No matter how they spin it, this is just an attempt to get more money. Subscription=need to be online=won't be able to add the old 'activate.adobe.com' entry to your hosts file anymore.
Adobe has to be out their mother***** minds!!!
The high end suite, if you do the subscription is $130.00 a month. And since a new upgrade isn't available for two years your month by month for two years is $3096.00!!! Kiss my a**!!!!
Did you pay cash for your house? If not it might look similar.
Finance amount $400,000 (80% of purchase price)
Monthly payment $2,200
x 30 years = $792,000
A solo freelancer could easily afford $95 a month. A lump sum purchase price maybe not. I think you get the full version for that price not the just an upgrade.
No matter how they spin it, this is just an attempt to get more money. Subscription=need to be online=won't be able to add the old 'activate.adobe.com' entry to your hosts file anymore.
Pathetic. Don't worry your haxor buddies will figure it out so you can pirate again.
The high end suite, if you do the subscription is $130.00 a month. And since a new upgrade isn't available for two years your month by month for two years is $3096.00!!! Kiss my a**!!!!
If you are not making more than $5 a day that you can charge back to your clients, you shouldn't be commenting.
Obviously, you are not a professional designer, i.e., one that makes a living or charges for doing so, or you are so bad, nobody is really interested in your services.
Adobe's suites were never intended for the likes of you. This concept of unconditional entitlement because I can blog or dis at my hearts content is ludicrous.
Disclaimer: Former owner of an Advertising Agency/Graphic Design Studio/Print and Electronic Production House. Tons of Macs and software from Aldus, Quark, Microsoft and Adobe. Whatever was needed to get the best out of my creative/production staff cost effectively. My accountant wasn't too pleased. However, he loved the house, pool and boat that I made it possible for him to have.
I didn't get the impression that you couldn't still buy it. You don't have to use the subscriptions. People who complain about the price of Photoshop are not professional users. You can make back the cost of the whole suite in just two or three projects. If you think CS is expensive take a look at AutoCad subscriptions. Or just go pirate it like you usually do.
Never said it's too expensive to purchase or that you can't purchase it. What is too expensive is paying more than $400 a year to retain a subscription for Photoshop alone, never mind the entire suite.
I have never pirated software and never will. Adobe has received a lot of money from me over the years and will no doubt make more in the years ahead. That would not have happened if I thought their product not worth the cost. Yet is it reasonable to pay a lot more for a subscription than to own a product outright?
If doing this makes sense for some customers in some circumstances, then it's another alternative. Hard to imagine, though, that there would be a downside to simply buying the product, as we have all these years, updating from time to time as required.
Surely there has been some sort of misunderstanding because I can't believe that Adobe is offering a subscription model that is substantially more expensive than owning the software outright. Then again, this is Adobe we're talking about.
You know, if I could pay by the day for CS Suite (uh, days I use it, that is), i'd be all for the subscription idea. When I can get the full version for LESS, seriously - what in the world are they thinking? So instead of getting more users, they're looking to find a way to constantly bill people with longer-term commitments?
Here's to hoping that Pixelmator comes closer to the current PS (adjustment layers & layer styles) and makes Adobe consider returning to Earth.
And other comments here are spot on about complexity - why in the world are there no good shape layers in PS? Give me the ability to do an Omnigraffle/Illustrator type of vector layers, apply effects to those, and mix with pixel/handdrawn. What's with the strange split of functionality?
I end up firing up OmniGraffle if I need more than a line or 2, then copy/pasting the design as a vector from there - really, Adobe? You're the best out there???
I suspect that tomorrows rumored announcement of the new Final Cut Studio (whatever) replacement is going to revise the way large app suites are bundled, packaged, sold and distributed -- in addition to all that "jaw-dropping" changes jazz!
Here's what I've been reading:
1) the "package" will be redesigned from the top down and rewritten from the bottom up
2) special attention will be given to how components "play well together" as well as play independently
3) features will be packaged in modular components structure -- rather than bolted onto a whole humongous program
4) the main apps will be small-sized with basic components and sold for a very low price.
