Adobe Changing Course? Sort of....

<p >In early 1990 after graduating from Art Center College of Design in Pasadena with a BA in Photography, Andrew Rodney purchased his first color Macintosh system in order to run a new and revolutionary product called Adobe Photoshop. Andrew is one of only a hand full of Adobe Certified Technical trainers for Adobe Photoshop in the country and has been a beta tester for Photoshop since version 2.5. Andrew specializes in color management solutions and training. <br /> <br /> Andrew has been featured in or written for such publications as Photo District News, Publish Magazine, Color Publishing, Computer Artist, Digital Imaging Magazine, Digital Output , Photo Electronic Imaging and Peterson’s Photographic Magazine. Andrew lectures around the country and speaks regularly at such shows as Seybold, Thunder Lizards, PhotoExpo, PMA and DPIX and the DIFP Seminar Series. Andrew also teaches regularly at the Santa Fe Photo Workshops.<br>

Andrew also provides custom printer profiles and color management consulting, for more info, visit Andrew's web site.</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew. You have been most helpful.</p>

<p>I, for one, would love to hear Shun's view of all of this.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>Andrew, did you know a Leslie McCall when you were at Art Center? </p>

<p>It appears that Adobe is going to the "Software as a Service" (Saas) model. There are benefits for both the Company and the Consumer with this model (as well as costs).<br>

Company benefits: (1) Normalized revenue stream - if you upgrade like I do, there are a number of years between payments; (2) easier update of software including faster correction of bugs - the company can update the software "on the fly" if you will; (3) Instill / Build loyalty of the product - people paying subscriptions tend to be loyal users (at least that is what I think); (4) Easier to introduce the product to people because the cost is generally cheaper on the front end - instead of paying 200-300 dollars right now, I can pay $20 a month.;(5) Ability to limit piracy of software - hard to copy if need an account to run.<br>

Consumer benefits: (1) Constant improvements and updates - if you upgrade all the time, you get the updates immediately (and the cost generally breaks even); (2) without the hassle of an install - not everyone is a geek like me. Upgrading can be a pain. If the Company can do it for me - a little at a time - the ease is worth it.<br>

The cost to the Company are not as obvious, but I would suggest Public Relations is the biggest. Long time users want to have a perpetual license they can install anytime they want. Features in the current version suddenly disappear because of an update (seen that happen a lot). New problems occur because the code wasn't quite right when it was released. Competitive pricing is another - the per month rate can't be too high because the competition can be intense and people have a price point.<br /><br /><br>

The costs to the consumer are easier for me to see (being the consumer) - (1) Cost - I may be able to save enough to buy the next upgrade, but my monthly budget doesn't allow me to do a subscription or I think the monthly cost is too high for the service (which is why I don't have cable tv); (2) Updates can be a pain - I personally like to do them myself; (3) I have to allow the company into my machine on a regular basis. As a CFE and a programming "nut", I have a hard time doing that. Even if the company is trustworthy, an entry point for them is an entry point for someone else.<br /><br />I could go on about some of the legal ramifications as well - such as storing personal information on a computer you don't own, but that probably doesn't apply here.<br>

There are a number of options available - I personally use GIMP to process my photos. It is open source, runs on Windows (and Linux). I use UFRaw to processes the NEF files. It is also open source. So the real issue is do you stay with Adobe or move to something else?<br /><br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There are lots of people who happily moved to CS6 from CS3! And that cost Adobe money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This, unfortunately, seems to be the way the marketing guys at Adobe actually think. Those of us who only shovelled money into their coffers for every 3rd version of their very expensive software are clearly worse than pirates! When a company has a near monopoly in professional image editing, we shouldn't be surprised when it pulls this sort of stunt - corporate greed pretty much dictates it. For me, getting on the endless CC treadmill would roughly triple what I usually spend on Adobe products. As for piracy, this will do nothing to deter it - CC was reportedly cracked within 24 hours of its release and, by defusing the time bomb, the pirates are now offering an arguably superior product...</p>

