New Price Structure for adobe Photoshop and Suite?

<p><a href="http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/#ixzz2WRiE1dLX" target="_blank">http://photorumors.com/2013/06/16/adobe-is-considering-new-pricing-models-for-creative-cloud/#ixzz2WRiE1dLX</a><br /><br />It is better than current (advertised) price structure for CC...that starts today (17 June)<br /><br />don't purchase nothin yet...$s</p>

<p>I would prefer to just own my own copy of it, but if PS is really $9.99/month. Over three years thats $360 and I would normally end up upgrading in about 3 years anyway. So the pricing is on closer to reality. $20/month (Current pricing model for PS only) is too much.</p>

<p>Still. I'm happy and excited to upgrade to LR5 and own it. Sticking with CS5 until I have some compelling reason to get in the middle of the Adobe nonsense and start yet another monthly payment. I'll use CS5 for as long as I can.</p>

 

<p>Adobe is doing surveys now on a few different ideas for the CC (including the one noted above--it also has another wrinkle to it) but none that I saw were particularly attractive for single product users who already own a perpetual license and want to stay that way. There was also an indication that they still "sell" the products and upgrades, although I couldn't find same on their website.</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see where they end up, although the scenario above seems likely.</p>

<p>I wonder how many photographers are staying with CS5/6 rather than rent space on the Creative Cloud? If the number is significant, how will Adobe respond?</p>

<p>I suppose I'm staying with CS6 as long as my cameras are supported. I'm in the 0.01% margin that's not really afraid of the new price structure though. And I like that PS is finally going both platforms like LR has been for sometime now. This will be great for using the mbp laptop and the pc desktop.</p>

<p>Does anyone now that if you go traveling for a few months, you can stop payments and then resume your subscription when you return?</p>

<p>I'm not only not afraid of the new price structure, I'm loving it. <br /><br />The machine I'm sitting in front of now running up-to-the-minute instances of:<br /><br /> Audition CS6<br /> Premiere Pro CS6<br /> After Effects CS6<br /> Dreamweaver CS6<br /> Fireworks CS6<br /> Acrobat XI Pro<br /> Illustrator CS6<br /> Lightroom 5<br /> Photoshop CS6<br /> SpeedGrade CS6<br /><br />If I were to buy copies of those, and continue to keep them up to date so that I could work with files from clients, I'd be out thousands and thousands more dollars. Instead, I'm out a pizza-and-a-half and two beers every month. If all you use is on piece of software, it's worth doing the soul searching. But if you interact with others who work in more than one medium, and you need to keep up ... the monthly subscription is an absolute no-brainer. That list above used to cost a huge, princely sum - and buying those titles would have tied up a lot of capital while going into projects that might take months to pay back. Now? Cheaper than a movie date.<br /><br /></p>

<p>Matt, I agree that the cloud is probably pretty good for those that use a lot of programs or those who work with a "limited tail". What I mean by this is that if I am creating client websites or brochures and I retire or decide to do other things, I don't care if I can access those old files (lost use of programs by ending subscription). Photographers are a bit different. Even if we are commercial photographers, we will still want to be able to access our files in the future without having to resubscribe--and we need to be able to do it when we want, not when we pay.</p>

<p>The other issue to me is that if one is an amateur, photoshop is really an expensive program but it is the state of the art. I understand its value but as a commercial photographer, I don't charge the same to Joe's Deli at the corner as I do to IBM to do a photoshoot. Also, as a commercial photographer, I keep PS totally up to date. But I am also near retirement and maybe having a new upgrade, after paying for everyone since 1993 (PS3, NOT CS3), every other time would be a more economical way to use the programs than buying a subscription. Adobe ends up with more money than me giving up and going elsewhere and i get a reasonable cost program for my less intense use of the program.</p>

<p>Over the years, I have bought a lot of their programs, some now extinct. Things like Dreamweaver (bought twice now for full perpetual license) and Flash. Both of these were only accessed maybe a couple times a year at most. I would love to just pay a subscription for a month as needed for these, but PS is a totally different type of program. I can't see my PS files without the program!</p>