5) additional components, also small-sized and low-priced can be added incrementally
6) all will be sold, distributed and maintained through the Mac App store.
7) apps and components will be integrated in such a way that any or all can run concurrently on one or more local, remote and cloud machines.
We may see the rewritten FCS packaged and sold similar to iWork. Instead of a $1,000 FCS "package" you'll be able to buy the individual apps as needed, for, say, $100-$200 -- then buy additional capability as you go.
All components will have a common UI and data formats. They can run standalone.
The main app will recognize the presence of the component apps and transparently incorporate their capability into the main app -- you won't need to send and return from FC to Motion, Color, etc. -- they'll just "be there" in FC (though running as another task).
This "packaging" would also permit running some components on iOS independently, as well as iOS with the Mac.
In this way the iPad can add capabilities to FC that are not possible without a multitouch interface.
I think Adobe is very much on the right track as to the last point -- the iPad can enhance and expand the capabilities of the mothership (as well as being a participating component).
Simply stated: If Adobe exploits this, I can see every Windows-only Photoshop installation buying iPads to get these capabilities (Of course, Mac installs go without saying).
Did you pay cash for your house? If not it might look similar.
Finance amount $400,000 (80% of purchase price)
Monthly payment $2,200
x 30 years = $792,000
A solo freelancer could easily afford $95 a month. A lump sum purchase price maybe not. I think you get the full version for that price not the just an upgrade.
yeah, and like buying a house, we'll now have to take out a loan to afford the adobe suite.
Adobe comes out with 2 iPad only apps, I got a feeling that there is something up with the Adobe/Apple. Like Flash on the iPad 2 and iPhone 5. Don't beat me up, I'm wildly speculating here.
But better HTML 5 tools will definitely be a welcome addition. We have a site contract with Adobe so we get this update for free. Our interactive creatives and developers will certainly make use of these tools.
I don't think these are iPad only-- the product video and web page go out of their way to feature Xooms and Galaxy Tabs-- unless you're talking about some earlier apps?
I wish someone like Adobe could bite the bullet and actually release an iPad specific app. The idea that there's a "tablet market" that requires cross-platform apps is still largely a fiction, and you can make a better app by targeting a specific device. Of course, given the bad blood between Apple and Adobe recently, Adobe may feel obliged to pretend like their customers are in the habit of doing field work with a Xoom. Can't see how that makes good business sense, though.
Never said it's too expensive to purchase or that you can't purchase it. What is too expensive is paying more than $400 a year to retain a subscription for Photoshop alone, never mind the entire suite.
I have never pirated software and never will. Adobe has received a lot of money from me over the years and will no doubt make more in the years ahead. That would not have happened if I thought their product not worth the cost. Yet is it reasonable to pay a lot more for a subscription than to own a product outright?
If doing this makes sense for some customers in some circumstances, then it's another alternative. Hard to imagine, though, that there would be a downside to simply buying the product, as we have all these years, updating from time to time as required.
Why are you so concerned? You already own the product. Simply upgrade if you want to. Why would you ever consider a Subscription service?
For those who don't already have Photoshop and have reason to want to use it, at just over a buck a day doesn't seem exorbitant to me.
By the way, there are companies and services that will finance software. At a cost of course.
When will Adobe ever release a decent version of CS? Never. Because they're not in the software business they're in the money sucking pigs business. Get along fine with CS3, Aperture 3, and Pixelmator.
Overall I like the announcement. It looks like Adobe took Steve's "lazy" remark personally as It appears they have been rather busy lately. I'm looking forward to the new HTML5 tools.
I don't think the HTML 5 tools has anything to do with Apple at all - but adobe trying to compete with Quark who has integrated iPad publishing right into Quark Express 8... Which is not a bad release.
Did you pay cash for your house? If not it might look similar.
