A monthly fee forever is more expensive than a one-time fee. I am in my 11th year using Photoshop 7.0. It's all I need for basic editing. Under their new price structure, Photoshop alone would have cost me $2398.80. Congrats to Adobe if they can pull off this essentially-infinite price increase. And no tears if they don't.
A monthly fee forever is more expensive than a one-time fee. I am in my 11th year using Photoshop 7.0. It's all I need for basic editing. Under their new price structure, Photoshop alone would have cost me $2398.80. Congrats to Adobe if they can pull off this essentially-infinite price increase. And no tears if they don't.
"Basic editing"?? Please. Stick with Microsoft Paint then. Honestly. If you're happy using an 11-year old package great. Are you doing serious professional-grade work?
Tools are just that. Tools. It's in the hand of the user can use those tools to their benefit. On the flip side, a pro-designer can (and usually is) best served with staying current if they want to use the most modern technology.
I mean really. My car is 17 years old and it's all I need for basic driving. What's your point?
I don't understand why some people would be okay living in a world where they don't own anything they own.
It is possible that this is a generational trend. For example, Steve Jobs' talked about wanting to own an artifact of music (say, the physical media such as vinyl), and valuing the experience of the album art or inserts--all part of the experience of having music. Its clear to me that Apple has successfully translated that experience into a digital form. But there's a new trend among millennials who didn't grow up with that don't seem to care about albums (physical artifacts). They grew up digitally, and they value things like discovery, sharing, maybe even the ability to remix songs easily. And they're not expecting to have to buy whole albums. They expect to be able to hyperlink between songs as easily as surfing the web. Music discovery and sharing (telling the world, not piracy) is more important. That new generation is less likely to own music, but instead pay for license to stream any song from a large library of tunes. Streaming personal radio or something similar. Instead of "I have songs on my iPod" it'll be "I have ubiquitous wireless Internet and I can steam my music from anywhere."
There is a similar trend where people in dense urban areas forgo car ownership for a service such as Car2Go.com or ZipCar.com. Or watching a movie on streaming or PPV instead of buying the DVD. These are just examples of what is sometimes called the "experience based economy" as opposed to an "ownership based economy." they are ultimately two somewhat different forms of consumption. Ownership economies are based on very ancient notions of scarcity (limited supply or production runs of physical media) while the experience economies assumes content and software can be (1) easily duplicated and (2) universally accessible on demand.
Ill be buying some PS alternative. We'll see how much I can use it, and how soon I can get away from Adobe entirely. It's not easy: Adobe has a real stranglehold on us.
But this I know: whatever files I create in a non-Photoshop app I can still access even after I close my business. Adobe wants to control my personal archive of my own creative work--forever. UNACCEPTABLE.
There is a similar trend where people in dense urban areas forgo car ownership for a service such as Car2Go.com or ZipCar.com. Or watching a movie on streaming or PPV instead of buying the DVD. These are just examples of what is sometimes called the "experience based economy" as opposed to an "ownership based economy." they are ultimately two somewhat different forms of consumption. Ownership economies are based on very ancient notions of scarcity (limited supply or production runs of physical media) while the experience economies assumes content and software can be (1) easily duplicated and (2) universally accessible on demand.
I get it. In fact, I used car sharing for years up until the point where the monthly costs were approaching the same as ownership (family appointments). Depreciation is what kills you on cars (but owners rarely factor it into the cost of ownership).
However, I do also believe that there's an element of "a sucker born every minute" in this new economy. People see the cheap initial cost and jump right in. However, when you factor in internet bandwidth usage costs (due to caps or costs of a higher capacity data plan), plus monthly fees, it generally ends up being more expensive in the long run. But because people generally don't think much beyond the purchase price, they don't see it. And then they wonder why they can't afford to live well. All of those little monthly fees adding up to a huge chunk of their paycheque.
"Basic editing"?? Please. Stick with Microsoft Paint then. Honestly. If you're happy using an 11-year old package great. Are you doing serious professional-grade work?
Tools are just that. Tools. It's in the hand of the user can use those tools to their benefit. On the flip side, a pro-designer can (and usually is) best served with staying current if they want to use the most modern technology.
I mean really. My car is 17 years old and it's all I need for basic driving. What's your point?
My photo editing needs far exceed that of Microsoft Paint and Photoshop 7 is powerful enough to handle those needs.
