How Does Adobe's Change To Subscription Pricing Affect Their Business [Archive]

cbscreative

01-22-2014, 12:41 PM

Adobe priced me out of the market with their change to monthly charges. I've switched to some Mac apps (Pixelmator and iDraw). They don't do as much as Photoshop and Illustrator, but they're enough for my needs. I can see though how given your business you couldn't do without the Creative Suite.

That change has a LOT of designers screaming foul. It's not as much an issue of price but an issue of principle. Some designers understandably favor the Creative Cloud so it was a good move to offer it. The problem comes in with forcing it as the only option or be forever stuck with CS6. A great analogy is cars. You can lease or buy. Imagine if car companies decided you had to lease and refused to let you buy.

You switching to other options is happening in droves. Adobe has done their competition a huge favor with this new policy and provided a wide open opportunity for others to offer alternatives. Many designers are actively seeking alternatives so the market is ripe for the picking. Personally, I would love to see Adobe get humbled. They've forgotten a basic rule of business to give customers what they want. Instead, their attitude is if you don't like it, too bad.

Okay, back on topic but as small business owners this presents a great illustration of big business forgetting the basics and acting foolishly. That's a mistake none of us can afford to make.

vangogh

01-22-2014, 02:33 PM

I think Adobe will do fine with their decision. I don't hold anything against them for switching business models. I can see a lot of benefit for both the company and its customers. Their software seems to be getting more features a lot quicker. I think Adobe made a calculated decision. Some people like myself can't justify the monthly expense. I also prefer to own the tools I work with as opposed to renting them and I'm sure others feel the same way.

In the end Adobe will be fine. I don't think they've forgotten anything about giving customers what they want. I think they just decided to focus on a smaller subset of customers.

cbscreative

01-22-2014, 07:06 PM

Vangogh, you're in a situation where your business does not lean heavily on using Adobe products. The reaction from a significant portion of the design community has been disappointment bordering on outrage. Maybe Adobe will be fine but the people who helped make them successful have been spit on. They find ways to spin and sugar coat it, but you said yourself you prefer to own tools rather than rent them. Many designers who rely on the software feel exactly the same way but Adobe has essentially said, "Tough, too bad."

I've sensed an unhealthy arrogance coming from Adobe for many years. This just heightens that perception. Many designers will no doubt cave out of necessity to stay current but that's a far cry from giving approval to the new model.

You're probably right they made a calculated decision. I think they're banking that no one will come up with truly viable replacement products. It would serve them right to be wrong. GM thought they were invincible at one time too. Look how that worked for them.

vangogh

01-23-2014, 12:23 AM

I think we've hijacked the thread. I know a lot of people are unhappy with Adobe right now, but there are also a lot of happy people too. A lot of people have signed up for CC. Not me. I do think the main thing they've done is found a way to raise their prices and I expect this is a major opportunity for others to enter the market. I have found some pretty good apps to replace what I used to use and those apps seem to be actively worked on and getting better. They aren't close to what CC offers, but they offer enough for me and I suspect many others.

That's why I say Adobe took a calculated risk. Sure, some people are going to be unhappy with the changes, but to them enough people will be happy with them. I prefer the way they used to do things, but it is there business to run how they want.

cbscreative

01-24-2014, 02:08 PM

I think we've hijacked the thread.

I was thinking the same thing... apologies to Veritas. Fortunately, the occasional deviation gets others interested too. You're right Adobe can run their business any way they see fit but when a significant percentage of customers you spend years attaining don't like it, that's a bold move to say the least. It's also true that many will favor CC, that's never been up to debate. I'm with the group that fails to see why providing discs is such a big deal. We've been strong armed instead of served. And yes, there is the capacity for Adobe to hold customers hostage with the new model. If they're this willing to slam the door in the faces of long term customers, I wouldn't hold out much hope they will play nice in the future with the CC model.

If the new face of business is to tell long standing customers "our way or the highway" then I prefer to stay old school enough not to join them in such arrogance.

If this discussion topic continues beyond this point, one of us should start a new thread and possibly even move these posts over to it. Similar discussions elsewhere have sparked VERY long threads because Adobe received more backlash from this change than their "calculations" might have accounted for. It may not generate so much reaction here but in design communities the responses have been something Adobe could seriously regret ignoring.

vangogh

01-24-2014, 03:24 PM

Thread moved. I place it in the managing your business section, since it seems like what we're talking about is how Adobe is managing their business. Does that make sense? I could also change the subject line if you think something else would be more appropriate. Back to the conversation.

I get that you don't like the change and you're hardly alone. I preferred the old way where I bought the programs I needed and updated at times. I don't think this is Adobe being arrogant though. I think they're making a change to their business model that they think benefits the company long term. My guess is they'll be right even if it means losing a significant portion of their customer base.

Imagine you open the only French restaurant in a small town. You grow a small group of customers who love your food. Unfortunately you don't grow them enough to make the restaurant sustainable. Turns out there are only a few people in the town that like French food. One day you change the menu to Italian and business booms. Half your French food customers dislike Italian and never come back. They complain about your change in the menu. Half still come by. Yes, you alienated a lot of customers, but you made the decision that you needed to do that to stay in business or grow your business.

Adobe saw that many if not most of its customers weren't upgrading software often enough and let's face it, there are lots of pirated versions of many of its products. To them this new model makes sense. The subscriptions are priced similar to what you might pay to upgrade their software every year. Larger companies probably don't care at all and if anything prefer a known cost to pencil into the budget.

Someone like me can't justify upgrading that often. I don't need new features enough. Maybe I upgrade every 3 or 4 versions of the software. From Adobe's perspective I wasn't that great a customer and they could afford to lose me. That's ok. I've found other software that does what I need at a price I can afford. I wish some of the software did more. I'm also used to Adobe's way of doing things so I have to relearn some things.

