS 2, 3, 4 , and 5. I was a loyal and active member of the now-disbanded Adobe Service Network. I demoed and taught on them all. I like CS2 and 5. I am confident CS6 is probably adequate for most in the field.
I think the subscription idea is nice but not sustainable. Too many users need PS but not a monthly noose around their neck to use it. If I calculate all the time I would not be using PS against the subscription fee as opposed to owning the program as I do now the price of the subscription more than quadruples! Indeed, this moved placed the user in chains. Such a move, ultimately will be fatal on an emotional level at least.
This makes Adobe products now eminently overpriced and out of reach. An alternative will be in the works almost immediately from a creative startup or even a tried and true developer like Apple itself. This will make Quark Express once again quite attractive and QE could, I imagine, present an alternative worth considering immediately as well.
"A single license of Photoshop CS6, for example, costs $700. Assuming three years' use, the program works out to roughly $230 per year. A subscription to Photoshop CC runs at $20 per month, or $360 per year, for a total of $1,080."
Just want to correct your math there. A subscription to Photoshop CC runs at $20 per month, which is $240 per year, or $720 for 3 years. Not much more than buying outright. plus if you had upgraded in that time, it would have cost you more.
For users who purchase the Master Suite - Creative cloud is WAY cheaper.
You can see they are aiming it at the professionals who would make up a bulk amount of their business. It also means people who could only afford 1 program before now can have access to everything for only $50 per month, allowing them to learn other programs, get new skills and further push Adobe as the industry standard.
The student pricing is dirt cheap, allowing students access to everything for only $20 per month. This was unheard of only a couple of years ago, and I think will help on the piracy side of things.
For small business, the subscription model is great for affordability, and can be written off on tax time (in Australia anyway) - again probably reducing piracy. Plus it gives these smaller businesses access to more software than they may have been able to afford in the past.
Another benefit is that Adobe can now concentrate solely on improving software. No more costs for packaging and distributing hard copies. No more trying to bundle updates into a new release. Now they can really push forward and give us new features faster - this is especially important for those in the web industry.
As someone who as used Adobe software professionally for over 8 years, I honestly think this change will benefit a lot of people.
This isn't a point of no return either. If it turns out that a lot of people don't like it or it's not generating as much revenue as they hoped, it should be pretty much a flip of a switch to add a perpetual license feature in. They already have a special license for people who can't use the cloud services like government bodies.
All they'd have to do is make a license key that instead of paying regularly, you can pay a large one-off fee and they give you free updates for say, 2 years and then you have to pay for further updates but they can allow you to use it without updating and your support ends there.
The old payment model had a very high entry barrier. Fresh graduate (no longer student) needs to build a portfolio, no money. How do you legally start doing work? This new model, it's $20-50 and away they go.
Having a single version to work on should make things easier for the developers as they won't need to have branches and maintenance updates for multiple versions for multiple platforms.
Just to address the student example, education licenses were cheap, and Adobe didn't have any rules against commercial use even with that version. At that point you would be on upgrade pricing, which was much less. The upgrade pricing with creative suite did escalate if you didn't upgrade every version., but it was still cheaper if you could initially buy in with a student license. I get the feeling they're still working out the details. Adobe can be annoying, but if they really lose a lot of customers through this, they will make changes. I'm not sure what percentage of their sales involves individual users as opposed to businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
If you like Adobe products... and a subscription is now the only way to get those products... then it would appear so.
Otherwise... check out some of the fine alternatives out there.
Pixelmator is only $15... did people really pay $700 for Photoshop?
It's been about the same price since the 1990s. If they weren't the defacto standard, the price probably would have decreased by now. Even Painter was quite expensive in recent years. It was $600 or $700 last year, but it looks like it dropped quite a bit according to Amazon. I think I got my initial non-student version by purchasing an intuos2 and using the upgrade offer for $350 or something like that. I've also never used Pixelmator. It didn't even exist at the time. I have used Gimp just to compare. It doesn't handle extreme file sizes as well and lacks certain features, but I like the way it renders paths.