Finance amount $400,000 (80% of purchase price)
Monthly payment $2,200
x 30 years = $792,000
A solo freelancer could easily afford $95 a month. A lump sum purchase price maybe not. I think you get the full version for that price not the just an upgrade.
Wait, are you comparing the purchase of a house to a subscription licence for software? At the end of 30 years, you own the house... at the end of 30 years with the Adobe licensing plan, you own nothing. At least with the traditional method of buying a license, you can still use your old version of the software. With the subscription method... it disappears.
In my mind, Adobe is INCREASING the price of the software AND adding a kill switch. If they were selling it for $50 a month... you might have a compelling reason to go this way.
I wish Adobe combine it's software instead of fracture it.
They could make 6 different products that do what currently 25 or who knows have many do. And it's all this way to make it seem like you get more for your money. Sucks and makes actually using the stuff more complex than it needs to be.
Wait, are you comparing the purchase of a house to a subscription licence for software? At the end of 30 years, you own the house... at the end of 30 years with the Adobe licensing plan, you own nothing. At least with the traditional method of buying a license, you can still use your old version of the software. With the subscription method... it disappears.
In my mind, Adobe is INCREASING the price of the software AND adding a kill switch. If they were selling it for $50 a month... you might have a compelling reason to go this way.
Some people buy and others rent?
And why can't you still use your old version of the software? Subscribing to the new software does not stop you or negate your use of something you already own.
When will Adobe ever release a decent version of CS? Never. Because they're not in the software business they're in the money sucking pigs business. Get along fine with CS3, Aperture 3, and Pixelmator.
Yup. While some of their technological advances like content aware fill are great, they have done NOTHING to improve the user experience. Adobe's software is as non-native as it can be. It installs in folders in Applications, it uses custom installers on top of the regular package installers (why?!), it uses custom updaters for no real reason.
It's still riddled with bugs. Sometimes Expose causes every little piece of the UI to become its own window, the UI font rendering is just awful (thank Flash for that), there's at least a dozen different sliders, redundant windows, obscure alerts...it's just shit piled on top of more shit piled on top of something that was rather good - back in the late 1990s. Not to mention that all the programs are incompatible with each other in various ways, not the least of which is UI discrepancy (just look at the horrible text controls in Illustrator vs Photoshop).
I'm sure they'll also figure a way to make European subscriptions cost about 30% more on top of VAT like they do with the current pricing.
I wish Pixelmator got some serious funding and more people to work on it because it's exactly what Photoshop should be on the Mac, just doesn't have the same amount of features yet. I hope they release a vector version someday too.
Thank god I'm a web developer and not a graphic designer so I don't have to use Adobe's crapware daily. No, I won't touch Dreamweaver, ever.
I feel like I just bought my CS5 upgrade. Not sure if I want to spend another $299 for this... the only new feature I see that I want is InDesign being able to disable Frame Edge Highlighting. This feature was listed as the number 1 complaint at InDesignSecrets.com
There are still bugs in Illustrator and Photoshop. I've even been in contact directly with Adobe about several bugs I discovered in Photoshop. Hopefully CS5 will still get one last update.
I applaud Adobe for not letting its spat with Apple over Flash stop it developing for the Mac platform. That's a good move. Apps on iPad from Adobe will be a natural.
Not sure how much their Apple-hate has faded, if you notice they are using a Xoom tablet and Android phone in the demo. Even though iPad is clearly going to be their largest tablet customer base.
As for pricing, the subscriptions seem to be optional for now (is that correct?), so no need to overreact now!
But if it does become mandatory for all, unless you work for a company or a successful freelancer, who not only can afford to pay these prices, but will pay these prices? At $35 for one software program or upwards of $130 for a suite, that is a heck of a lot of money. If this is their only future option, I'm out on Adobe and will have to find other programs. Not that I use Ps anyway, I mostly use Fireworks, but not paying $35/mth for that either. $10-15/mth max, that's it for me.