You're more in the middle. You rely more on some of the things only Adobe offers. The question is how much are you willing to pay to use the tools you rely on. It looks like you can get CC for $70/month ($840/year), though it's on sale now for 2 years @ $40/month ($480/year). That doesn't seem outrageous to me if you rely on their tools for business. If only their tools will do then $480 isn't a lot to pay for the year. My guess is similar deals will continue to be available.

I'm with the group that fails to see why providing discs is such a big deal

If you literally mean offering a plastic disc that you load into your disc drive well I'm afraid those are going away in general. Delivering software as a download just makes more sense. This isn't an Adobe thing. If you mean selling the software instead of only licensing use through subscription, that's the basic argument. I wish I could buy the software outright as well, but they decided to change. I don't have to like the change, but I grant it's their right as it's their business.

If the new face of business is to tell long standing customers "our way or the highway" then I prefer to stay old school enough not to join them in such arrogance.

I don't think that's fair. I don't think any of their changes are about being arrogant. They're in business to make money. They looked at their business model and decided the new subscription based model was better for their business. They aren't the only ones deciding that. A lot of businesses are pushing in that direction, especially where software is concerned. The rise of mobile apps and app stores is driving the price of software to $0. People aren't willing to pay for software the same way they used to be. People now complain when a company charges $1.99 for an upgrade to an app.

You're only going to see more and more businesses moving to a subscription based model where they can charge monthly for an ongoing service rather than one time for a product. I won't be surprised if before too long software is mostly free, but in order to take full advantage of it you're paying an ongoing fee.

Harold Mansfield

01-24-2014, 04:45 PM

I personally hate subscription models.

I'd much rather buy things outright. However, I am happy with MS Office for $99 a year. That's not bad considering the entire office suite was running $600, could only be used on one computer and I didn't need everything. It was even more a la carte. I think Outlook alone was $179.

The subscription model is always updated to the latest version, and you can install it on 5 computers.
It works, because the model MS had before sucked and in my mind, far too expensive.

As for Adobe, I subscribe to one product and I'm OK with it. But I would have been much happier to buy it outright.

billbenson

01-24-2014, 08:59 PM

This is why I like Linux although I wouldn't recommend switching over unless you have an expert in the cubical next to you.

The business model of MS, Apple, and others is to sell products (software or hardware) that will become obsolete and need to be replaced. They lock you into their brand and make it inconvenient to change. Going from MS to Apple or the other way around has a learning curve. Not that bad, but still a pain in the butt.

When Microsoft comes out with a new os and discontinues support for an older version, software manufacturers need to follow suit. They suspend support for older versions of the software and make you upgrade (both MS and to software companies).While I understand the business model, it just rubs me the wrong way when you sell something and force your customer to replace it and all of its software every two years.

Freelancier

01-24-2014, 09:01 PM

Here's my crazy view: it's a tool, it makes me money, it becomes a cost of doing business, so suck it up.

For my business, I am on the subscription model for MSDN (which includes their development tools, server OS licenses, workstation OS licenses, pretty much most of the software that Microsoft offers, installable on many computers as long as I own all of them). Costs about $1300/year for renewal (a lot more expensive for first timers, but after that, it's relatively manageable). Some people might complain about $1300/year, but I use it for about 60% of my income during the year, so I look at it as something I have to do to stay in the market I want to be in. So I don't worry about the cost, I worry about what I make by using it.

Adobe's suite is so complex now, just like Microsoft's. If you're basing your business on these tools, you need to price it into your model so that you don't have to think about what you're spending on the tools.

Wozcreative

01-24-2014, 09:49 PM

I don't mind it to be honest. I get the whole CC for $61/m (thats how much it comes out with taxes and US to canadian dollars). That is toy money for something that I rely on so heavily. I do use the new features they put into the software. They've recently added 3 new tools this month to illustrator that makes my logo designing job a lot easier.

cbscreative

01-27-2014, 04:48 PM

It's always inevitable that these discussions bring up the price as if that's what is upsetting the long term customers. It's not the price even though the price does keep going up and the cost of "leasing" is significantly more expensive over the long haul. It's the lack of being given the option to buy that is causing the backlash for the most part.

One thing that needs to be injected in this conversation is a fact that many people may not be aware of. Vangogh alluded to a fact that many users do not upgrade as frequently as Adobe would like them to. That should be their right if the program is meeting their needs but that is not the point I am making. Most "professional" users upgraded every other version. I'm guilty of that and was surprised that my behavior was consistent with the lion's share of their customers. With the release of CS6, Adobe made what I consider a brilliant move to motivate upgrading with each release that no one is likely to object to.

If you had CS5.5 (the previous version) your upgrade price was $375 (Master Suite would be more but I don't know the cost without looking it up). Anything older was $950 for the upgrade. Unless you were skipping more than one version, it became significantly less expensive to upgrade with each new release had they continued on this path. It's a shame they opted to force the subscription model.

There's no doubt that other companies are watching to see how well this works for Adobe so I'll stick with hoping it blows up in their face so we don't see this structure become the norm. I'll be careful to point out again I have no problem with CC other than it being forced as the only option. There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing a non subscription based software and I refuse to be duped by all the claims made that the subscription only model is necessary for software providers.

It's obvious, vangogh, you are willing to defend Adobe on this, which I guess you're right they can run their business any way they want, but their customers are feeling strong armed and that includes many who have switched to CC even though they don't like it. The anti piracy claims from Adobe are just a smoke screen. There's no difference whatsoever in piracy under the new model.

Harold Mansfield

01-27-2014, 05:27 PM

MyITGuy

01-27-2014, 09:10 PM

While I understand and applaud Adobe for releasing a subscription model for those who may not be able to afford the upfront costs, or who are in the industry where consistent upgrades are necessary, I'm in the boat that Adobe is going to get significant backlash for not offering a purchase option.

If given the option, I prefer to purchase the software I utilize outright (With annual maintenance/support to keep up on versions if available), and if I'm presented with a subscription model only...then I will be looking to alternatives. In this case, while I've stuck with Photoshop because its what I was exposed to...Gimp and other alternatives can easily fit my needs at no/minimal cost.