What about those who already have CS6 (like myself), signing up now for a $20 monthly subscription will cost me $360 for 18 months, which has been roughly the time interval for the last several years between two consecutive $200 worth of upgrades. The subscription cost is almost double compared to the "classic" upgrade based cost. As the years pass by the cost difference will keep increasing. For new users, who don't have to pay the $700 purchase price upfront the yearly subscription option is definitely cheaper, but for how long? Every year and a half the savings wil go down by $160, which is the difference berween the one time $200 upgrade price and the $360 subscription paid during the same period of time. Inflation and other things may slightly alter the above numbers, but the final conclusion is the same. On the long run the subscription "option" will be more expensive for the individual user of CS6.
How could Appleinsider and all who commented on this issue miss this very simple math exercise? I will stay with CS6 for some years to come. To use it for restoring old photographs and to do small corrections to new ones (removing unwanted objects, for example) CS6 will be adequate for several more years. For everything else there is Lightroom. Adobe's move will fuel the sale of the pirated copies of their software for individual users who will be screwed by the subscription based "purchase" of their programs. That will probably offset the extra money Adobe will make using the subscription system, so the net gain for the company will probably be close to zero, it may even go into negative territory. As a frustrated individual customer I wish this think to happen to Adobe.
What about those who already have CS6 (like myself), signing up now for a $20 monthly subscription will cost me $360 for 18 months, which has been roughly the time interval for the last several years between two consecutive $200 worth of upgrades. The subscription cost is almost double compared to the "classic" upgrade based cost. As the years pass by the cost difference will keep increasing. For new users, who don't have to pay the $700 purchase price upfront the yearly subscription option is definitely cheaper, but for how long? Every year and a half the savings wil go down by $160, which is the difference berween the one time $200 upgrade price and the $360 subscription paid during the same period of time. Inflation and other things may slightly alter the above numbers, but the final conclusion is the same. On the long run the subscription "option" will be more expensive for the individual user of CS6.
How could Appleinsider and all who commented on this issue miss this very simple math exercise? I will stay with CS6 for some years to come. To use it for restoring old photographs and to do small corrections to new ones (removing unwanted objects, for example) CS6 will be adequate for several more years. For everything else there is Lightroom. Adobe's move will fuel the sale of the pirated copies of their software for individual users who will be screwed by the subscription based "purchase" of their programs. That will probably offset the extra money Adobe will make using the subscription system, so the net gain for the company will probably be close to zero, it may even go into negative territory. As a frustrated individual customer I wish this think to happen to Adobe.
@genovelle: bought my CS4 on Windows. Got told I'd get CS4 for Mac for free when I'd move to Mac roughly 5 months later. Except CS5 came out and I got offered to buy the upgrade or **** off.
Piracy has a very high legitimacy, when some companies blatantly **** you. Adobe is one of these.
I own CS 2, 3, 4 , and 5. I was a loyal and active member of the now-disbanded Adobe Service Network. I demoed and taught on them all. I like CS2 and 5. I am confident CS6 is probably adequate for most in the field.
I think the subscription idea is nice but not sustainable. Too many users need PS but not a monthly noose around their neck to use it. If I calculate all the time I would not be using PS against the subscription fee as opposed to owning the program as I do now the price of the subscription more than quadruples! Indeed, this moved placed the user in chains. Such a move, ultimately will be fatal on an emotional level at least.
This makes Adobe products now eminently overpriced and out of reach. An alternative will be in the works almost immediately from a creative startup or even a tried and true developer like Apple itself. This will make Quark Express once again quite attractive and QE could, I imagine, present an alternative worth considering immediately as well.
Even Scott Kelby can't sav this one.
Worse, it actually makes sense for big companies to take tools like Gimp and retool them. What's hiring five guys for development/maintenance of your tools if you have 200 graphists, each paying 50$ a month? It's "equivalent". Except afterwards, you own the result, and during development, you have control.
Adobe customer's split? What? No most of Adobe's customers love the idea! The other half complaining are the ones with pirated software and are crying because they might not be able to do it anymore.