Comments
No matter how they spin it, this is just an attempt to get more money. Subscription=need to be online=won't be able to add the old 'activate.adobe.com' entry to your hosts file anymore.
Adobe has to be out their mother***** minds!!!
The high end suite, if you do the subscription is $130.00 a month. And since a new upgrade isn't available for two years your month by month for two years is $3096.00!!! Kiss my a**!!!!
Upgrade previously for Design premium = $599.
Subscription per year at $95 per month = $1,140
Why would anyone do that? Hardly a bargain.
Did you pay cash for your house? If not it might look similar.
Finance amount $400,000 (80% of purchase price)
Monthly payment $2,200
x 30 years = $792,000
A solo freelancer could easily afford $95 a month. A lump sum purchase price maybe not. I think you get the full version for that price not the just an upgrade.
No matter how they spin it, this is just an attempt to get more money. Subscription=need to be online=won't be able to add the old 'activate.adobe.com' entry to your hosts file anymore.
Adobe has to be out their mother***** minds!!!
The high end suite, if you do the subscription is $130.00 a month. And since a new upgrade isn't available for two years your month by month for two years is $3096.00!!! Kiss my a**!!!!
If you are not making more than $5 a day that you can charge back to your clients, you shouldn't be commenting.
Obviously, you are not a professional designer, i.e., one that makes a living or charges for doing so, or you are so bad, nobody is really interested in your services.
Adobe's suites were never intended for the likes of you. This concept of unconditional entitlement because I can blog or dis at my hearts content is ludicrous.
For those that are interested, Adobe has a video, CS Subscription Overview at http://tv.adobe.com/watch/cs-55-web-...tion-overview/, that I would suggest is well worth viewing.
Disclaimer: Former owner of an Advertising Agency/Graphic Design Studio/Print and Electronic Production House. Tons of Macs and software from Aldus, Quark, Microsoft and Adobe. Whatever was needed to get the best out of my creative/production staff cost effectively. My accountant wasn't too pleased. However, he loved the house, pool and boat that I made it possible for him to have.
I didn't get the impression that you couldn't still buy it. You don't have to use the subscriptions. People who complain about the price of Photoshop are not professional users. You can make back the cost of the whole suite in just two or three projects. If you think CS is expensive take a look at AutoCad subscriptions. Or just go pirate it like you usually do.
Never said it's too expensive to purchase or that you can't purchase it. What is too expensive is paying more than $400 a year to retain a subscription for Photoshop alone, never mind the entire suite.
I have never pirated software and never will. Adobe has received a lot of money from me over the years and will no doubt make more in the years ahead. That would not have happened if I thought their product not worth the cost. Yet is it reasonable to pay a lot more for a subscription than to own a product outright?
If doing this makes sense for some customers in some circumstances, then it's another alternative. Hard to imagine, though, that there would be a downside to simply buying the product, as we have all these years, updating from time to time as required.
Surely there has been some sort of misunderstanding because I can't believe that Adobe is offering a subscription model that is substantially more expensive than owning the software outright. Then again, this is Adobe we're talking about.
You know, if I could pay by the day for CS Suite (uh, days I use it, that is), i'd be all for the subscription idea. When I can get the full version for LESS, seriously - what in the world are they thinking? So instead of getting more users, they're looking to find a way to constantly bill people with longer-term commitments?
Here's to hoping that Pixelmator comes closer to the current PS (adjustment layers & layer styles) and makes Adobe consider returning to Earth.
And other comments here are spot on about complexity - why in the world are there no good shape layers in PS? Give me the ability to do an Omnigraffle/Illustrator type of vector layers, apply effects to those, and mix with pixel/handdrawn. What's with the strange split of functionality?
I end up firing up OmniGraffle if I need more than a line or 2, then copy/pasting the design as a vector from there - really, Adobe? You're the best out there???