Harold Mansfield

01-27-2014, 09:42 PM

WPMUDEV runs a simular pricing structure. They make very nice WordPress plug ins, especially if you are building or running BuddyPress or Multi-Site.
But I've never been able to get over the thought of building a website with one of their plug ins and being locked into paying a monthly or yearly fee to keep it updated.

Not sure if anything has changed, but to my knowledge to date they do offer the option of buying per plug in, but with no updates. To me that's not a solution. Especially for a web designer building client sites.

cbscreative

01-28-2014, 12:30 PM

I don't think that's fair. I don't think any of their changes are about being arrogant. They're in business to make money. They looked at their business model and decided the new subscription based model was better for their business (emphasis added).

Okay, I take it back. It's not just arrogant. It's arrogant, selfish, and greedy. Adobe is not hurting for money. It's commendable they want to increase profits, which the policy change with the introduction of CS6 could easily accomplish and could have been maintained. But in this case, their decision is good for Adobe and some of their customers. They've failed to meet the needs of many of their customers and I make no apologies for calling that greed and saying it's selfish to spit on such a large segment of their users. I won't defend that because I think they've crossed a line and MANY of their loyal customers are calling foul.

By your own admission, vangogh, you don't represent a significant segment of their customer base. Your perspective will be influenced by that. I refuse to get caught up in the emotional aspect because I am not personally affected yet to a significant degree. But many people are and they are a significant market share for Adobe. On behalf of the people who Adobe stonewalled, I'll call a spade a spade. I can settle on CS6 for at least 3-4 years and suffer no ill effects.

I've made some very interesting observations on this topic due to how heavily it gets discussed among professional users. To keep this post short and save me time for right now, I'll sprinkle that in later. One thing is clear. No matter how calculated this move was by Adobe, they've created a huge rift in an otherwise loyal following. If Adobe didn't consider themselves big enough to flex their muscle in this manner, they would never have dared. I see that as abuse of power rather than serving their customers.

vangogh

01-29-2014, 01:44 AM

By your own admission, vangogh, you don't represent a significant segment of their customer base.

I wouldn't say that. I think there are a lot of people just like me. I'd say I do represent a significant segment of their previous customer base. Just not a segment that was making Adobe a lot of money. You keep saying Adobe is failing to meet the needs of many of their customers. I guess it depends on what you mean by many. Is it a lot of people? Sure. Is it most of their customer base? Not so sure. Like you I would prefer Adobe would sell me copies of their software, but a lot of people prefer this kind of subscription model.

Adobe had a lot of different types of customers. They made a decision that some of their customers liked, some customers didn't like, and some fall somewhere in between. They're hardly the first business that's done that.

Again I'm one who doesn't like this change. I've switched to using software not made by Adobe and doubt I'll be coming back. However, this kind of subscription model is the future of pretty much all digital products. It's been happening in software ever since the App store hit the scene. People complain about paying $3 for an app and then having to pay another $3 a couple of years later for a major upgrade. The price of software is heading to $0 and we're going to be paying for add ons or paying monthly fees for a service. Years ago I bought all my music. Today kids are paying a monthly service to access music.

The price of Adobe's subscriptions are more than I can justify for how much I need the features in their software I can't get in other software, but their subscription is hardly a lot and it's inline with what the software used to cost. Any business that needs and relies on Adobe's software shouldn't have a problem seeing the subscription as a cost of doing business like so many other costs of doing business. The other issue is that you now rent the software instead of own it. However, if you need the software you aren't going to stop renting and shouldn't notice a difference. When the time comes where you might drop the subscription, it's because you no longer need the software, in which case, owning it isn't a big deal.

In the end it's Adobe's business and they have a right to do with it what they want. Their decision to go subscription has certainly angered a segment of their customer base, but it hasn't angered their entire customer base. Adobe decided it was worth giving up some of their customers to move in this direction. Once again, I'm one of those customers. If they pushed away too many customers then it'll have been a bad decision for the company. My guess is it will turn out to be a good decision for the company. It's not greed or arrogance or selfishness. It's business. Adobe isn't in business to please everyone who wants to use their software. They're in business to run a profitable company.

I refuse to get caught up in the emotional aspect

You may want to re-read your posts. A lot of emotion is coming through in all of them.

Freelancier

01-29-2014, 08:26 AM

But in this case, their decision is good for Adobe and some of their customers

Their decision is actually awesome for Adobe -- creating a continuous revenue stream instead of a curved revenue stream with the bulk of sales coming every time they create a new release -- and also for many of their corporate customers who prefer to have a small slow bleed on their cash flow instead of having to decide every year whether to upgrade and make a large payment to Adobe at that time. Same with Microsoft, which is why they created their office subscriptions that cost about what it would cost to upgrade every 3 years.

Individual users are NOT Adobe's target customer (if you hadn't noticed). It's the corporate user or corporate group of users and those users will look at this change and decide that it's good for their own cash flow as well.

cbscreative

01-29-2014, 02:34 PM

I think there are a lot of people just like me. I'd say I do represent a significant segment of their previous customer base. Just not a segment that was making Adobe a lot of money. You keep saying Adobe is failing to meet the needs of many of their customers. I guess it depends on what you mean by many. Is it a lot of people? Sure. Is it most of their customer base? Not so sure. Like you I would prefer Adobe would sell me copies of their software, but a lot of people prefer this kind of subscription model.

Put that way, I fully agree you represent a massive market share considering the global user base. It strikes me as strange Adobe chooses to alienate such a large group but like you said, it is their right.

It's never been up to debate that many users will favor the new model but I can tell you all from the perspective of a large segment of professional users, the hostility toward Adobe is very high because the absence of being able to buy upgrades instead of leasing them is WAY off target with the needs of these users. The trend toward subscriptions may be very popular in the consumer market, but groups like graphic designers and photographers don't use Adobe software like an iPhone app. Imagine for example a professional photographer shooting deep in Africa without Internet access when the 30 day "license check" runs to verify their subscription. *Poof* As we understand the terms coming from Adobe, the software deactivates until they regain Internet access.

There are more variables in usage than probably Adobe themselves could calculate and I'll stand by my position that their one size fits all approach is a slap in the face to many who are very much in the market they need to please. Under the old model, I have a choice of when and if I choose to upgrade. Now they can make changes I am forced to use whether they work with my computer hardware or not. I have a strong aversion to anyone messing with me without my permission. And I am not alone in that sentiment. Many professional users have computer expertise well beyond the average consumer and this is only one of many reasons the anger toward Adobe has been a widespread response in the market.

In an age of identity theft Adobe is asking every customer to trust them with financial data when they've already had security breaches. That one is just thrown in for a bonus because it's a concern for many and Adobe has not instilled any confidence. Do you think maybe Adobe would be an irresistible target now for hackers? It's not as if the Russian mafia has extremely skilled hackers, maybe people are just being paranoid.

You may want to re-read your posts. A lot of emotion is coming through in all of them.

In regard to my peers and many others legitimately upset, yes, and what this means for the future if Adobe doesn't recant, I'm admittedly concerned. But as for my own personal impact, no. I can have all my needs met with CS6 for years yet. I have no doubt that Corel will benefit and hopefully choose not to follow, and others will rise up to fill the gap (too bad Macromedia got conveniently absorbed though). I have no reason to be upset for myself personally, but I do empathize with loyal customers that Adobe has decided to force a drastic change on whether it meets their needs or not.

billbenson

01-29-2014, 05:05 PM

I'll just add a rebellion statement. This is what drove me to use Linux as an OS. Microsoft pretty much forces users to upgrade every other upgrade. They do this both directly by discontinuing support for older versions and indirectly because other software developers usually only support the latest version of windows. Dunn & Bradstreet only supports Windows PC's for example.

BTW I would only recommend Linux to someone who has a Linux user in the next cubicle to them. I like it, but its a big learning curve for most people.

Harold Mansfield

01-29-2014, 05:18 PM

Microsoft has gotten better. The entire Office suite is only $99 a year and it comes with a limited amount of cloud storage, you can use it on up to 5 machines, and they own Skype now.
And the Windows 8 upgrade from Windows 7 was only $35.

Much better than it used to be. Used to be if you wanted the new OS you had to buy a new machine.

cbscreative

01-29-2014, 09:19 PM

As Harold already pointed out, the MS example really puts added perspective on the discussion. MS is far larger and more powerful than Adobe yet they seem to have at least partially learned a lesson Adobe seems to need to be taught. MS is an interesting mix of the most loved and hated at the same time. They've made enough blunders that valuable lessons should be obvious to any computer software company.

When you skim the condensed history tour, Windows 9x had flavors changing every couple years and they stretched the limitations of the underlying DOS to an impressive degree. The 98SE was the most stable version only to have ME once again invite well deserved ire. The fact that ME buyers lost support only 3 years after the introduction was additional insult. Technically, 98SE was only 4 years old when support evaporated. Considering the underlying DOS was 22 years old, that's a fact most people don't seem to appreciate. To dupe users into ME when the underlying DOS was knowingly on borrowed time was a major sham on the part of MS and I won't defend them for that move. 98SE should have been the last iteration.

With bill's point about forcing users to upgrade every other version, that used to represent only a few years. 98SE and ME were 4 years and 3 years respectively. XP is scheduled to have support dropped in April; it was released in October 2001 (well over 12 years). Windows Vista and Windows 8 are highly unpopular and I agree with the critics on both. To their credit, MS is sustaining Win7 and making it available on new computers if you don't like Win8. Adobe could take lessons from this stance. Apparently Adobe needs a dose of humility that even MS has been forced to comply with.

vangogh

01-30-2014, 12:07 AM

Steve I think you're seeing this from a single point of view. No question many people aren't happy with the changes Adobe made. A lot of people are happy with the changes too. Should Adobe switch back now and anger the people they just made happy? There are positives for people even like myself. People who previously wanted to use most of the software in one of the suites, but couldn't afford a suite, now can. Updates are coming much faster. There's now better integration between products and more community around the products. For those that only occasionally needed the software they can now pay for it only when they need it and save. For a large part of their customer base the changes are very good.

You see the side where people aren't happy. You're ignoring the side where people are happy. The thing is the the side that mostly supported Adobe's business is the happy side. The worse part of their customer base (worse being for Adobe) make up much of the unhappy side. It's not uncommon to fire the least profitable of your customers or clients from time to time. From Adobe's perspective that's what they've done. They made changes that's costing them some of their least profitable customers, while making some of their most profitable customers happy.

As I've said a few times, I'm part of the customer base that preferred things the way they are. I readily admit though, that I wasn't one of Adobe's best clients. I held off as long as I could between upgrades. I limited the number of products I purchased. I don't think losing me as a customer will hurt Adobe one bit. I'm not angry at them though. They made a business decision, which I understand. Fortunately for myself, I've been able to find other products that are able to cover enough of my needs.

As to the Microsoft comparison, I don't think it's a good one. Microsoft never forced people to upgrade. The majority of consumers upgraded Windows only when they purchased a new computer. Similar for Office. That's part of Microsoft's problem now. People are moving away from the PC and toward Tablets, Phablets, and Smart Phones. They're upgrading PCs less, if at all. Microsoft's biggest problem is that in the past it was businesses making the buying decision. The Enterprise settled on Windows and the people who worked in them use Windows, Word, Excel, and Outlook all day. That's what they knew so the computer they used at home was the same. The buying decision is now shifting to the consumer who's no longer locked into buying what they use at work. The prefer the simpler iOS and Android and are finding they don't need the MS Office Suite as much as they thought.

cbscreative

01-30-2014, 01:58 AM

There's no need at all to undo anything and make the happy people unhappy, we must have a major misunderstanding to reach that kind of interpretation, vangogh. The people unhappy with the new model are not unhappy with Adobe offering CC. That's a viable option initiated at least two years ago that no one had issues with. The problem is making CC the only option and taking away the purchase option. There's no reason not to offer both which is what they were doing before. Switching back actually would make both sides happy since they were before. Considering the purchase model has been in existence from day one, it's not like they're not set up for it.

Even if they wish to stop making discs and boxed versions, I doubt a move to only offer downloads would create a stir; that would be understandable. It's the total elimination of being able to buy and being forced to lease or never go above CS6 that is causing the backlash. I'm not arguing the benefits of leasing for anyone preferring that option or advocating elimination of that option, and I'm not observing anyone else doing so. It's not me looking at this from a single view point, I advocate offering both, and offering only one option like Adobe decided to do that is actually the single view point.

One of the selling points to leasing is you get access to every Adobe program. That's true, but in practice few people will utilize that benefit even in a professional setting. My Premium Suite includes InDesign, Flash, Fireworks, and other programs I don't use. I used to use Flash (collects dust now) and rarely use Fireworks in my work flow. My need for InDesign is essentially non existent. If I add all the other Master Suite programs it doesn't mean I'll use them. I only choose this Suite because the programs I do use would cost more individually. This same sentiment is shared among most design professionals. Very few people really need Master Suite which is why it's never been a big seller but Adobe wants us to have it anyway and the CC model is really just MS on an never ending payment plan. It's nice for prestige, but impractical for almost everyone. That's not knocking CC for everyone who favors it, it's just stating a fact.

vangogh

01-30-2014, 02:54 AM

The problem is making CC the only option and taking away the purchase option.

My bad. I think I was misunderstanding where you were coming from. However, I do think there are valid reasons for Adobe taking away the purchasing option and not offering both to customers. I think offering both would be a lot more difficult than it might seem on the surface. What would constitute a new version for purchase? Before the change Adobe was developing software that way most companies have developed. They created the list of things that would be included in the next release and spent 12-18 months working on the software. Along the way some things get removed, some get added, and eventually version x.x is released.

They aren't building it that way anymore. Now everything gets added whenever it's ready. There really isn't a new version in the same sense. I'm sure the software still has version numbers, but it's not quite the same. How often would they release something new for purchase? How would customers who make a single purchase feel knowing within a few days of installing their software, subscribers have a new feature. Even more how about bug fixes. Subscribers get them right away. Purchasers wait a year and a half for them, probably complaining all the way.

I think for Adobe to offer both the subscription and purchase model it would mean maintaining two codebases for each product. I don't think the work would be trivial even if it seems like it should be.

The way the pricing is set up now a subscription really doesn't cost all that much. I'm looking just at Photoshop, which sells for $20/month. It used to cost $700. You'll go just about 3 years at $20 a month to get to $700 (35 months actually) If you were someone who upgraded every 3 years then the price is basically the same. That doesn't even include the specials Adobe offers (currently $10/month for both Photoshop and Lightroom). Doing the math now is making me think I might end up being an Adobe customer again in the future.

Not owning the software is something I understand angering people, however we're talking about professional software. The only time you would realistically stop needing it is if you're no longer in a business that uses it. Otherwise you'd continue subscribing or continue upgrading under the old model. Sure it would suck to pay a subscription for a few years, stop for whatever reason and no longer have access to the software, but I think that case is less realistic than it might seem. Most people who genuinely need the software will continue to pay for it at what's really a reasonable price when compared to what the full purchase price used to be.

Freelancier

01-30-2014, 07:50 AM

The way the pricing is set up now a subscription really doesn't cost all that much. I'm looking just at Photoshop, which sells for $20/month. It used to cost $700. You'll go just about 3 years at $20 a month to get to $700 (35 months actually) If you were someone who upgraded every 3 years then the price is basically the same.

Microsoft's pricing is also on the "3 years and you would have owned it, but then it's old anyway" pricing model for their subscriptions. For many professional users, that's an equivalent deal, because after 3 years you'd end up buying the latest version anyway, so this way, you stay up to date throughout the subscription period. The negative is if you wait 4-5 years between upgrades.

It's also a big cost savings for Adobe going forward when it comes to support, because they no longer have to have people around to support really old versions.

Harold Mansfield

01-30-2014, 09:12 AM

I can certainly see the advantages of the subscription plan for both the company and the consumer. For the company there is more control over quality, the experience of using the product, constant income stream, and they can push updates easily to everyone.

For the consumer you get what may have been previously cost prohibitive software for a monthly fee instead of a one lump payment, and you are always using the latest version.

But for me, it increases my monthly operating budget. Where as before if I wanted $500 piece of software I may not be able to get it on the spot, but I'd get it and be done with the expense. Now, I have to allot an extra $200-$300 every month for software that I used to just own.

I know if you average it out most times it's the same or less, but mentally to me it's still an extra $200-$300 a month that I wasn't spending before and still had all of the software.

Freelancier

01-30-2014, 09:33 AM

I know if you average it out most times it's the same or less, but mentally to me it's still an extra $200-$300 a month that I wasn't spending before and still had all of the software.

So don't change your habit. Wait 3 years to upgrade like you did before, take the chunk of money you would have then sent to Adobe and put it aside (earning minimal interest, of course) and take the $200-300/month from that money to pay Adobe for the subscription and it'll feel just the same for the next 3 years.

Harold Mansfield

01-30-2014, 09:49 AM

So don't change your habit. Wait 3 years to upgrade like you did before, take the chunk of money you would have then sent to Adobe and put it aside (earning minimal interest, of course) and take the $200-300/month from that money to pay Adobe for the subscription and it'll feel just the same for the next 3 years.

Sounds good in theory, but there wasn't time for that. The models all started changing at once. Next thing I know I have 5 or so subscriptions running.
Some of that is just growing pains too. Every year operating expenses costs a little more, so this is just one more thing to complain about. All tell, the extra tools do help me make more money and work a little more efficiently.

There's just something about those little $20 here, $75 for that, $50 there, $19.95 over here... every month that just bugs me.

cbscreative

01-30-2014, 07:41 PM

In spite of the fact that the points above have plenty of merit, there are still issues and the math is based off perpetually new versions rather than upgrades.

Many users, myself included, don't upgrade to the latest version upon release but wait because bug fixes will occur. CC does offer the option to reject updates but the advantage to purchasing an upgrade is you can choose exactly when you want to upgrade and get bug fixes under the same "update" model that has always been integrated into the software. If it was that complicated to provide, then the original model has been problematic from the start which is well over 20 years.

Additionally, the CC model and purchase model have been running in tandem for at least 2 years. The only change is Adobe categorically yanked the purchase option.

On the pricing comparisons, Photoshop is/was $650ish but only the first time ($1k for Extended). Upgrades were much less expensive. Using the new price and calculating it over time is not a realistic comparison.

Since I'd have to look up individual program pricing, I'll use Suite pricing which I am familiar with. A Premium Suite was $1800 or $1900 new, but Upgrades were only $600 to $700 depending on which versions you are comparing. Prior to CS6, Upgrades were the same price regardless of which version you were upgrading from. Even just the $600, the average time between versions was about 24 months, meaning $300 a year. Most users were upgrading every other version making it 3-4 years on the $600 cost. CC is mandating a $600 per year subscription. That's double even for those previously upgrading every time a new version came out.

With CS6, as I mentioned earlier, they sweetened the deal so you could upgrade for $375 and get 18-24 months life span. $600 per year is a LOT more money.

Although as a business, money is relative and it can easily be argued that the new pricing is just the cost of doing business, that's a huge increase and no real value has been added to justify such a dramatic cost difference. Even the most devout supporters of CC are admitting that there is very little functional difference yet the cost is far higher. Adobe has a right to charge whatever they wish, but to ignore the fact that they simply increased prices without adding anything else for the price, well, wouldn't we all love to have that privilege and have every customer just say oh well?

There's a definite upside that the user just starting out will find the new model a great way to gain access to Adobe products without shelling out $1900. But to the established user that can upgrade for $375, the idea of paying $600 per year and never owning it is offensive.

nealrm

01-30-2014, 08:36 PM

I like the change to Adobe CC and I think it will be good for both the users and the company. The old way of producing software is obsolete, much the same way that the old way manufacturing was obsolete. Rolling out a package with major changes once every year or so and then spending months sending out patches is costly inefficient and risky. Adobe has effectively moved over to a continuous improvement production environment. The same type of system that allowed Toyota to claim the top seat in car manufacturing.

Since I moved over to CC I have seen many improvements and upgrades to the various systems. These are changes you would normally have to wait for the next version to see. I'm not seeing the bug that were always present every time you upgrade. In addition, the CC environment has offered services that were not present under the old version of marketing.

I think the change will make the company healthier. They now have a steady stream of income, instead of the cyclical cycle they had before. So they are in a better position to improve the product and services.

vangogh

01-31-2014, 02:59 AM

Now, I have to allot an extra $200-$300 every month for software that I used to just own.

In fairness that's not just for CC. You're talking about multiple subscriptions. I agree if you subscribe to too many things it can get out of hand. I certainly don't subscribe to everything that I might want. With home stuff you budget. What can you realistically afford and then you prioritize what you want. With business subscriptions you think how much can I earn if I spend x. If it costs $300 a year for Photoshop and you can earn more than $300 a year using it, it's a good deal.

And keep in mind a lot of businesses prefer the fixed cost of a monthly subscription. It's easier to budget for than the occasional large expense. You also don't have to keep the subscription ongoing. If you get one or two projects a year that require Photoshop you can pay for a month of two instead of all year.

the CC model and purchase model have been running in tandem for at least 2 years

They were just testing the subscriptions and slowly pushing people over. It seemed pretty obvious early on they were eventually going subscription only.

Upgrades were much less expensive.

If you upgraded every year. It wasn't always that way, but over the last year or two before they switched to subscriptions you had to upgrade to every version between the one you had and the one you wanted, which meant you were paying full price unless you upgraded every version.

that's a huge increase and no real value has been added to justify such a dramatic cost difference

I don't think that's true. Perhaps it is for some depending on how you used the software, but Adobe is letting people use more software than they probably owned previously. Maybe something like InDesign was something you didn't use regularly and so wouldn't buy, but now you can use it for a month for one project if needed. The new model also means upgrades come faster and the bugs get worked out faster. With this model you can always be on the latest version every time you use the software. With the purchase only model you might be as much as several years out of date.

Adobe has effectively moved over to a continuous improvement production environment.

Exactly. This is going to be a lot more efficient for them and it's going to provide their customers with much better software.

I do think Adobe's prices are higher than they need to be. Of course, I thought their software was priced higher than need be when it was for purchase too. I don't think it's overly expensive, but this new model is pushing the price of software down in general, though not for Adobe. The thing is people will clearly pay the prices they set now so why wouldn't they charge those prices. If people don't sign up for subscriptions in the numbers they want the price will come down. I don't expect that to happen any time soon though.

nealrm

01-31-2014, 09:50 AM

Harold Mansfield

01-31-2014, 10:12 AM

I don't understand where you get the $200-300 per month figure. Adobe cost me $49.99 per month or $550 per year.

I'm speaking of the subscription model in general, and how combined with services you are already using those little monthly payments start to add up.
It's much easier for me when you have the option of paying for the year rather than little payments every month.

Freelancier

01-31-2014, 10:15 AM

t's much easier for me when you have the option of paying for the year rather than little payments every month.

Yeah, I can see how that would force a small business to get more consistent with their monthly cash flow or lose their subscription. That's definitely a negative for a freelancer just starting out.

nealrm

01-31-2014, 10:17 AM

I can understand that. I'll most likely go with the year subscription next time. For the CC package its $550 instead of 12 payments of 49.99. It's $50 cheaper to do the annual.

cbscreative

01-31-2014, 12:17 PM

If you upgraded every year. It wasn't always that way, but over the last year or two before they switched to subscriptions you had to upgrade to every version between the one you had and the one you wanted, which meant you were paying full price unless you upgraded every version.

That's only true if you were too many versions back. Adobe typically allowed 3-4 versions, possibly more. Put another way, CS5.5 could be installed with an Upgrade version at least back to CS3, it may have been even further back since I don't recall the specifics but I know for sure it went back at least to 3. Ironically, it was the same Upgrade price whether you were upgrading from CS3 or CS5. Only with CS6 did they change that where you could upgrade from CS5.5 for $375 (Premium version price) and any other qualifying earlier version was $950 for the Upgrade. Prior to that, Upgrade versions were $600 to $700 regardless of which version you were upgrading from.

On neal's point about bugs, I've been using Adobe products for many years and never experienced a bug. That doesn't mean they didn't exist or the auto patches they dispense when you launch the program didn't correct them, I'm just saying my user experience has never been bad. I've not always liked every change they made, like 20 year familiar behaviors suddenly changing unnecessarily, but that's far from being a bug.

I don't think waiting for new versions and changes is a bad thing at all. Sometimes it's almost like relearning the software when you upgrade. Upgrading manually allows you to expect a small learning curve. I'm not so sure I want something that could be changed on the fly just because I fired it up one day and it's different the next. I know it won't be that extreme and I may very well like the changes, but I'm okay with making those decisions for myself with manual upgrades.

nealrm

01-31-2014, 01:56 PM

I don't think waiting for new versions and changes is a bad thing at all. Sometimes it's almost like relearning the software when you upgrade. Upgrading manually allows you to expect a small learning curve. I'm not so sure I want something that could be changed on the fly just because I fired it up one day and it's different the next. I know it won't be that extreme and I may very well like the changes, but I'm okay with making those decisions for myself with manual upgrades.

Adobe CC notifies you of the upgrade, but doesn't force it. You have to manually do the upgrade.

billbenson

01-31-2014, 04:26 PM

cbscreative

01-31-2014, 07:00 PM

I know Adobe has a number of unique and quality products but does DreamWeaver really speed up your design time? It seems to me like people who do web design every day would be just as comfortable in code and a code editor, many of which are free. In fact I know a number of people that design this way.

In fact if part of your coding is in php or another script language, does Dreamweaver help you with that? I know it handles CSS pretty well these days.

As a DW user I'll offer my take on that. I like DW but wasn't too crazy about it prior to CS3. I work primarily with code so I do my work in the code pane and the design pane serves little other purpose than a quick way to get to where I need to be in the code I wish to add or edit. In that sense, it is faster than a plain code editor and anyone preferring a code editor has no reason not to like DW. It offers all the advantages of a code editor with plenty of bonuses

There are some very useful tools for troubleshooting if something isn't behaving as planned. You can drill down into all related code for anything on a page and instantly see all the relationships. That can be very useful if you experience cascading issues with your CSS. There are visual cues using the design pane for padding, margins, and other elements otherwise invisible. This can help you identify conflicts that might require a time consuming hunt cross examining code to find the problem.

It has a good inventory of shortcut keys for quickly adding tags and attributes can be entered easily by just typing one or two letters. Some people find the code hints annoying but they can be turned off. I like them because I can usually fill in all the attributes with just a few keystrokes. DW is intelligent as well as intuitive. A very common task is adding image tags. Once I enter the file name DW instantly knows the dimensions of the image. Then all I have to do is hit Space W Enter, Space H Enter and in a fraction of a second the width and height attributes are done.

A feature introduced in CS4 that I really like is any web page you open automatically adds a secondary tab line for related files. This is highly valuable for tasks like editing the CSS because you don't have to open the file manually. Since DW is fully up to speed on HTML5 and CSS3, coding is fast and even validation is built in. DW used to be horrible at standards compliant code, incapable is a more accurate statement, but they resolved that years ago. There is definitely a good arsenal of tools that make web design both easier and faster. Many of the functions could be achieved using alternate methods, but it's definitely nice to have them all in one vehicle.

The good news for CC rebels like me is the need to update DW won't be an issue until code standards change significantly and even then, the main thing missing will be built in validation. You can still code manually any way you want and a web page file doesn't care what version of DW you're working in. A web page created in CS6 would open in a 14 year old version of DW MX (not recommended but doable).

PHP is not a strong suit for DW though. You can use it for PHP and it is programmed in, including code hints and libraries, but DW isn't the program of choice for most PHP developers. With that said, the last couple of versions were enhanced to integrate nicely with WordPress. You can easily do WP development once you set it up correctly.

vangogh

02-04-2014, 12:46 AM

Adobe typically allowed 3-4 versions, possibly more

That's how it used to be, but Adobe changed to having to upgrade every version a year or two before they went membership. Maybe it was just the last year when they were offering both the upgrade and the membership

I know Adobe has a number of unique and quality products but does DreamWeaver really speed up your design time

I can only share my experience. I built one site using Dreamweaver and after finishing thought there had to be a better way. I've been hand coding all my sites every since. I think it's much faster and gives you more control over the output and since you're working with code all the time, I think it leads to a greater understanding of the code. I know DW improved over the years since I used it, but I still never wanted to go back.

Having said that I think you're going to see more tools that aim to do what DW aims to do in that they let you design a site visually and have the tool produce the code. There's one called Macaw (http://macaw.co/) that's still in beta. There's a video on the other side of that link. It's about 20 minutes long and will show you what the developers have planned for Macaw. Again it's not out yet, though I think it should be before too long. I think a tool like this will gain traction with designers and developers. The knock against DW has always been the code it produces. Macaw looks like it produces some pretty good code, though I still think getting in there and working the code yourself will ultimately produce the best results. What I'd like to see a tool like Macaw provide something where people can tweak the code that gets output. I don't mean after the tool produces it, but before it does. The tool is always going to write code the way it's been programmed to. I'd like to see it get the option so the person using it could program it to write the kind of code they want it to write.

cbscreative

02-04-2014, 12:37 PM

I guess I missed the change in Adobe policy over the transition. I recall when CC was first released you could upgrade at least back from CS3 with the $950 option but I guess they later pulled that option.

The knock against DW has always been the code it produces.

That for sure used to be true and may still have an element of truth to it. I do know in recent years they became standards compliant but earlier versions were horrendous. Since I don't have any experience with letting DW produce code I can't say for sure what will happen. I can say the "templates" included in the built in library are decently written. They're deliberately bare bones for customizing any way you want.

As much as I now favor of DW since they steadily improved from CS3 on up, I would have a very tough time justifying the purchase of DW by itself. The fact that it was included in most Premium Suites no doubt sustained the program. I do agree that an alternative will probably go over very well in the market; DW popularity is marginal at best. Many web people have a similar experience to vangogh. Having tried earlier versions, they never came back (had it not been in my CS3 Suite I wouldn't have bothered trying it again either). That sentiment is very strong in the market even though the product has been greatly improved.

If I had to predict which Adobe program is the most vulnerable, I'd have to pick DW. Right now though, every Adobe alternative has a high level of interest among design professionals. No matter whether you like the CC model or hate it, one thing is for sure, Adobe has never managed to get so many of their loyal users to even consider alternatives until now. Many CC users reluctantly switched even admitting they felt strong armed (but had to upgrade for various reasons) and us holdouts are wondering if we'll eventually be forced to get on board with CC out of necessity. Any viable alternatives have a gift market from Adobe ready and waiting. The next few years will be very interesting.

vangogh

02-04-2014, 03:00 PM

The way you described the upgrades was exactly how it used to be, but then they changed it. I forget exactly when, but I think it was around the same time CC became available as an option. Just before they moved everything to CC they did give you an option to upgrade to any CS6 version of software from a few versions back, but prior to that you had to upgrade to each version in succession.

I can't speak for the code DW now produces. I'm pretty sure it's gotten better over the years, but I'd bet it's still not the greatest. I don't know if DW will go away, but Adobe is working on the Edge Tools (http://html.adobe.com/edge/) that could end up replacing it.

billbenson

02-04-2014, 04:08 PM

On the DW code issue, I learned to code on DW4 if I remember correctly. About 2002. It was great for designing something in the editor and then seeing what it did in code view. Most of what I do is php, not web design so I could never justify DW on it's own.

cbscreative

02-04-2014, 11:16 PM

I can't speak for all the upgrades since my needs at the time of each release were different than the faithful Adobe user, but I do recall the CS3 upgrade policies quite specifically at the time I upgraded. When CS3 came out, the most recent Adobe Suite was CS2 and the most recent Macromedia Suite was MM8. I had MM7 and recall with certainty that I could upgrade to CS3 even without being at MM8. I'm pretty sure even CS was upgradeable which makes sense since MM was at least 2 versions back.

My reason at the time for buying the full version instead of the Upgrade was because I was working on 3+ computers and Adobe licensing only allowed for 2 computers. Had I been confident to restrict my usage to only 2 computers, I know for a fact that I could have upgraded my MM7 to CS3 which was a 2 version upgrade. My recollection of the requirement to upgrade EVERY version is different from what vangogh stated. I'm not saying he is wrong, only that the previous policy is unclear which makes one of us wrong. I may have exercised overkill on my own upgrading, but only because of concerns on how many copies of the programs I would be using simultaneously. Had I been upgrading on one computer only, it would have been easier to keep track of the upgrade policies.

vangogh

02-05-2014, 01:19 AM

I think it was CS5 or 5.5 where they changed the policy. Many people like and you and me didn't upgrade often enough and Adobe didn't want to provide the upgrade pricing over multiple versions. I had CS4 and when CS6 initially came out they wanted me to upgrade to CS5, then CS5.5, before CS6. My memory might be off a bit. it might have been when CS5.5 was out and they wanted me to upgrade to CS5 first.

The last year you could buy the software they did let you upgrade to CS6 from CS4 for $199. I meant to do that before the option went away, but I forgot.

It was great for designing something in the editor and then seeing what it did in code view.

I think the best way to learn to write code is to just write code. The thing about relying on DW to get you started is you assume it's outputting good code. DW could be spitting out poor code and teaching you poor habits. I don't think it puts out bad code anymore by the way. It used to, but somewhere along the way the code got a lot better. I think the general approach is better at teaching you how to tweak code than writing it from scratch. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think when you rely on the tool too much there are certain problems you may not know how to solve because you've never had to before.

That said I don't think there's anything wrong with using tools like DW. We all rely on tools to do some things. Even hand coders make use of libraries or frameworks created by other people. I think I mentioned in an earlier post that I expect to see more visual tools hitting the market and more designers making use of them. The main problem with the WYSIWYG editors in the past was the code they put out, but I think the situation has improved significantly over the years.

cbscreative

02-05-2014, 05:09 PM

It appears the transition between CS6 and CC had Adobe shuffling their upgrade policies very frequently because I know for a fact that they are very different now than when CS6 was first introduced, and what you described was very different from both so there's no telling how many times they changed it unless you were keeping records or have access to Adobe's records. I'm on Adobe's mailing list and recall the upgrade policies quite vividly when CS6 was first released. It wasn't too long after I had purchased CS5.5.

I bought the full version of 5.5 for my new computer so CS3 could be used on other computers. Two of my kids needed it for school to avoid having to use computer labs. I actually considered upgrading the CS3 to CS6 Web and Design Premium which is why I know for sure I could have for $950 at the time. My CS5.5 was only $375 for the Upgrade version to CS6. It was sometime later the option to upgrade from older versions disappeared. I guess maybe I should have upgraded but then again, the usage of Adobe on the other computers is fairly low and I only have my son still in school.