<p>Anyway, I first saw this "rental" model with an audio program that was several thousand dollars. You could rent it by the day, week or month but you could also buy it and upgrade it over time. I thought it was great as I needed it only for cleaning up a few interview files. If I needed to access it all the time in my business, I would certainly want t buy it. Adobe seems to have forced us into the rental model with no way to use the program, and access our files, if we then stop our subscription--even if we already paid for the perpetual license (the subscription price is more than the cost of historic upgrades, paid in advance and yet you don't get to keep those upgrades and continue to use the program).</p>

<p>If I were 20 and just starting out and never bought the programs, I think maybe the rental model would be pretty attractive--it would take about 7-8 years to break even buying PS and the upgrades. But, again, it is really the ability to use--or in this case, NOT--the program after termination that I think doesn't fit PS like it might most of the other programs.</p>

<p>The rental model is intended to help Adobe's shareholders get consistent revenue from people like Matt Laur, professional graphic designers who rely on multiple Adobe products for which there is no alternative. As Matt notes, the plan is extremely attractive for those users, who are Adobe's "core" market.</p>

<p>Amateurs who use Photoshop and only buy upgrades when there's a compelling reason to do so (i.e., many photo.net readers) are not part of Adobe's new strategy to maximize shareholder value. They are, of course, always welcome to rent Photoshop, even though they will pay more than they would before (by design). But as far as Adobe is concerned, those renters are basically offering free-will donations, since they're not the "core" users Adobe has chosen to focus on.</p>

<p>Adobe offers those amateurs (and many professional photographers who won't benefit from the rental model) Lightroom and Elements instead. Those products will continue to be available under the legacy perpetual license model. Because there are viable alternatives to Lightroom and Elements, Adobe can't get away with forcing the rental model down those users' throats as they believe they can with their captive "core" users.</p>

<p>The MBA-geniuses who came up with the rental model surely are confident that it will best serve Adobe's shareholders (even if it doesn't best serve Adobe's customers). But sometimes customers have ways of behaving differently from the way the MBA-geniuses insist that they should behave. Ultimately, the Numbers will determine whether Adobe will hold fast to their new business model. The MBA-geniuses can ignore the complaints from many soon-to-be-former customers who aren't "core" users. Being geniuses, they surely factored the loss of non-"core" customers into their projections. But they can't ignore the Numbers. If enough "core" users balk, it would be in the shareholders' interest to modify the model.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The MBA-geniuses who came up with the rental model</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You have inside information on who came up with the model? Tell us more.</p>

<p>By the way, I received an e-mail with the "survey" mentioned in the OP's linked article. The "survey" seemed more a marketing ploy than a solicitation of opinion. Most of the questions were on the order of "Were you aware that Creative Cloud gives you this great value?" I did, however, try to give them my honest opinion, even though they made it rather difficult to do that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Amateurs who use Photoshop and only buy upgrades when there's a compelling reason to do so (i.e., many photo.net readers) are not part of Adobe's new strategy to maximize shareholder value."<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not so sure, Ted. I have a feeling more people than ever will be using PS with this new business model.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way, I received an e-mail with the "survey"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And what about the info on the "MBA-geniuses"?</p>

<p>Eric, it's clear the "MBA-geniuses" thing was made up. I suspect the survey probably was also. And I would look at other posters for worthwhile information given that.</p>

<p>If you lookup "Buffet Pricing..."<br /><br /><a href="http://math.illinoisstate.edu/krzysio/buffetpricing.pdf">http://math.illinoisstate.edu/krzysio/buffetpricing.pdf</a><br /><br />...you can find a diagram created by MBA geniuses and mentions of keywords such as "monopolistic" and "price discrimination" in the 14 page paper. <br /><br /><br>

Just because your plate is heaping-full doesn't mean you can eat it all. </p>

<p>Adobe is not a monopoly. And they're not even close to being the first software developer (with tools meant primarily for professional users) that's embracing this sort of model. </p>

<p>CS6 is more than great for right now because LR is getting so good I find myself using PS much less. But I will eventually upgrade and at $10 a month is not a bad deal to also get not just bug fix and Camera Raw updates, but new feature updates as they are incorporated. But its going to be quite a while before I will need to consider it. I'm not so much put off by the delivery and price method.</p>