My point is that being forced to rent sucks. Had you rented your car for the last 17 years (and been given a new car every year by the dealer) it would have cost you far more money than paying a fixed price for it in 1996. Not everyone needs a new car every year.
There's something disturbingly elitist about some of the comments I'm reading here and in other forums. Are people seriously thinking that there should be a minimum level of money committed by a "true professional," that if the person can't afford an ongoing monthly fee, then they should stick with simple crap? Really?
Being told by Company A that if I want to play with their stuff, I'm going to have to commit to paying a monthly fee from now on or I won't be able to access my own files (please, don't give me the "just convert to format XYZ" - if I wanted to work in those file formats strictly, I wouldn't be using the software in contention.) that sends a pretty strong signal to me that the company no longer, if it ever did, care about the needs or desires of its customers. If Company B comes along and offers some software package or suite that has most, but not all, of the features I'm looking for, and they don't have an onerous monthly licensing fee, guess what? They're going to get my business.
My Internet connection is just flaky enough that if I was foolish enough to tie myself to the newest Adobe bandwagon, I would end up bashing my head through my monitor the first time that I was unable to do what I needed to do, because Comcast burped. I also don't like the idea of being at the mercy of potentially buggy upgrades that would result in a lot of rework, and not have the option of using the previous release.
For the people who think this is a wonderful idea - cool. Knock yourselves out. I hope it works out for you.
"With the move to the exclusively subscription-based Creative Cloud, Adobe will stop releasing updates for Creative Suite products. "
What a load of complete horse-shit. I have no interest in subscription models so bought CS6 a couple months ago. Nice to know the product is now obsolete.
There's something disturbingly elitist about some of the comments I'm reading here and in other forums. Are people seriously thinking that there should be a minimum level of money committed by a "true professional," that if the person can't afford an ongoing monthly fee, then they should stick with simple crap? Really?
Being told by Company A that if I want to play with their stuff, I'm going to have to commit to paying a monthly fee from now on or I won't be able to access my own files (please, don't give me the "just convert to format XYZ" - if I wanted to work in those file formats strictly, I wouldn't be using the software in contention.) that sends a pretty strong signal to me that the company no longer, if it ever did, care about the needs or desires of its customers. If Company B comes along and offers some software package or suite that has most, but not all, of the features I'm looking for, and they don't have an onerous monthly licensing fee, guess what? They're going to get my business.
My Internet connection is just flaky enough that if I was foolish enough to tie myself to the newest Adobe bandwagon, I would end up bashing my head through my monitor the first time that I was unable to do what I needed to do, because Comcast burped. I also don't like the idea of being at the mercy of potentially buggy upgrades that would result in a lot of rework, and not have the option of using the previous release.
For the people who think this is a wonderful idea - cool. Knock yourselves out. I hope it works out for you.
Elitist? It's a matter of numbers. Professionals make up a much, much smaller target audience, but they are willing to foot the bill because they make money using this software. Consumers will pay $2.99 for an app on their iPhone to clean up the shots, but don't expect them to shell out $50/month for the ability to clean up pix of the dogs and the occasional blurry party picture.
Because many users like me have felt like hostages to Adobe's near monopoly of the graphic design industry. There are times when you need your physical software. There are times you need to use it on the road, not connected to the internet. There are times when you won't need the software most of the month but still have to make the monthly payment. IT departments HATE software subscriptions.
Buying the software gave us 2 choices. Now we only have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't know what the big deal is. Apple has a subscription iCloud service, so does Netflix, MLB, NBA, Dropbox, etc. Most people are used to paying their health insurance, auto insurance, mortgage, TV and cell phone bills every single month whether they use them or not. It is just another monthly bill. If you need Adobe products, you opt in. If not you don't. No one is holding a gun to your head.
I've had it with Adobe. This will be a lot more expensive for me since I always skipped versions since there usually is no reason to upgrade (the new features are not worth it).
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
Young graphic artist, can't afford to buy Adobe suit. Le'ts say that they used a pirated version. When they are be good enough to be hired by a company, they already know photoshop and are ready to use the paid version bought by the company.
Photoshop not being available anymore, Young graphic artist will have to learn some other software.
When they will be hired by a company, they will have the choice to learn a new software (yes, more powerful but will still need to learn it) or use the one they used all those year.
I think that in the long run, the idea to be Cloud Only is not a good strategy for Adobe.