<p>Can't understand the problem. Increasingly LR gets better and steadily takes over tasks that used to be the province of Photoshop. If I don't like Adobe's Cloud offers surely I can continue to buy LR every upgrade or two and just keep the CS5 I've got. I'll almost certainly spend less than if Adobe hadn't taken its leap- unless I feel motivated by some offer or another that comes along.</p>

<p>"we shouldn't be surprised when it pulls this sort of stunt - corporate greed pretty much dictates it"<br>

At least this thread hasn't degraded into over the top ridiculous comments! </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>CC was reportedly cracked within 24 hours of its release and, by defusing the time bomb, the pirates are now offering an arguably superior product...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It is not proven that it was "cracked." They were able to perform a download and install. There is no proof at this time that it will survive the subscription checking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no proof at this time that it will survive the subscription checking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And even if it does survive, so what? Stealing somehow justifies <em>anything</em> in terms of the new subscription schema or a perpetual license? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>At least this thread hasn't degraded into over the top ridiculous comments!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you honestly think Adobe would be doing this if they had <strong>serious</strong> competition from another company offering perpetual licences for equivalent software? Perhaps I should have used a more polite term than 'greed'? How about 'impetus for profit maximization'? That should be sufficiently <a href="https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm">ambiguous</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you honestly think Adobe would be doing this if they had <strong>serious</strong> competition from another company offering perpetual licences for equivalent software?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Because</strong> there is no serious competition or equivalent software? </p>

<p>Richard, Are we to accuse Adobe of treason, mass murder, mind control, etc, just because they built the best solution for the issue? Profit is not evil, and you can bet the farm, that Adobe's competitors are in search of it as much as Adobe is. Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese. Your comments are against capitalism as much as they are against Adobe. Seeing them in that light allows the reader to give them the credit that they deserve. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no proof at this time that it will survive the subscription checking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've no intention of downloading a cracked version to try it out! But the pirates seem to have managed to deal with all of Adobe's previous online checking mechanisms, so I'd be a bit surprised if they haven't managed it this time.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Stealing somehow justifies <em>anything</em> in terms of the new subscription schema or a perpetual license?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not. The point is rather that anti-piracy is a spurious justification for the new business model. Adobe knows perfectly well that piracy takes place, will probably continue to do so, and might even be made more attractive by a subscription scheme. But pirates, many of whom aren't (realistically) potential paying customers, aren't Adobe's main concern. Their motives are to milk more money from their legitimate customers, especially those who tend to skip upgrades (when given the choice), and to take complete control of distribution (no more boxed product resellers to cut in).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Because</strong> there is no serious competition or equivalent software?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Well, exactly. Since they have an effective monopoly in this area, they feel perfectly safe in imposing a subscription model that many customers will dislike. Where are they going to go? PaintShop Pro? GIMP?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Richard, Are we to accuse Adobe of treason, mass murder, mind control, etc, just because they built the best solution for the issue? Profit is not evil, and you can bet the farm, that Adobe's competitors are in search of it as much as Adobe is. Your argument has more holes than Swiss cheese. Your comments are against capitalism as much as they are against Adobe. Seeing them in that light allows the reader to give them the credit that they deserve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>'At least this thread hasn't degraded into over the top ridiculous comments!'