Here's what I've been reading:
1) the "package" will be redesigned from the top down and rewritten from the bottom up
2) special attention will be given to how components "play well together" as well as play independently
3) features will be packaged in modular components structure -- rather than bolted onto a whole humongous program
4) the main apps will be small-sized with basic components and sold for a very low price.
5) additional components, also small-sized and low-priced can be added incrementally
6) all will be sold, distributed and maintained through the Mac App store.
7) apps and components will be integrated in such a way that any or all can run concurrently on one or more local, remote and cloud machines.
We may see the rewritten FCS packaged and sold similar to iWork. Instead of a $1,000 FCS "package" you'll be able to buy the individual apps as needed, for, say, $100-$200 -- then buy additional capability as you go.
All components will have a common UI and data formats. They can run standalone.
The main app will recognize the presence of the component apps and transparently incorporate their capability into the main app -- you won't need to send and return from FC to Motion, Color, etc. -- they'll just "be there" in FC (though running as another task).
This "packaging" would also permit running some components on iOS independently, as well as iOS with the Mac.
In this way the iPad can add capabilities to FC that are not possible without a multitouch interface.
I think Adobe is very much on the right track as to the last point -- the iPad can enhance and expand the capabilities of the mothership (as well as being a participating component).
Simply stated: If Adobe exploits this, I can see every Windows-only Photoshop installation buying iPads to get these capabilities (Of course, Mac installs go without saying).
...People who complain about the price of Photoshop are not professional users...
...or...um...said professionals care about where their money goes and can smell greed from a mile away.
Did you pay cash for your house? If not it might look similar.
Finance amount $400,000 (80% of purchase price)
Monthly payment $2,200
x 30 years = $792,000
A solo freelancer could easily afford $95 a month. A lump sum purchase price maybe not. I think you get the full version for that price not the just an upgrade.
yeah, and like buying a house, we'll now have to take out a loan to afford the adobe suite.
Adobe comes out with 2 iPad only apps, I got a feeling that there is something up with the Adobe/Apple. Like Flash on the iPad 2 and iPhone 5. Don't beat me up, I'm wildly speculating here.
But better HTML 5 tools will definitely be a welcome addition. We have a site contract with Adobe so we get this update for free. Our interactive creatives and developers will certainly make use of these tools.
I don't think these are iPad only-- the product video and web page go out of their way to feature Xooms and Galaxy Tabs-- unless you're talking about some earlier apps?
I wish someone like Adobe could bite the bullet and actually release an iPad specific app. The idea that there's a "tablet market" that requires cross-platform apps is still largely a fiction, and you can make a better app by targeting a specific device. Of course, given the bad blood between Apple and Adobe recently, Adobe may feel obliged to pretend like their customers are in the habit of doing field work with a Xoom. Can't see how that makes good business sense, though.
Never said it's too expensive to purchase or that you can't purchase it. What is too expensive is paying more than $400 a year to retain a subscription for Photoshop alone, never mind the entire suite.
I have never pirated software and never will. Adobe has received a lot of money from me over the years and will no doubt make more in the years ahead. That would not have happened if I thought their product not worth the cost. Yet is it reasonable to pay a lot more for a subscription than to own a product outright?
If doing this makes sense for some customers in some circumstances, then it's another alternative. Hard to imagine, though, that there would be a downside to simply buying the product, as we have all these years, updating from time to time as required.
Why are you so concerned? You already own the product. Simply upgrade if you want to. Why would you ever consider a Subscription service?
For those who don't already have Photoshop and have reason to want to use it, at just over a buck a day doesn't seem exorbitant to me.
By the way, there are companies and services that will finance software. At a cost of course.
When will Adobe ever release a decent version of CS? Never. Because they're not in the software business they're in the money sucking pigs business. Get along fine with CS3, Aperture 3, and Pixelmator.
Overall I like the announcement. It looks like Adobe took Steve's "lazy" remark personally as It appears they have been rather busy lately. I'm looking forward to the new HTML5 tools.