I subscribed to it. It all depends of the math. I want to stay current but the astronomical price for the packages I wanted forced me to stay behind. I'm paying $29/mo right now. Considering how much the packages cost and to stay current, the subscription model allowed me to use them all and pay a far less price than I would have paid if I upgraded every other year.
The only one thing I don't like is that I don't ever really own the software so if I stop paying the service, it all goes bye-bye. Sure, I'd love to use alternatives but the reality is Adobe's tools are the standard to me. Others will argue that.
A plus for business is that it can be classified as a monthly expense as opposed to a capital expenditure. That's more tax-friendly. However, I know quite a few businesses in the past that would just buy one copy and install it on everyone's computers. Say bye-bye to that.
so you're saying this will be bad for people who steal software?
I don't know what the big deal is. Apple has a subscription iCloud service, so does Netflix, MLB, NBA, Dropbox, etc. Most people are used to paying their health insurance, auto insurance, mortgage, TV and cell phone bills every single month whether they use them or not. It is just another monthly bill. If you need Adobe products, you opt in. If not you don't. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Frankly I don't get how you understand your perspective but don't understand others.
There is some really bad misinformation here. It's being completely overlooked that there are multiple options.
- subscribe to everything It's $50/month, upgrades are included in the price. It used to cost about $2000 to buy the CS6 master collection, upgrades were extra. If you are a professional that needs it and can't get $50/month of value out of it, you're doing something wrong.
- students get a discounted subscription for $30/month.
- if you only need one app, such a photoshop, there is a $20/month option, which again includes upgrades. Photoshop CS6 itself costs $600, upgrades are extra.
As a business owner, we long ago subscribed to creative cloud. It both lowered our costs and spread them out over the year. It used to be a major expense to upgrade all of our workstations to the new release.
Also, I don't understand the complaint that a new version on the cloud causes problems. First, the upgrades are free, but you aren't required to upgrade. Second, isn't a model where everyone has the most current version better for file compatibility vs a model where 3 different users could have 3 different versions that are years (or even a decade or more) apart?
I can't imagine telling my graphics team to use a version that is a decade old, the loss in productivity would cost us more than the $50/month it costs to keep them current.
Comments
All I use from Adobe is Dreamweaver. I really don't want to pay for the whole suite. Guess I'll be checking out WebStorm and other tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
A monthly fee forever is more expensive than a one-time fee. I am in my 11th year using Photoshop 7.0. It's all I need for basic editing. Under their new price structure, Photoshop alone would have cost me $2398.80. Congrats to Adobe if they can pull off this essentially-infinite price increase. And no tears if they don't.
"Basic editing"?? Please. Stick with Microsoft Paint then. Honestly. If you're happy using an 11-year old package great. Are you doing serious professional-grade work?
Tools are just that. Tools. It's in the hand of the user can use those tools to their benefit. On the flip side, a pro-designer can (and usually is) best served with staying current if they want to use the most modern technology.
I mean really. My car is 17 years old and it's all I need for basic driving. What's your point?
It is possible that this is a generational trend. For example, Steve Jobs' talked about wanting to own an artifact of music (say, the physical media such as vinyl), and valuing the experience of the album art or inserts--all part of the experience of having music. Its clear to me that Apple has successfully translated that experience into a digital form. But there's a new trend among millennials who didn't grow up with that don't seem to care about albums (physical artifacts). They grew up digitally, and they value things like discovery, sharing, maybe even the ability to remix songs easily. And they're not expecting to have to buy whole albums. They expect to be able to hyperlink between songs as easily as surfing the web. Music discovery and sharing (telling the world, not piracy) is more important. That new generation is less likely to own music, but instead pay for license to stream any song from a large library of tunes. Streaming personal radio or something similar. Instead of "I have songs on my iPod" it'll be "I have ubiquitous wireless Internet and I can steam my music from anywhere."
There is a similar trend where people in dense urban areas forgo car ownership for a service such as Car2Go.com or ZipCar.com. Or watching a movie on streaming or PPV instead of buying the DVD. These are just examples of what is sometimes called the "experience based economy" as opposed to an "ownership based economy." they are ultimately two somewhat different forms of consumption. Ownership economies are based on very ancient notions of scarcity (limited supply or production runs of physical media) while the experience economies assumes content and software can be (1) easily duplicated and (2) universally accessible on demand.
But this I know: whatever files I create in a non-Photoshop app I can still access even after I close my business. Adobe wants to control my personal archive of my own creative work--forever. UNACCEPTABLE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
There is a similar trend where people in dense urban areas forgo car ownership for a service such as Car2Go.com or ZipCar.com. Or watching a movie on streaming or PPV instead of buying the DVD. These are just examples of what is sometimes called the "experience based economy" as opposed to an "ownership based economy." they are ultimately two somewhat different forms of consumption. Ownership economies are based on very ancient notions of scarcity (limited supply or production runs of physical media) while the experience economies assumes content and software can be (1) easily duplicated and (2) universally accessible on demand.
I get it. In fact, I used car sharing for years up until the point where the monthly costs were approaching the same as ownership (family appointments). Depreciation is what kills you on cars (but owners rarely factor it into the cost of ownership).
However, I do also believe that there's an element of "a sucker born every minute" in this new economy. People see the cheap initial cost and jump right in. However, when you factor in internet bandwidth usage costs (due to caps or costs of a higher capacity data plan), plus monthly fees, it generally ends up being more expensive in the long run. But because people generally don't think much beyond the purchase price, they don't see it. And then they wonder why they can't afford to live well. All of those little monthly fees adding up to a huge chunk of their paycheque.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
"Basic editing"?? Please. Stick with Microsoft Paint then. Honestly. If you're happy using an 11-year old package great. Are you doing serious professional-grade work?
Tools are just that. Tools. It's in the hand of the user can use those tools to their benefit. On the flip side, a pro-designer can (and usually is) best served with staying current if they want to use the most modern technology.
I mean really. My car is 17 years old and it's all I need for basic driving. What's your point?
My photo editing needs far exceed that of Microsoft Paint and Photoshop 7 is powerful enough to handle those needs.
My point is that being forced to rent sucks. Had you rented your car for the last 17 years (and been given a new car every year by the dealer) it would have cost you far more money than paying a fixed price for it in 1996. Not everyone needs a new car every year.
There's something disturbingly elitist about some of the comments I'm reading here and in other forums. Are people seriously thinking that there should be a minimum level of money committed by a "true professional," that if the person can't afford an ongoing monthly fee, then they should stick with simple crap? Really?
Being told by Company A that if I want to play with their stuff, I'm going to have to commit to paying a monthly fee from now on or I won't be able to access my own files (please, don't give me the "just convert to format XYZ" - if I wanted to work in those file formats strictly, I wouldn't be using the software in contention.) that sends a pretty strong signal to me that the company no longer, if it ever did, care about the needs or desires of its customers. If Company B comes along and offers some software package or suite that has most, but not all, of the features I'm looking for, and they don't have an onerous monthly licensing fee, guess what? They're going to get my business.
My Internet connection is just flaky enough that if I was foolish enough to tie myself to the newest Adobe bandwagon, I would end up bashing my head through my monitor the first time that I was unable to do what I needed to do, because Comcast burped. I also don't like the idea of being at the mercy of potentially buggy upgrades that would result in a lot of rework, and not have the option of using the previous release.
For the people who think this is a wonderful idea - cool. Knock yourselves out. I hope it works out for you.
What a load of complete horse-shit. I have no interest in subscription models so bought CS6 a couple months ago. Nice to know the product is now obsolete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
You own nothing and you can't sell your software after you're done with it.
Wrong. It's call transferring your license, and Adobe allows this:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/transfer-product-license.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave MacLachlan
There's something disturbingly elitist about some of the comments I'm reading here and in other forums. Are people seriously thinking that there should be a minimum level of money committed by a "true professional," that if the person can't afford an ongoing monthly fee, then they should stick with simple crap? Really?
Being told by Company A that if I want to play with their stuff, I'm going to have to commit to paying a monthly fee from now on or I won't be able to access my own files (please, don't give me the "just convert to format XYZ" - if I wanted to work in those file formats strictly, I wouldn't be using the software in contention.) that sends a pretty strong signal to me that the company no longer, if it ever did, care about the needs or desires of its customers. If Company B comes along and offers some software package or suite that has most, but not all, of the features I'm looking for, and they don't have an onerous monthly licensing fee, guess what? They're going to get my business.
My Internet connection is just flaky enough that if I was foolish enough to tie myself to the newest Adobe bandwagon, I would end up bashing my head through my monitor the first time that I was unable to do what I needed to do, because Comcast burped. I also don't like the idea of being at the mercy of potentially buggy upgrades that would result in a lot of rework, and not have the option of using the previous release.