Adobe launches new software just about annually now with updates. I'm paying $30 a month for the Creative Suite and will save money when compared to the old method of DVD(I was eligible because I had CS 6). I will pay the year off and be done with it till next year.
Do any of you realize that now with Adobe CC we get these updates and new features YEAR ROUND and no longer have to wait till a new DVD package comes out???
Get off the "Lets bash Adobe" wagon and do your research first before you go lighting a torch. This is going too far these days.
This isn't Adobe's first fail. I remember when they were planning to abandon the mac platform completely (same as Xpress). Adobe is one of the last companies with absurd prices for their software. Even upgrades are strongly overpriced. That is the main problem. Adobe makes things much too complicated. They should reduce staff and become lean and mean again. Now they seem fat. The font business is also crashing due to absurd prices. Subscription will nit solve their problems. The company must be built up from scratch.......!
Eventually you could be perpetually paying for something that never changes.
That's what their cloud services are for. They give you server storage and $20,000 worth of fonts among other things. It's sort of like paying $10-50/month for Dropbox (something that never changes).
The Creative Cloud allows you to put apps on two computers too. This means you can run the Mac and Windows versions so if you have a Windows-only plugin, you can use it in a workflow.
This action by Adobe has nothing to do with piracy. Piracy is just the red hering. It is about locking their customers in and make more money from them.
It's partly about creating a more sustainable business model like Apple has with the App Store. If you think way down the line, where's the profit going to be? It's in services and content.
You can see this right now. Companies like Avid are hovering on the edge of bankruptcy because they are sticking with the route of high payment, software-as-a-product model. Once you have a version that works, why would you ever upgrade? That's great for the customer but terrible for the business. So what's the problem? Well, if that company goes out of business, how is that good for the customer?
Microsoft has a subscription service now too for Office. Avid should consider doing the same - they can even offer cloud services for sharing dailies and projects. So should all the high-end software providers. Over time, some can consolidate like what happened with TV subscriptions.
Comments
If you like Adobe products... and a subscription is now the only way to get those products... then it would appear so.
Otherwise... check out some of the fine alternatives out there.
Pixelmator is only $15... did people really pay $700 for Photoshop?
That's kind of nonsense. If you use the software and create a movie, it's NOT inaccessible. If you use photoshop and produce some piece of art, that's not going away. If you actually finish something with these tools, it's going to come out in a format that isn't locked to Adobe software. The only thing will be inaccessible is the intermediary pieces of your final output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Just because it's something no one has brought up that I'm aware of …
It would be easier to take the subscription model if they did like everyone else and make it cheaper that way. A lot of software is moving to the cloud and going subscription, but typically the company makes this type of software cheaper, both to soften the blow and also because volume is generally increased so they can afford to. It's like a reward you give your customers for the nasty "lock-in" they have to endure or a reward for them voting for your product or whatever.
Adobe on the other hand, who already has a product that's outrageously overpriced by most standards, has actually raised the price for the subscription-software-in-a-cloud-that you-don't-even-own-product.
So to me, it's like a giant "fuckk you" from Adobe. They take the software even more "out of your hands" than it already is. They raise the prices significantly. They don't even give you the option of not upgrading anymore.
Whether they raised or lowered the price depends on which suite you used. Creative cloud is really the former Master suite which was $2600 with $1200 upgrades. So even using the "I only upgrade every 3 years" example above, creative cloud is much cheaper. However if you were on the other end of the spectrum of Design Standard $1200 with $250 upgrades the new creative cloud is much more expensive.
One other option that was not covered is that there is also a month to month option for $75. So if you only need the software a couple of months a year, this is cheaper still.
I started using Creative Cloud last year, For what I use, the 3 year cost were similar and not having the huge up front payment tipped the scales for me.
What--again? Did someone order a third glass of milk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristand
Just want to correct your math there. A subscription to Photoshop CC runs at $20 per month, which is $240 per year, or $720 for 3 years. Not much more than buying outright. plus if you had upgraded in that time, it would have cost you more.
For users who purchase the Master Suite - Creative cloud is WAY cheaper.