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point is rather that anti-piracy is a spurious justification for the new business model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The business model has nothing (very little if anything) to do with anti-piracy. It is about increasing revenue. That's rather oblivious isn't it? Adobe has had an activation schema for years, how is this different? I pointed out how this new model is about keeping users from skipping versions. That generates more money and on a monthly basis. It is a very clever business model I suspect many here would love to have!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since they have an effective monopoly in this area, they feel perfectly safe in imposing a subscription model that many customers will dislike.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First off, they have an <em>effective</em> monopoly because they have the best product and consumers obviously have aided in producing said so called <em>monopoly</em>. 2nd, not all customers dislike it, there are some significant advantages which have been pointed out here. But if you dislike it, move on. If this new model in some way causes this company to lose instead of gain more business and thus money, they will likely change course. Kind of doubt it...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where are they going to go? PaintShop Pro? GIMP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beats me, I'm not going there. I can't speak for others. IF the Adobe solution continues to be the best in class, despite less flexibility in upgrading or forcing customers to stay on the bus, then they will do just fine. By their own doing and by the doing of their customers. IF someone comes along with a better solution, then that company will take these customers away. It's simple, classic capitalism!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The business model has nothing (very little if anything) to do with anti-piracy. It is about increasing revenue. That's rather oblivious isn't it? Adobe has had an activation schema for years, how is this different? I pointed out how this new model is about keeping users from skipping versions. That generates more money and on a monthly basis. It is a very clever business model I suspect many here would love to have!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think we completely agree about why Adobe is doing this (I only brought up piracy as it had been mentioned as a justification a couple of times above). That doesn't mean those customers who are getting a worse deal have to like it, or kid themselves it is somehow for their benefit as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>First off, they have an <em>effective</em> monopoly because they have the best product and consumers obviously have aided in producing said so called <em>monopoly</em>. 2nd, not all customers dislike it, there are some significant advantages which have been pointed out here. But if you dislike it, move on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No need to italicise - I used 'effective' quite deliberately. Of course it's not an absolute monopoly, and it goes without saying there are good reasons why Adobe products are so successful. But when a company attains such a dominant position, the tendency seems to be to behave in a rather more 'arrogant' way than previously. Why care about what a large proportion of your customers want, when enough will suck it up on your terms anyway? I'd be tempted to use the phrase 'crack dealer business model', but that might upset Carl :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>IF someone comes along with a better solution, then that company will take these customers away. It's simple, classic capitalism!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd like to imagine someone will, but I suspect nobody will want to make the investment to challenge Adobe's decades of product development. If Canon announced that their dSLR firmware would from now on lock up unless an annual fee was paid they'd just drive customers to Nikon. But Adobe has no strong competitor in its particular niche, so provided they keep their rental pricing below the 'mass rebellion' threshold, market forces will make little difference, and CC will indeed be a financial success for the company.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Of course it's not an absolute monopoly, and it goes without saying there are good reasons why Adobe products are so successful.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A little history lesson about Photoshop from someone that lived it. I purchased Photoshop 1.0.7 in May of 1990. It had been out a few months. There was a competing product called ColorStudio. It was about the same price and was in fact a bit more mature. It had CMYK capabilities before Photoshop. At the time, there was a rivalry between those who used one vs. the other (think Nikon vs. Canon). Many of us in the Photoshop camp, and there were not that many in those days, wondered if we picked the right product! The issue with ColorStudio was a more complex, some would say inferior GUI. It was far more geeky if you will. It took maybe a year or two for Photoshop to dominate the market for this space and ColorStudio died. <br>