I don't think the HTML 5 tools has anything to do with Apple at all - but adobe trying to compete with Quark who has integrated iPad publishing right into Quark Express 8... Which is not a bad release.
Amazingly, Quark is becoming relevant again.
Did you pay cash for your house? If not it might look similar.
Finance amount $400,000 (80% of purchase price)
Monthly payment $2,200
x 30 years = $792,000
A solo freelancer could easily afford $95 a month. A lump sum purchase price maybe not. I think you get the full version for that price not the just an upgrade.
Wait, are you comparing the purchase of a house to a subscription licence for software? At the end of 30 years, you own the house... at the end of 30 years with the Adobe licensing plan, you own nothing. At least with the traditional method of buying a license, you can still use your old version of the software. With the subscription method... it disappears.
In my mind, Adobe is INCREASING the price of the software AND adding a kill switch. If they were selling it for $50 a month... you might have a compelling reason to go this way.
They could make 6 different products that do what currently 25 or who knows have many do. And it's all this way to make it seem like you get more for your money. Sucks and makes actually using the stuff more complex than it needs to be.
Wait, are you comparing the purchase of a house to a subscription licence for software? At the end of 30 years, you own the house... at the end of 30 years with the Adobe licensing plan, you own nothing. At least with the traditional method of buying a license, you can still use your old version of the software. With the subscription method... it disappears.
In my mind, Adobe is INCREASING the price of the software AND adding a kill switch. If they were selling it for $50 a month... you might have a compelling reason to go this way.
Some people buy and others rent?
And why can't you still use your old version of the software? Subscribing to the new software does not stop you or negate your use of something you already own.
NOT!
When will Adobe ever release a decent version of CS? Never. Because they're not in the software business they're in the money sucking pigs business. Get along fine with CS3, Aperture 3, and Pixelmator.
Yup. While some of their technological advances like content aware fill are great, they have done NOTHING to improve the user experience. Adobe's software is as non-native as it can be. It installs in folders in Applications, it uses custom installers on top of the regular package installers (why?!), it uses custom updaters for no real reason.
It's still riddled with bugs. Sometimes Expose causes every little piece of the UI to become its own window, the UI font rendering is just awful (thank Flash for that), there's at least a dozen different sliders, redundant windows, obscure alerts...it's just shit piled on top of more shit piled on top of something that was rather good - back in the late 1990s. Not to mention that all the programs are incompatible with each other in various ways, not the least of which is UI discrepancy (just look at the horrible text controls in Illustrator vs Photoshop).
I'm sure they'll also figure a way to make European subscriptions cost about 30% more on top of VAT like they do with the current pricing.
I wish Pixelmator got some serious funding and more people to work on it because it's exactly what Photoshop should be on the Mac, just doesn't have the same amount of features yet. I hope they release a vector version someday too.
Thank god I'm a web developer and not a graphic designer so I don't have to use Adobe's crapware daily. No, I won't touch Dreamweaver, ever.
Quote:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are still bugs in Illustrator and Photoshop. I've even been in contact directly with Adobe about several bugs I discovered in Photoshop. Hopefully CS5 will still get one last update.
I applaud Adobe for not letting its spat with Apple over Flash stop it developing for the Mac platform. That's a good move. Apps on iPad from Adobe will be a natural.
Not sure how much their Apple-hate has faded, if you notice they are using a Xoom tablet and Android phone in the demo. Even though iPad is clearly going to be their largest tablet customer base.
As for pricing, the subscriptions seem to be optional for now (is that correct?), so no need to overreact now!
But if it does become mandatory for all, unless you work for a company or a successful freelancer, who not only can afford to pay these prices, but will pay these prices? At $35 for one software program or upwards of $130 for a suite, that is a heck of a lot of money. If this is their only future option, I'm out on Adobe and will have to find other programs. Not that I use Ps anyway, I mostly use Fireworks, but not paying $35/mth for that either. $10-15/mth max, that's it for me.