For the people who think this is a wonderful idea - cool. Knock yourselves out. I hope it works out for you.
Elitist? It's a matter of numbers. Professionals make up a much, much smaller target audience, but they are willing to foot the bill because they make money using this software. Consumers will pay $2.99 for an app on their iPhone to clean up the shots, but don't expect them to shell out $50/month for the ability to clean up pix of the dogs and the occasional blurry party picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut
Wrong. It's call transferring your license, and Adobe allows this:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/transfer-product-license.html
How does that work with software you no longer "own"? I was referring strictly to the new Cloud model.
Because many users like me have felt like hostages to Adobe's near monopoly of the graphic design industry. There are times when you need your physical software. There are times you need to use it on the road, not connected to the internet. There are times when you won't need the software most of the month but still have to make the monthly payment. IT departments HATE software subscriptions.
Buying the software gave us 2 choices. Now we only have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't know what the big deal is. Apple has a subscription iCloud service, so does Netflix, MLB, NBA, Dropbox, etc. Most people are used to paying their health insurance, auto insurance, mortgage, TV and cell phone bills every single month whether they use them or not. It is just another monthly bill. If you need Adobe products, you opt in. If not you don't. No one is holding a gun to your head.
$600/year? Hell no.
Anyone who "can't afford" $50/mo for a CC subscription has other issues. If you can't make FAR more per month with ONE of these apps, that says you're incompetent and seriously need to examine your education/training and/or your dedication to your chosen career. OR just 'fess up and admit Adobe just made it a lot harder to steal their software, and that pisses you off. Too frickin' bad, dude.
Young graphic artist, can't afford to buy Adobe suit. Le'ts say that they used a pirated version. When they are be good enough to be hired by a company, they already know photoshop and are ready to use the paid version bought by the company.
Photoshop not being available anymore, Young graphic artist will have to learn some other software.
When they will be hired by a company, they will have the choice to learn a new software (yes, more powerful but will still need to learn it) or use the one they used all those year.
I think that in the long run, the idea to be Cloud Only is not a good strategy for Adobe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I subscribed to it. It all depends of the math. I want to stay current but the astronomical price for the packages I wanted forced me to stay behind. I'm paying $29/mo right now. Considering how much the packages cost and to stay current, the subscription model allowed me to use them all and pay a far less price than I would have paid if I upgraded every other year.
The only one thing I don't like is that I don't ever really own the software so if I stop paying the service, it all goes bye-bye. Sure, I'd love to use alternatives but the reality is Adobe's tools are the standard to me. Others will argue that.
A plus for business is that it can be classified as a monthly expense as opposed to a capital expenditure. That's more tax-friendly. However, I know quite a few businesses in the past that would just buy one copy and install it on everyone's computers. Say bye-bye to that.
so you're saying this will be bad for people who steal software?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I don't know what the big deal is. Apple has a subscription iCloud service, so does Netflix, MLB, NBA, Dropbox, etc. Most people are used to paying their health insurance, auto insurance, mortgage, TV and cell phone bills every single month whether they use them or not. It is just another monthly bill. If you need Adobe products, you opt in. If not you don't. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Frankly I don't get how you understand your perspective but don't understand others.
There is some really bad misinformation here. It's being completely overlooked that there are multiple options.
- subscribe to everything It's $50/month, upgrades are included in the price. It used to cost about $2000 to buy the CS6 master collection, upgrades were extra. If you are a professional that needs it and can't get $50/month of value out of it, you're doing something wrong.
- students get a discounted subscription for $30/month.
- if you only need one app, such a photoshop, there is a $20/month option, which again includes upgrades. Photoshop CS6 itself costs $600, upgrades are extra.
As a business owner, we long ago subscribed to creative cloud. It both lowered our costs and spread them out over the year. It used to be a major expense to upgrade all of our workstations to the new release.
Also, I don't understand the complaint that a new version on the cloud causes problems. First, the upgrades are free, but you aren't required to upgrade. Second, isn't a model where everyone has the most current version better for file compatibility vs a model where 3 different users could have 3 different versions that are years (or even a decade or more) apart?
I can't imagine telling my graphics team to use a version that is a decade old, the loss in productivity would cost us more than the $50/month it costs to keep them current.