But the one thing you're not factoring in is that at the end of those 3 years and $720 outlay for Photoshop CC, you still own *nothing* but a nice requirement to keep on paying that $240 a year just to be able to open all the work you've created. With a perpetual license, on the other hand, you can continue to use the program near indefinitely.
Ownership of a perpetual license is a tangible asset that must be factored into any value calculations. When done so, CC is not WAY cheaper in the long run, not by a long shot.
Creative Cloud is the equivalent of leasing a car over 3 years, paying the full outright cost during that time, and then having to turn the car back in and walk away with absolutely nothing. But even that's not bad enough. To truly see how bad the deal is, after turning in your car, you'd also be prohibited from driving on any roads you drove on while using that car.
To summarize: After 3 years of CC, you've paid more than buying the software outright, and this assumes you bought a full, retail version as opposed to upgrading from an older version. From that point, you can stop paying, loose access to the application(s) and any edibility of anything you've created during that time, or you can continue to pay indefinitely.
After 3 years ownership of a perpetual license, your investment is likely long since recovered and you can continue using your software for however long it continues to run on whatever OS/platform you use. 10 to 15 years is not an outrageous estimate. You maintain full access and edibility to anything you created, and anything you subsequently create. You could upgrade to the latest version for a relatively small amount. Or you could sell or transfer your license to another person if you no longer need it.
What's really sad/scary is how incapable people are at fully evaluating value in a purchase. Think about it. People are arguing that paying the same amount for something over 3 years, yet owning nothing is more valuable than buying something outright. I'm not saying there aren't scenarios where the subscription model doesn't have advantages, but value is *never* one of them. Never. There is no value in renting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJMonline
Whether they raised or lowered the price depends on which suite you used. Creative cloud is really the former Master suite which was $2600 with $1200 upgrades. So even using the "I only upgrade every 3 years" example above, creative cloud is much cheaper. However if you were on the other end of the spectrum of Design Standard $1200 with $250 upgrades the new creative cloud is much more expensive.
One other option that was not covered is that there is also a month to month option for $75. So if you only need the software a couple of months a year, this is cheaper still.
I started using Creative Cloud last year, For what I use, the 3 year cost were similar and not having the huge up front payment tipped the scales for me.
First of all, the Master Collection does not cost $2600. I just purchased CS 6 last year from Amazon, and it was $2300. So, let's do the real numbers:
CS6 Master Collection, over 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Creative Cloud monthly over 3 years: $1800 total outlay
CS6 to a CS7 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $3600 total outlay
CS7 to a CS8 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $5400 total outlay
CS8 to a CS9 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $5900 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $7200 total outlay
CS9 to a CS10 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $7100 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $9000 total outlay
CS10 to a CS11 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $8300 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $10,800 total outlay
etc...
Or, how about we do what a lot of people do and skip every other major version.
CS6 Master Collection, over 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Creative Cloud monthly over 3 years: $1800 total outlay
Skip CS7 and continue using CS 6 for another 3 years: $2300 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $3600 total outlay
CS6 to a CS8 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $5400 total outlay
Skip CS9 and continue using CS8 for another 3 years: $3500 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $7200 total outlay
CS8 to a CS10 upgrade ($1200), then use that for 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $9000 total outlay
Skip CS11 and continue using CS10 for another 3 years: $4700 total outlay
Continue paying monthly for Creative Cloud: $10,800 total outlay
And it must be stressed that at no point in the Creative Cloud subscription do you own *anything*, where for perpetual licenses, you can not upgrade at any time, never pay another dime and happily continue using your applications indefinitely.
Very good analysis... and it's exactly the same discussion that popped up a year ago when Creative Cloud was announced.
Back then we had the choice of perpetual licenses or Creative Cloud subscriptions.
Sadly... the only way to get Adobe software today is with Creative Cloud subscriptions.
So where do we go from here? Is it time to switch to Pixelmator, Inkscape, Avid and Blender? Is Adobe software no longer useful since you can only get it with expensive subscription plans?
Also... I like how you've figured out the cost differences over 18 years... but I doubt anyone plans software purchases that far ahead.
I totally understand your logic... and you do save money over time... but I don't think it will be a big deal to most people. If they like Adobe software... they will do whatever they have to do in order to keep using it.
Or we'll have to see if the alternatives take all of Adobe's customers.
I'm more heartbroken realizing I will be spending $20,000 for a smartphone over the next 18 years...
I think the subscription idea is nice but not sustainable. Too many users need PS but not a monthly noose around their neck to use it. If I calculate all the time I would not be using PS against the subscription fee as opposed to owning the program as I do now the price of the subscription more than quadruples! Indeed, this moved placed the user in chains. Such a move, ultimately will be fatal on an emotional level at least.
This makes Adobe products now eminently overpriced and out of reach. An alternative will be in the works almost immediately from a creative startup or even a tried and true developer like Apple itself. This will make Quark Express once again quite attractive and QE could, I imagine, present an alternative worth considering immediately as well.
Even Scott Kelby can't sav this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This isn't a point of no return either. If it turns out that a lot of people don't like it or it's not generating as much revenue as they hoped, it should be pretty much a flip of a switch to add a perpetual license feature in. They already have a special license for people who can't use the cloud services like government bodies.
All they'd have to do is make a license key that instead of paying regularly, you can pay a large one-off fee and they give you free updates for say, 2 years and then you have to pay for further updates but they can allow you to use it without updating and your support ends there.
The old payment model had a very high entry barrier. Fresh graduate (no longer student) needs to build a portfolio, no money. How do you legally start doing work? This new model, it's $20-50 and away they go.
Having a single version to work on should make things easier for the developers as they won't need to have branches and maintenance updates for multiple versions for multiple platforms.
Just to address the student example, education licenses were cheap, and Adobe didn't have any rules against commercial use even with that version. At that point you would be on upgrade pricing, which was much less. The upgrade pricing with creative suite did escalate if you didn't upgrade every version., but it was still cheaper if you could initially buy in with a student license. I get the feeling they're still working out the details. Adobe can be annoying, but if they really lose a lot of customers through this, they will make changes. I'm not sure what percentage of their sales involves individual users as opposed to businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
If you like Adobe products... and a subscription is now the only way to get those products... then it would appear so.
Otherwise... check out some of the fine alternatives out there.
Pixelmator is only $15... did people really pay $700 for Photoshop?
It's been about the same price since the 1990s. If they weren't the defacto standard, the price probably would have decreased by now. Even Painter was quite expensive in recent years. It was $600 or $700 last year, but it looks like it dropped quite a bit according to Amazon. I think I got my initial non-student version by purchasing an intuos2 and using the upgrade offer for $350 or something like that. I've also never used Pixelmator. It didn't even exist at the time. I have used Gimp just to compare. It doesn't handle extreme file sizes as well and lacks certain features, but I like the way it renders paths.
The subscription cost is almost double compared to the "classic" upgrade based cost. As the years pass by the cost difference will keep increasing.
For new users, who don't have to pay the $700 purchase price upfront the yearly subscription option is definitely cheaper, but for how long?
Every year and a half the savings wil go down by $160, which is the difference berween the one time $200 upgrade price and the $360 subscription paid during the same period of time. Inflation and other things may slightly alter the above numbers, but the final conclusion is the same.
On the long run the subscription "option" will be more expensive for the individual user of CS6.
How could Appleinsider and all who commented on this issue miss this very simple math exercise?
I will stay with CS6 for some years to come. To use it for restoring old photographs and to do small corrections to new ones (removing unwanted objects, for example) CS6 will be adequate for several more years. For everything else there is Lightroom.
Adobe's move will fuel the sale of the pirated copies of their software for individual users who will be screwed by the subscription based "purchase" of their programs.
That will probably offset the extra money Adobe will make using the subscription system, so the net gain for the company will probably be close to zero, it may even go into negative territory. As a frustrated individual customer I wish this think to happen to Adobe.
The subscription cost is almost double compared to the "classic" upgrade based cost. As the years pass by the cost difference will keep increasing.
For new users, who don't have to pay the $700 purchase price upfront the yearly subscription option is definitely cheaper, but for how long?
Every year and a half the savings wil go down by $160, which is the difference berween the one time $200 upgrade price and the $360 subscription paid during the same period of time. Inflation and other things may slightly alter the above numbers, but the final conclusion is the same.
On the long run the subscription "option" will be more expensive for the individual user of CS6.
How could Appleinsider and all who commented on this issue miss this very simple math exercise?
I will stay with CS6 for some years to come. To use it for restoring old photographs and to do small corrections to new ones (removing unwanted objects, for example) CS6 will be adequate for several more years. For everything else there is Lightroom.
Adobe's move will fuel the sale of the pirated copies of their software for individual users who will be screwed by the subscription based "purchase" of their programs.
That will probably offset the extra money Adobe will make using the subscription system, so the net gain for the company will probably be close to zero, it may even go into negative territory. As a frustrated individual customer I wish this think to happen to Adobe.
Piracy has a very high legitimacy, when some companies blatantly **** you. Adobe is one of these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kicsike
As the years pass by the cost difference will keep increasing.
And probably the new features will keep decreasing (there's only so many things you can do to an image).
Eventually you could be perpetually paying for something that never changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronstark
I own CS 2, 3, 4 , and 5. I was a loyal and active member of the now-disbanded Adobe Service Network. I demoed and taught on them all. I like CS2 and 5. I am confident CS6 is probably adequate for most in the field.
I think the subscription idea is nice but not sustainable. Too many users need PS but not a monthly noose around their neck to use it. If I calculate all the time I would not be using PS against the subscription fee as opposed to owning the program as I do now the price of the subscription more than quadruples! Indeed, this moved placed the user in chains. Such a move, ultimately will be fatal on an emotional level at least.
This makes Adobe products now eminently overpriced and out of reach. An alternative will be in the works almost immediately from a creative startup or even a tried and true developer like Apple itself. This will make Quark Express once again quite attractive and QE could, I imagine, present an alternative worth considering immediately as well.
Even Scott Kelby can't sav this one.
Worse, it actually makes sense for big companies to take tools like Gimp and retool them. What's hiring five guys for development/maintenance of your tools if you have 200 graphists, each paying 50$ a month? It's "equivalent". Except afterwards, you own the result, and during development, you have control.
Adobe launches new software just about annually now with updates. I'm paying $30 a month for the Creative Suite and will save money when compared to the old method of DVD(I was eligible because I had CS 6). I will pay the year off and be done with it till next year.
Do any of you realize that now with Adobe CC we get these updates and new features YEAR ROUND and no longer have to wait till a new DVD package comes out???
Get off the "Lets bash Adobe" wagon and do your research first before you go lighting a torch. This is going too far these days.
This action by Adobe has nothing to do with piracy. Piracy is just the red hering.
It is about locking their customers in and make more money from them.
Until now Adobe had to bring enough new features for their customers to pay for the update,
now they don't need new features. Their customers have to pay anyway if they don't want to loose
access to their past work.
Will the new updates be forced on your computer when Adobe releases one?
As buggy as most software is in the beginning I would like to test an update on one machine
before implementing it on all.
Jan Tromp
Just as good and no strings attached (well just one).
That's what their cloud services are for. They give you server storage and $20,000 worth of fonts among other things. It's sort of like paying $10-50/month for Dropbox (something that never changes).
http://terrywhite.com/5-myths-about-adobe-creative-cloud/
The Creative Cloud allows you to put apps on two computers too. This means you can run the Mac and Windows versions so if you have a Windows-only plugin, you can use it in a workflow.
It's partly about creating a more sustainable business model like Apple has with the App Store. If you think way down the line, where's the profit going to be? It's in services and content.
You can see this right now. Companies like Avid are hovering on the edge of bankruptcy because they are sticking with the route of high payment, software-as-a-product model. Once you have a version that works, why would you ever upgrade? That's great for the customer but terrible for the business. So what's the problem? Well, if that company goes out of business, how is that good for the customer?
Microsoft has a subscription service now too for Office. Avid should consider doing the same - they can even offer cloud services for sharing dailies and projects. So should all the high-end software providers. Over time, some can consolidate like what happened with TV subscriptions.