There have been challenges. X-Rez, Live Picture are two that come to mind. I worked with both products. X-Rez was such a rip-off I was surprised Adobe didn't take them to court. It was the companies dysfunctional nature that killed it off. Live Picture, a product that initially cost $4000 was probably the most likely product to unseat Photoshop. To this day, it has (had) functionality that Photoshop lacks. But the GUI was a mess too and people struggled to figure it out. </p>

<p>The reason Photoshop has been successful is by and large, Thomas Knoll who in the last number of years has taken ACR onto his own and a very good team of engineers and product managers. Can someone topple Photoshop? Not at all impossible. But not very likely considering the very long 23 years it has been on the market and the team that builds it. IF someone came out with a better product, you better believe a lot of us would jump ship. I'm not holding my breath. There are areas where Photoshop frustrates me. I use it less and less thanks to Lightroom. But I have a severe need for tools that only Photoshop provides. That's true of other products I use with both frustration and admiration.<br>

This again is very simple. Adobe changed it's pricing model. I <strong>have</strong> to use Photoshop. The price is worthwhile for me by a long shot. Some of the differences in the perceptual license and the subscription is useful and a benefit, some not. If anyone out there is finding that the proposition is such that they can and want to leave the Photoshop fold, they should do so. This is no different from any other consumer decision about a product and price consideration. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you honestly think Adobe would be doing this if they had <strong>serious</strong> competition from another company offering perpetual licences for equivalent software? Perhaps I should have used a more polite term than 'greed'? How about 'impetus for profit maximization'? That should be sufficiently <a href="https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ambiguous</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is seems you relate the concept of profit with evil. It seems that sometimes we consumers expect companies to invest in what it takes to create the best products and deliver those products for virtually free. It's a good business model that has advantages for many users of photo shop and LR and maybe not others. But I thinks its commendable that Adobe has listened to the photographic community and tailored a package that makes it quite reasonable to continue using CC6 if you want to. In other words, for many users that like or need to use PS it's not a "worse deal", it's actually a better deal. But some people don't seem willing to acknowledge that.<br>

Like others have said, if it doesn't suit, than don't use it. No one is twisting anyone's arm. Some people sound as if they have a right to determine how a company should sell and distribute its goods. Well we do, indirectly by either purchasing or not. That's your choice, but I can't see any reason to demonize Adobe because their move doesn't suit some inchoate concept that people are getting screwed by Adobe when that isn't the case at all.<br>

</p>

<p>"I'd be tempted to use the phrase 'crack dealer business model', but that might upset Carl"<br>

<br>

That wouldn't upset me, Richard, but it does show readers where you are coming from. Adobe should be equated with a "crack dealer", right.......... Miss your meds, did you? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But when a company attains such a dominant position, the tendency seems to be to behave in a rather more 'arrogant' way than previously. Why care about what a large proportion of your customers want, when enough will suck it up on your terms anyway?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, what's the more arrogant way? If its such a large proportion of customers that want the old structure and they all vote with their feet to the degree that it effects the bottom line, then they will have to evaluate and decide to push on without those customers or change and create another means of purchasing. It's a business decision that has nothing to do with being "arrogant". Sounds kind of childish to think that if they don't accept your idea of what their business model should be, equates to them being arrogant. I tend to agree with what Brad said much earlier in this thread, they bungled and created a lot of un-necessary confusion with the way they launched this new model.</p>

<p><br>

</p>

<p >It seems to me that one side of this debate is painting Adobe as a hapless, innocent victim of unjustifiable criticism.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I mentioned in a previous post, Australian consumers have been paying at least 60% more for Adobe products than US and European buyers for decades (even after "purchase by download" was introduced, with no associated transport costs for physical product). This is after differences in currency exchange rates have been deducted. This type of pricing amounts to gross opportunism. The reasons given by Adobe for the price differential were baseless spin. As I also mentioned previously, the problem was significant enough to warrant a Federal government inquiry into this price gouging by Adobe and a number of other IT companies. Their responses and attempted justifications were pathetic and totally unconvincing.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >While I agree that what Adobe charges is Adobe's business, what we have experienced here in Australia hardly builds trust between Adobe and its customers. Their behaviour was unconscionable. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You can trot out the platitude "well you didn't have to buy it". That is true. But I fail to see why we should have been discriminated against and financially penalised because we are not US or European citizens and the cost of overheads to supply the product to Australians was not significantly greater than selling to the rest of the planet.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >When consumers are consistently treated badly, it is hardly surprising that they will harbour a certain level of mistrust and suspicion. Adobe is no babe in the woods and it plays hard, not just against competitors but also its customers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Brand and product loyalty is a two way street. Adobe's domination of the market and the way they apply the power this gives them understandably gets up some people's noses.<br /><br />

