Previous news story    Next news story

Adobe faces criticism for change of upgrade policy

By dpreview staff on Nov 22, 2011 at 21:53 GMT

Photoshop trainer and author Scott Kelby has published an ‘open letter’ to Adobe requesting it re-thinks its product upgrade policy. The company, in a recent blog post about its ‘Creative Cloud’ online computing service, revealed that it will only allow owners of the most recent versions of Photoshop and Creative Suite to upgrade to the CS6 versions, when they become available. This moves away from its traditional position of allowing owners of the previous three versions a discounted upgrade. The company is offering a 20% discount for these owners to bring themselves up-to-date in time for the policy change.

The move, seemingly aimed at encouraging users to move to the monthly license for the cloud service, rather than buying a ‘perpetual license,’ will mean owners of Photoshop CS3 who might have expected to have the option of upgrading to CS6 will now have to first pay $159/£127/€199 (ex. tax) to move to version CS5. Users of the comprehensive ‘Creative Suite Master Collection CS3’ will face a rather more daunting $1,119/£985/€1279 (ex. tax) bill to put themselves in the position to receive a discounted upgrade to the CS6 version. Kelby’s letter acknowledges there may be a business case for the change in policy but asks Adobe to delay the policy change until CS7, so that users have more time to make an informed decision about their upgrade options. The 20% discount on upgrade prices is valid until December 31st 2011.

Comments

Total comments: 398
1234
CollBaxter
By CollBaxter (Nov 23, 2011)

I abandoned Adobe after CS2 as I found I was not using a lot of the features anyway , I moved to PSP and AcdSee Pro (now ver 5) I find for my needs they work extremely well as I can use most of the adobe plug-ins in PSP. The lighting features in AcdSee are very good and so is the raw conversion also excellent for quick edits. The downside (there is always one) is that Corel are very slow to fix bugs and this can be a bind as the new release often has bugs. (PSP) There also seems to be a yearly release. But the upgrade path is cheap. However I got ver. 5 upgrade for AcdSee Pro for $29 with the site retail price being $230 for the package. You have to wait and not jump at the first upgrade price as you will receive an upgrade voucher in your mail for the lesser price. Corel are still holding firm on the upgrade price but I will not upgrade until the first update.

2 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe indesign only took hold because quark got so nasty with their upgrade policy on xpress. If adobe follow this path it won't be long before something else wins out. Nothing is unreplaceable. The market will speak.

1 upvote
Brek01
By Brek01 (Nov 23, 2011)

Speaking for myself, I am happy with CS3, it does all I need it to do, so I am not upgrading to any new version anytime soon, which means no revenue for adobe, so I guess I see why they are doing it.

0 upvotes
sigala1
By sigala1 (Nov 23, 2011)

The problem is that CS3 does NOT directly support RAW files from cameras from the last 3 years, and even when you convert the RAW file to DNG, CS3 will only use an old DNG format which is missing some stuff--it doesn't work well with the new Olympus cameras, I had to updgrade to CS5.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 23, 2011)

That's how Adobe "gets" photographers by not making ACR available for anything but the latest version of PS. And Lightroom won't work with latest cameras, even up-to-date LR, if your ACR is not the latest.

1 upvote
Atlasman
By Atlasman (Nov 23, 2011)

I currently use CS5.5 and if this policy plays out, it will be the last upgrade I make.

2 upvotes
John Bean (UK)
By John Bean (UK) (Nov 23, 2011)

"And Lightroom won't work with latest cameras, even up-to-date LR, if your ACR is not the latest."

Nonsense. I use a current LR with current cameras but have never upgraded PS from CS2. There is absolutely no requirement to upgrade PS/ACR unless you need to open the raw files directly in PS rather than LR.

1 upvote
Vallkar
By Vallkar (Nov 23, 2011)

I have never used PS for converting RAW files, Lightroom does a better job. For me there is nothing to beat CaptureOne

0 upvotes
sigala1
By sigala1 (Nov 23, 2011)

I already had CS3, so it was around the same price to upgrade to CS5 than to buy Lightroom. And I tried the demo of Lightroom, it's just a different interface around ACR, and I'm not a professional photographer so I had no use for the fancy database. Bridge works fine for my purposes.

But yes, a cheaper way around the ACR problelm is to buy and update Lightroom; the Lightroom updates are half the price of the Photoshop udpates.

0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (Nov 23, 2011)

A very well-made comment by 'Marian' on the Adobe forum;

"The problem with Adobe is that they have created applications that are already top notch and cannot be improved much. In the absence of providing actual value-added products that drive consumers to purchase, Adobe is pushing the subscription and limited upgrade eligibility."

And this says it it all.

2 upvotes
AvanGarde
By AvanGarde (Nov 23, 2011)

It could be improved a lot

- PS ancient filters sucks, they have vintage,small and uncomfortable editing windows
- customization is very limited in Photoshop yet they add more and more tools cluttering UI
- even such silly thing like brush resize is vintage in Photoshop you need to right click and use some ancient slider

etc etc Photoshop is fill of legacy stuff they could improve a lot instead every 'upgrade' gives very little or nothing

2 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Nov 23, 2011)

Do you still resize with the slider? That's so vintage! Use the keyboard, almost everyone use the keyboard not the slider, much faster.

1 upvote
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Nov 23, 2011)

like it or not..adobe photoshop is the gold standard in photo editing..

they are a little expensive, thats true..but it is funny to say that this or that software is better or so..you get what you pay for.

sofar i managed always to get good deals on photoshop especially from ebay or amazon when stores lower the prices for an upgrade

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (Nov 23, 2011)

You certainly get what you pay for. But forcing people to upgrade or they are left behind is serious bad policy.

4 upvotes
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Nov 23, 2011)

yes i agree with you..its a very bad policy by adobe and it has to be changed

3 upvotes
Hauer
By Hauer (Nov 23, 2011)

Folks there are plenty of alternative programmes out there that amply do the job and cost a lot cheaper. Typical attitude when a Company gets too much market share... they become arrogant and over-confident!

1 upvote
Danny
By Danny (Nov 23, 2011)

Well, yes and no, if you need to work in the CMYK color space it's going to be very hard to find an alternative. Also, PS filters like 'Liquify', which I use a lot, it difficult to find in alternatives. For RGB work the alternatives have a lot to offer.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
disraeli demon
By disraeli demon (Nov 23, 2011)

The real problem is that no-one else out there is so far offering a reliable alternative for those of us who need CMYK processing - I use a number of graphics apps for the bulk of my work but Photoshop is the "hub" that lets me convert everything to CMYK, add colour profiles, etc.

Otherwise, I'd downgrade to elements and pay £80-odd to upgrade every couple of years.

The annoying thing is, for my professional needs, they perfected Photoshop in about 2003 - so I really only want to be upgrading if there's a compatibility issue with new hardware or OS.

Also, pulling this trick with Illustrator is particularly galling since Adobe bought out and discontinued its only serious rival, Macromedia Freehand, a couple of years ago.

4 upvotes
Klindar
By Klindar (Nov 24, 2011)

For me there is an alternative to Adobe and it's Paintshop Pro X4. I have used both products for years and Adobe (CS5) exclusively for the last two because of full 48 bit image support. Paintshop now supports 48 bit images for practically everything. I find it a superior product in almost every respect. A license for three machines is under $100. Only one photographic function now does not work with 48 bit images but I found a free plug-in that does the job perfectly.

My uses are strictly photo editing/enhancement. I have a couple of other products for printing and auxilliary functions where PSP is still a bit weak. That's no issue for me at all in terms of workflow. My total icense cost for four machines is still less than 5% what it would be if I were staying with Adobe and I have all the functionality.

Far too many photogs think they *need* Photoshop when they do not, based on actual use. Much of Photoshop's popularity has to do with hype and name recognition.

FWIW,
JH

0 upvotes
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Nov 23, 2011)

It's less than a couple of hundred $ every two years or thereabouts for PS, the only Adobe product I care about (other than Premiere Elements) - less than the greens fee at a decent golf course for one round. No biggie. I upgrade every time anyway. This is practically a giveaway compared to Microsoft who won't even provide an upgrade path beyond the last generation of their OS - at any price. Anybody with XP, for example, has to reformat their HD to install Win7. I like Kelby's idea but Adobe should have put out the warning right after the release of CS5.

0 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 23, 2011)

I bet you're in the US, right?

The upgrade prices in the rest of the world are a little out of whack compoared to what you pay.

This is one reason why I have in the past missed several 'upgrades', the bang for buck (or euro) is less compelling.

5 upvotes
photoPLPL
By photoPLPL (Nov 23, 2011)

European customers are being discriminated by PS's price structure. I wonder why!! Or we are more stupid and ready to pay whatever price they ask for.

4 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 23, 2011)

I upgraded to CS5 from CS2 earlier this year, simply because I wanted native support for my Intel Mac Pro and to extend the perpetual license beyond CS5. I'm glad that Adobe's definition of 'latest release' doesn't stop at the more recent point version.

However, I find Adobe's GUI to be ugly and unintuitive. Why do they think they know better than other software developers that use the default OS UI paradigms? Oh, and add to that the fact that Adobe didn't fix the installer problem that leaves my installation non-updatable!

Increasingly, Adobe's software is clunky and bloated compared to what I need. I would love Pixelmator to become a real alternative. Add an alternative to Illustrator and I'll happily say "goodbye Adobe"!

1 upvote
Danny
By Danny (Nov 23, 2011)

I heard nice things about the Illustrator alternative 'Inkscape'.
And as far as Illustrator goes, I loved Macromedia's Freehand, it worked so much more pleasant than Illustrator. Unfortunately it's discontinued.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 23, 2011)

Unfortunately, Inkscape is only available under X11 on OS X, and I prefer native apps (X11 scares me).

Freehand was discontinued by ... Adobe!

0 upvotes
JPR.lda
By JPR.lda (Nov 23, 2011)

It's always a problem when companies dominate the market. I never use DNG, because I don't want to be forced to upgrade at Adobe will.

4 upvotes
jhmaw
By jhmaw (Nov 23, 2011)

This seems like pure greed on the part of Adobe. Once people are locked in to buying every upgrade, all Adobe has to do is make upgrades more and more often to increase the number of times they put their hands in your pocket.

11 upvotes
NigelMoore
By NigelMoore (Nov 23, 2011)

The new cloud subscription model is different though. Now they can dip their hands in you pocket whether or not the upgrades are worth it, and no matter how (in)frequent they are.

1 upvote
Pierre Courtejoie
By Pierre Courtejoie (Nov 23, 2011)

I think that @Adobe should answer two legitimate questions that I tweeted them, and it might ease a lof of the FUD going on right now:
When there is a new CS release officially announced, there is often a grace period that allows to upgrade to the previous version, but get the new version. (http://prodesigntools.com/grace-period-free-upgrades-adobe-cs5-5.html)
It is not clear in their linked blog post if that grace period will exist, and what will be the conditions.

Also, there does not seem to be an upgrade path for existing Creative Suite "perpetual license" users to the creative cloud renting option.

1 upvote
Bob from Plymouth
By Bob from Plymouth (Nov 23, 2011)

Don't talk to me about Adobe upgrades. I'm still smarting from my experience a couple of years ago when I upgraded to OSX on my Mac and Photoshop stopped working. I then had to spend another sackful of money which I hadn't bargained for on CS4.

3 upvotes
Danny
By Danny (Nov 23, 2011)

I just found Pixelmator which seems a very nice program, but lacks CMYK. And that's a bummer, because as a Photoshop user I need to work with CMYK. I work with Photoshop since version 3, and after many years I am now on CS3. Basically, Photoshop is already more or less 'finished', it's core elements and basic functionality has been around for a long time. Every new upgrade felt like a little bit more of extra this-or-that, but who needs the last new upgrades anyway? I am professionally working with this stuff for years and I am more than fine with CS3, and to be honest, I was happy with much earlier versions as well. The software is ready, perhaps never completely finished, but it is a car with 4 wheels and can drive pretty decent. I don't need a new bumper or dashboard every 2 years, and certainly not at the amount of money and RUSH Adobe is forcing on it's users. It's a shame.

2 upvotes
Dabbler
By Dabbler (Nov 23, 2011)

Too bad Pixelmator is OS X only. I run Windows 7 for all my pp work and would love to pay $24 US for such a feature laden product. .

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Nov 24, 2011)

Pixelmator is also 8-bit limited.

0 upvotes
Andrew Butterfield
By Andrew Butterfield (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe just don't want us to buy their products. That's why, when I couldn't upgrade ACR to a newer version for my new camera (because I only have CS3) I switched wholesale to Aperture, which is vastly cheaper, and, dare I say, better than Lightroom. If Apple could produce InDesign and Illustrator killers, that would be the end of Adobe for me.

1 upvote
ksgant
By ksgant (Nov 23, 2011)

While I applaud the work people have been putting into GIMP, it's just not an alternative to Photoshop. I have to rely on Photoshop as my main source of income, and since I work on it 9 to 10 hours a day, it's become an extension of my arm. No way could GIMP do half the things I need it to do.

I also don't see GIMP ever getting past PS. I mean, it's been around since 1996...GIMP has had 15 years now to surpass Photoshop in terms of usability and user base (which is important when working in a workflow environment and exchanging files between clients). It's always "one day this will be great" type of thing. Sorry, some of us have a lot of work to do and can't wait for that day. I DO want there to be a viable alternative to Photoshop because I don't like Adobe's practices and how they've steered PS, but GIMP isn't that alternative. It's been 15 years of "just wait until the next version!".

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
kneops
By kneops (Nov 23, 2011)

I understand what you're saying, but I too work with GIMP for many hours a day and have no problem with it, even with the current version. And they had 15 years, but 15 years with a lot less money and less hours and fewer people. In the end it doesn't matter which software you use, as long as it suites your needs and you're used to it. In the beginning I had trouble getting used to GIMP because in some ways it works so differently from PS, but now I enjoy working with it and hate it when I have to sit behind a pc (or mac!) and work with PS. ;)

3 upvotes
kneops
By kneops (Nov 23, 2011)

PS is too expensive, I completely agree. The argument that if you're a professional a few hundred bucks don't mind is not a good argument. The same way you cold state that 300 bucks is not much a penalty if you drive too fast. If you're rich enough. And besides that, PS 7 is as complete as it could get for most uses.

But, dont't forget GIMP as an alternative. It misses a few things, but a lot will get better and fater with the upcoming version 2.8. I'm a professional photographer working only with Ubuntu Linux and open source software and haven't missed PS a bit the last five years.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Nov 23, 2011)

A few hundred? It costs NZ$1,600 here!!

0 upvotes
Fixx
By Fixx (Nov 23, 2011)

CS5 (and even CS3) is so good software package that many users just do not upgrade. Why bother when everything works and it would cost arm & leg. When OS does not support old CS anymore, then users will buy a new licence (if there is such thing available anymore, that reservation has to be made..).
As for using some other sw... there is not really any competition if you use it professionally. And I do not think we will see any for a long time.

1 upvote
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (Nov 23, 2011)

Result of Monopoly or bloated ego ??

4 upvotes
Oery
By Oery (Nov 23, 2011)

greed, has become CEO prerequirement

3 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Nov 23, 2011)

Protip: Monopoly does not mean "I don't like the prices they charge"

0 upvotes
JohnnyWashngo
By JohnnyWashngo (Nov 23, 2011)

Maybe they need to learn not to bite the hand that feeds?

If more people decided to try competing software for image manipulation, Adobe may realise that they have to work harder to make a sale and not just depend on upgrades from long time users.

Personally, I haven't used photoshop since I left university and switch to desktop Linux full time. Its pretty much RawThereapee, The Gimp and Cinepaint for me these days. I find them more than adequate for my needs.

0 upvotes
AvanGarde
By AvanGarde (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe has practically monopoly on Windows platform for graphics editing and this is what you get for supporting monopoly - kick in the butt.

Expect it to get worse and more restricting in the future they will milk the cow dry.Though it may backfire for Adobe and less people may be willing to upgrade.

1 upvote
OneGuy
By OneGuy (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe is a monopoly. What makes it worse is their business with the govt. I had nothing but difficulties with their Acrobat because the upgrades did not fix the problems I had (a publishing application). Paying good money for a product and for upgrades without getting what's promised on the package is fraud.
I do not use Adobe. When I have to, such as when filling out a pdf form on the web, I always get some error. It's uncanny -- Adobe doesn't like me just as much.
I resolved a long time ago I would not use Adobe for anything and search for alternatives.
Cheers,

1 upvote
cfh25
By cfh25 (Nov 23, 2011)

Different upgrade prices depending on your current version - can't be that complicated

0 upvotes
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 23, 2011)

Why so much whining & crying ?

If you are a pro a few hundred bucks don't matter.
If you are a hobby shooter, why the hell do you need PS at all ?

2 upvotes
seahawk
By seahawk (Nov 23, 2011)

Well, if they want to down that route, than maybe it is time to think of a "home and student" non commerical version for a reduced price, like MS is selling for MS Office.

2 upvotes
Albino_BlacMan
By Albino_BlacMan (Nov 23, 2011)

This actually makes alot of sense. I like this response. One thing though... If they make a home/student version how much difference will there be between element/home/full pro?

0 upvotes
seahawk
By seahawk (Nov 23, 2011)

MS takes away some software from their home and student version. It misses Access, Outlook, Publisher and only comes with OneNote, PowerPoint, Excel and Word. And it puts a note in the files, that it is not for commercial use.But as far as I can tell it sells well.I knew many people who used illegal copies of Office, but since Home+Student is there, few take the risk.
Adobe could also remove a few minor features. Like remove Bridge and limit the use use of Lab and CMYK color modes (if you use it it puts a small watermark in the graphic "Home+Student Editon not for commercial use"). I think that would work.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Nov 23, 2011)

This is interesting because as far as I can tell, Scott Kelby and Adobe are joined at the hip. It never occurred to me that a magazine like Photoshop User could be published with out some kind of subsidy.

I've always thought Adobe had their pricing backwards. Given the ease of use and functionality, Photoshop Elements should cost $499 and Photoshop 5.5 should sell for $49. Either way, I suspect that most photographers who are not graphic artists can, and do get 95% of what they need from Lightroom.

1 upvote
MPA1
By MPA1 (Nov 23, 2011)

If only it sold for a mere $499!

The NZ price is $1600!

0 upvotes
macaddict
By macaddict (Nov 23, 2011)

One reason Adobe is a standard is that there is so much support for its products- Kelby's partly responsible for this. Kelby Training has only minimal training for Aperture, but loads of Lightroom material. If Kelby would put even half the amount of effort he puts into LR and PS into Aperture, Pixelmator etc. many would feel that there are true options out there. Without training in the forms of books, videos, etc., other programs are crippled.

2 upvotes
Scotsloon
By Scotsloon (Nov 23, 2011)

Why Photoshop at all - it is a clunky old fashioned program, powerful beyond the needs of amateurs and terribly expensive.
When I am told it cannot be dethroned as it is "the standard", I like to remind people of VisiCalc. Lotus loosing to Excel, to say nothing of Wordstar, MultiMate, Word Perfect loosing to MS Word. All of these OWNED markets, but became "fat and happy" and lost touch with their customers and are now forgotten.
It is time Adobe looked in the crystal ball and did a major rethink or they will just be a piece of history.

2 upvotes
Aleksandr Pishchik
By Aleksandr Pishchik (Nov 23, 2011)

There is Corel PaintShop Pro X4 for $39 and it has most features of PS5

0 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 23, 2011)

Paintshop Pro has been my graphics tool of choice since its inception (as a DOS program, long before Windows came to light).
I have played with Photo Shop many times, with different versions, from its first one to CS5. I simply hated it.

I'll stick with PSP, and the update to the new version is $29.

PSP is very powerful, in my humble opinion.
What made Adobe P S so popular is that in its very early days (early 1990's), when not many people knew how to use the computer (in the DOS days), especially pro photographers, P S came out with simply big icons. Load the image, click this icon to fix brightness, this icon for contrast, this icon to crop, ..., etc.
It was a matter of click, click, done.

These people got stuck with P S simply because they didn't know there was something better out there, like JASC PaintShop Pro!
But PSP in those days was aimed at people who knew how to use computers, and was not as easy to use for people without computer experience.
Corel PSP gives 30-day trial

0 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 23, 2011)

I should add that I am not affiliated with Corel in any way, shape, or form.
I'm simply a long-term user of PSP, and it's my favorite graphics processing program, with tons of filters, plug-ins, 3rd party add-ons, etc.
The fully functional 30-day trial might be of some interest to many, who are sick and tired of paying Adobe's ridiculous and outrageous prices.
===========

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Nov 23, 2011)

CorelPaintshop is real huge monstrous PAIN. It took me more than an hour minutes to make what I do in PS in seconds. The menu and the work flow organization can not be more stupid and intricate.

0 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Nov 23, 2011)

The first version of PSP was for Windows 3.0.

0 upvotes
Archiver
By Archiver (Nov 23, 2011)

I have two licenses for Lightroom 3 and have only activated one. I am saving the second for when I upgrade my home computer, which will save me the bother of deactivating and reactivating somewhere else.

Lightroom is the only program I have found that gives me the image quality and 'look' that I like; no other raw processor gives the same look and IQ of Lightroom. This rather ties me in to Lightroom and means I may eventually have to pay big bucks to upgrade in the future, unless another raw converter comes to the party.

0 upvotes
Karl Gnter Wnsch
By Karl Gnter Wnsch (Nov 23, 2011)

Take a look at rawtherapee, it has evolved quite enormously in the past few months and has surpassed the results I got from LR in terms of quality...

0 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Nov 23, 2011)

As long as you don't need DAM features and want the collection of photos you've taken to become an unsearchable, unmanageable mess after a couple thousand pictures or so.

0 upvotes
AlexeyD
By AlexeyD (Nov 23, 2011)

Lightroom does not use activation (yet) as Photoshop does. It simply accepts your serial number and does not require activation/deactivation. I never had a problem installing it on my upgraded PC with a new Windows 7 - just entered my serial and it was working.

0 upvotes
djm99
By djm99 (Nov 23, 2011)

My upgrade for Photoshop was to Photoshop Elements 10. It has enough of Photoshop for me. For Illustrator and InDesign my old copy of CS3 works fine.

I could use Lightroom but can make do without.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Nov 23, 2011)

Won't bother me in the slightest. I do not use PS at all - and firmly believe that the vast majority of photographers would be better off not doing so either.

There are many many better alternatives with better GUIs and which are much easier to use.

0 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 23, 2011)

I agree 100% with you.

0 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Nov 23, 2011)

Define "better GUI" in concrete terms.

0 upvotes
MPA1
By MPA1 (Nov 23, 2011)

Define concrete terms!

The Adobe GUI is not even vaguely intuitive. Compare it to an Apple GUI or a Nik GUI.

I make my living from photography and do not own PS. On the (very) rare occasion that PS is the only answer then I outsource to a specialist.

PS is a pixel editor and very very few things need that level of editing in my world. Very rarely I might need something removed etc but why waste hours and hours learning PS (and you need to be very proficient to use it well) when I can pay someone else who specialises in doing that and bill the client anyway?

0 upvotes
psandham
By psandham (Nov 23, 2011)

This just validates why I left Adobe around the CS3 version - I've never looked back...

2 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 23, 2011)

Good for you. We need more people to say goodbye Adobe.

2 upvotes
Toddles
By Toddles (Nov 23, 2011)

As a graphic artist at work I had use PS for many years but the last 2. Due to rising cost and costly upgrades my company cancelled about 90% of PS licenses and only a select few work with PS now. I do still use Indesign at work, have too of course. I really wish another lower cost competitor comes out with a PS/ Indesign program for us home graphic artists and photographers to use.

0 upvotes
NarrBL
By NarrBL (Nov 23, 2011)

To be honest, this sounds like MBA school nonsense at its peak. All nice sounding abstracts for the boardroom, and no pie.

'We'll just connect our customer base up to subscriptions, and then we can report constantly recurring revenue. And by the way, many of them will be paying two to four times what they were, when they were taking sensibly spaced upgrades.'

Except, many of them won't be paying anything, any more.

Let's remember, too, how the cloud can enable fresh competitors.

3 upvotes
Surefire Photo
By Surefire Photo (Nov 23, 2011)

Excuse the pedantic method, but Adobe is a company answerable to it's shareholders and thus the bottom line. If you do not like the pricing, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy, they will be forced to take action.

However, if you pirate software you should stop now. Pirates are not only a major contributor to software prices, they are a group without vision or knowledge. I don't believe in jail time & fines for pirates; instead they should just be forced to work for free for x amount of time. Zero income for their labor. Fair trade.

0 upvotes
sensibill
By sensibill (Nov 23, 2011)

Stop being a corporate apologist. Anti-consumer is anti-consumer. Call a spade a spade, and this is most definitely a spade.

Photoshop wouldn't even exist if people didn't pirate it... Because nobody would use the tool. They tried using more aggressive antipiracy tactics years ago and their paid userbase declined because the number of people being hired to jobs with Photoshop experience declined.

The corporate purchases that account for the vast majority of Photoshop sales are not substantially changed due to piracy.

4 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 23, 2011)

Surefire is making a fair point. If you don't like Adobe or their policies your actions speak louder than words. Use another product. They look at their numbers if they drop enough they will act.
For all they know there are only a few whiners that wont upgrade.
In my business I am entirely familiar with customers who believe they should have a day of my life for $50.

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (Nov 23, 2011)

This method of thinking is flawed from the ground up. A pirated copy of software does not equal a lost sale, not by a long shot. If every pirate was forced to not use or lay, you have less than a 5% conversion. Pirates don't contribute to software prices.

Adobe also seriously needs to reconsider their academic pricing if they want to stay on top. Their prices for non professionals are getting out of hand. They can't stop pirates and more people will be driven to it.

If they dropped the price to $100 Full version for photoshop, their revenue would increase.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Nov 23, 2011)

You're thinking about academic prices for students' personal copies. The university itself needs to have whatever is used by industry at the moment, regardless of price or brand, and they can provide this in their own computer labs. That's part of the reason you pay to attend a university. Just because Stoner Joe doing a computer graphics degree somewhere doesn't like working in the university lab he's paying tuition to use doesn't mean that he's being forced to buy Photoshop to use at home.

I can't imagine a university whose graduates showed up at interviews saying, "No, Photoshop is too expensive, I use GIMP and Pixelmator" is going to be too highly rated.

Now granted, this could be viewed as an essential problem with the current educational system and it's incestuous relationship with industry (wasn't that more what trade schools were supposed to be for?), but it's the truth.

0 upvotes
Rule 34
By Rule 34 (Nov 23, 2011)

And just in case that post had you wondering, I think Adobe is ripping off graphics design shops big time. As for everybody on here complaining, I'd be willing to bet around 3 of them have ever used anything that wasn't in Elements.

1 upvote
RLJSlick
By RLJSlick (Nov 23, 2011)

Are we now seeing the start of the Death of Photoshop. They're shooting themselves in the foot with this idea.

11 upvotes
Ed_arizona
By Ed_arizona (Nov 23, 2011)

HA, in this economy? I gave up renewing since C3, lightroom works for me and Jpg tweak works fine in older PS

2 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Nov 23, 2011)

In CS5 they introduced content-aware removal. Which is for me extremely helpful. Other from that I also do not see any reasons to upgrade.

0 upvotes
plantdoc
By plantdoc (Nov 23, 2011)

This was really unpleasant news to me. I wonder-how or if- I would have learned about this change that smells like the Netflix disaster. By the way, with Netflix, I dropped the streaming and now only have a minimal disk plan..even less money to Netflix. I am positive that once streaming and clouding hits the big time, your ISP will put you on a data limited $$ plan just like cell phone service providers. I use CS3 and was going to upgrade when I purchased a new 64 bit PC. Having to upgrade to just upgrade again is beyond my recession hammered, retiree income. I believe I will upgrade from CS3 to CS5, but then I am done. Elements is loaded with scrapbooking etc, features that I don't care about and get in the way, but the basics of photo editing are there and most plug-ins work. Paintshop is another option. