Adobe

[Dan Hintz]

• It is VERY expensive to do what is referred to in the software business as monolithic updates. The testing, training, documentation and localization (translating into all the languages the software is available in) tasks are monumentally large, especially for programs as mature and complex as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. These updates are large and have to have a market-acceptable number of new features and improvements in them, because...

• People won't pay for them otherwise.

I won't dissect every item, but this particular one is a real sticking point for me. The idea that people won't pay for a small "upgrade" (bug fix?) is certainly true, but the real problem is it leads to the tail wagging the dog. Scenario (I put it in quotes for clarity):

Company ships product with a boatload of bugs (sound familiar?). No one will pay for a bug update, but the company cannot survive the next quarter without an influx of money. It will take longer than the quarter to fix all of the bugs, so what does it do? Company fixes a few bugs and writes some easy-to-implement features... and this is where it gets fun. Because the patch includes new features, they can call it an "upgrade", which means they can charge money for it. Financial problem solved.

I will pay for a good feature add. I do not wish to pay for a bug fix. I want to know my up-front cost for a product, and I want to have the option of using it in perpetuity. Moving to a fee-based model removes all of that. Renting software is not a good long-term plan, IMO. It also forces me into a situation where I'm in a constant ping pong battle of feature upgrades and bug fixes for previously added features I may not have needed/wanted. Stability, as I mentioned before, is what I want.

[Doug Ladendorf]

What looks like another issue for corporate is that software hits the "expense" line and can be depreciated. This subscription model makes it a "cost" which is more expensive dollar for dollar.

That their key client base from the poll mentioned does not like this pricing scheme makes it clear that Adobe is focused on stock holders rather than clients.

[Scott Shepherd]

If history is any indication, the polls don't matter to them.

Having said all this, I can't wait for the next version of Photoshop in June. It's finally going to have the camera shake tool, which will take a photo that is blurry from camera shake and make it clear. That's going to be a feature I'll use all the time. No more dealing with blurry photos! Hooorayyy!

[Mike Troncalli]

I don't use Adobe, I use Corel 5 so my position on this may not mean much. However.... I have a dedicated PC for my laser which is rarely attached to the internet. I need my PC to do one thing... Run the laser, not poll the internet for MS upgrades, Java upgrades, Adobe upgrades, etc... About once a week or so I connect so that I can check for updates, back up files, etc... That's fine, just not while I am trying to run my laser... So having to keep my machine hooked up to the internet does not work for me.

Dan Heinz had a very good point when he said he wanted bug fixes NOT upgrades that he may not use..

There are literally thousands of Adobe users who do this as just a hobby and just are not going to be willing to pay a monthly fee. In my business, engraving is just a part of what we do, so NO.. I REFUSE TO PAY A MONTHLY FEE TO USE YOUR SERVICE... Way too many alternative options out there for me... Oh and MicroSoft.. If you are listening ??? I will NEVER upgrade to MS Office 2013 to pay your monthly fee either... I will switch to open source (Libreoffice).... Wow.. sorry... got myself all worked up... Need to go burn some holes through something to calm down...

[Scott Shepherd]

There's a interesting article about it all posted on engadget, here :

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/09/a...ive-or-cloudy/

[Ruben Salcedo]

Scott,

the camera shake tool is a great addition, another one I'm wishing I have right know is to be able to use camera raw as a filter in separate (independent) layers... this features is going to be great also.

Ruben

[Chuck Stone]

The bottom line for me is the huge cost increase versus owning your own software.

This is why the move surprises me. They're watching and reading, but they seem to be ignoring
the complaints. Single product users don't benefit from this, although the power users might.
They say it costs less, but when you factor in the hardware upgrades to keep up with the
software, I doubt it. (and why else would you need to upgrade your hardware if it already
works for you?)

Photoshop is the industry standard for photos now, and has been for a while. But it wasn't
always. It took them a while to get there.. buying up the competition and then shelving the
products. (PhotoStyler, anyone?) but they still have competition in still image editing and
I think this move might be all the motivation creative programmers would need to come
up with more alternatives. Then what .. adobe sues them out of existence?

[Martin Boekers]

I wonder if there will be different Tax issues/benefits in effect you will be leasing instead of purchasing.......

[Mike Troncalli]

I wonder if there will be different Tax issues/benefits in effect you will be leasing instead of purchasing.......

Can be.. If you are a large company who would purchase say 1000 licenses then most likely yes. You would take that as a depreciable capital expense. But if you are just "leasing" the software then no it would be expensed and taxed a different way. NOTE - Tax experts please correct me if I am wrong...

[Jim Dawson]

2 things....

1) perpetual licenses are a myth.... one day your machine quits running and that old version you have needs updated for a new computer.

2) adobe is getting ready to release a $10.00 photoshop only version, and also a " photographers " suite for $19.99


That being said, we are on the $79.99 per seat plan and have 3 seats. We get collaboration tools and 100 gigs of online storage.

I seriously can't imagine going back...

[Ruben Salcedo]

Jim,

I totally agree with you.

and for the hobbyist or occasional user always there is going to be the option of Photoshop Elements that already have like 90% of the features of the professional version.

Ruben

[Joe Hillmann]

If your computer quits working you can always buy a new one and install an older operating system on it. (like when vista came out, many people tried it and went back to xp)

Even at only $10 a month that adds up to $120 a year. Before they switched to subscriptions how much did just photoshop cost?

[Ernie Balch]

Agree, I don't need to buy photoshop ever again. Photoshop elements is low cost and Corel photo paint is amazingly powerful and completely adequate for our sign, T-shirt and engraving work. I totally ignored Corel Photopaint until I found the AdvancedTshirts website. Their free training videos opened a whole new array of production tricks. I bought the advanced training package and found out how to prepare artwork much faster.

Jim,

I totally agree with you.

and for the hobbyist or occasional user always there is going to be the option of Photoshop Elements that already have like 90% of the features of the professional version.

Ruben

[Martin Boekers]

Sooo now they are going to have 2 versions of PS? That I hadn't heard yet. Is this the regular pricing or the special 1st year pricing to upgrade from CS6.

Yes it's a good deal for those at the upper usage, but those in the middle or lower end it gets costly.....

[Lee DeRaud]

Agree, I don't need to buy photoshop ever again. Photoshop elements is low cost and Corel photo paint is amazingly powerful and completely adequate for our sign, T-shirt and engraving work.

My (admittedly minimal) "Photoshop envy" completely went away the day I discovered that PhotoPaint would run Photoshop plug-ins. Of course, I've now probably spent as much on plug-ins as a copy of PS goes for, but that's a separate problem.