/></p>

<blockquote>

<p>A little history lesson about Photoshop from someone that lived it. I purchased Photoshop 1.0.7 in May of 1990. It had been out a few months.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been using it, on and off, for a little under 20 years. I don't recall the specific packages you mention, but PS was clearly superior to anything else I'd tried at the time, and in a different world to the Unix raster editing packages I was familiar with from the 80s. I wonder, though, how many users were finding some of the more recent upgrades quite as <em>necessary</em> as Adobe would like, and were sticking with older 'good enough' versions for sound economic reasons in difficult times? To a non-specialist (like me), some of the recent PS upgrades appear a lot less dramatic than in earlier years, while (e.g.) Acrobat Pro just seems to pile on unnecessary multimedia features that open new security holes on a monthly basis (in fact, keeping your system secure has sometimes seemed like more of a motivation to upgrade than whatever new features the current release contains, another reason why I hope they don't kill off CS6 support anytime soon). This, perhaps, was the background for Adobe's switch to software rentals.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Adobe changed it's pricing model. I <strong>have</strong> to use Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There it is in a nutshell. The second statement is true for many people, which gives Adobe a lot of freedom with the first (if you have to stay current).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is seems you relate the concept of profit with evil.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course not, that would be silly. Adobe has for many years sold their software at a high price that many of us have been (relatively) happy to pay.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, for many users that like or need to use PS it's not a "worse deal", it's actually a better deal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Although the pricing may well be attractive to people who normally buy every version, for the rest of us, not so much. As for the other changes, I think we need to separate the rental model itself from the things that Adobe has chosen to include in CC to sweeten the pill. Cloud storage is cheap ($10 will buy you the same amount per year from Microsoft), social networking seems compulsory for every modern application (whether you want it or not!), and incremental upgrades are offered by many companies who provide perpetual licenses (when you stop paying the fee the updates stop, but the software doesn't). None of these things are dependent on any specific buisiness model, but all help to distract us from the real, major change that Adobe has made - you are now renting, not buying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people sound as if they have a right to determine how a company should sell and distribute its goods. Well we do, indirectly by either purchasing or not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What we do have is a right to criticise. Without the negative reactions Adobe got for its initial offering, would the current PS/LR deal even be on the table?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Miss your meds, did you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I used to get by with just the occasional dose, but now they're saying I have to pay a monthly prescription fee...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sounds kind of childish to think that if they don't accept your idea of what their business model should be, equates to them being arrogant. I tend to agree with what Brad said much earlier in this thread, they bungled and created a lot of un-necessary confusion with the way they launched this new model.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking as a childish, unmedicated anti-capitalist (apparently) I would say they not so much bungled as deliberately obfuscated exactly what they were offering. Never mind the rental agreement behind the curtain, look at the Cloud! I imagine this may have been problematic for the easily confused.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When consumers are consistently treated badly, it is hardly surprising that they will harbour a certain level of mistrust and suspicion. Adobe is no babe in the woods and it plays hard, not just against competitors but also its customers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed. We get higher prices in the UK, too. At one point, I think it was suggested that this was partly due to the 'cost of translation'. Clearly adding the 'u' back to 'colour' is an expensive business.</p>

 

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >Of course not, that would be silly. Adobe has for many years sold their software at a high price that many of us have been (relatively) happy to pay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Not really, I much prefer this new price structure. But that's just me. LR and PS for 10 USD a month is pretty good. You say you were happy (relatively) to pay for the upgrades vweaiona, well, I wasn't and this suits me better. So that's the way of it, some will like some won't. You think you share the opinion of a large percentage of photographers, but I believe there are also a lot of photographers who will migrate to CC that didn't want to pay the hefty price for a single copy of Photoshop plus another license for LR. But will be (relatively) happy to pay $10 a month for both LR and PS = 120 USD per year. But it seems you haven't stopped to think about those people.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>You think you share the opinion of a large percentage of photographers, but I believe there are also a lot of photographers who will migrate to CC that didn't want to pay the hefty price for a single copy of Photoshop plus another license for LR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then I'm afraid they're going to be disappointed. The offer (which is just available until December) is only open to people who have already paid the hefty price for a single copy of Photoshop (and who would previously have qualified for upgrade pricing). PS upgrades used to go for $199, and LR upgrades are currently $73 at Amazon (I suspect much of the target market will already have a version of Lightroom). 2 years of CC therefore come to about 88% of the upgrade costs you'd normally be paying to own the latest software. So you do save a bit (and a little more if you had to buy Lightroom from scratch, rather than an upgrade), but this hardly makes the rental a spectacular bargain (presumably even less so when the price to join rises next year). However, I expect the deal will still be pretty popular, and lots of people will be happy with it - I'm only complaining on my behalf, not theirs!</p>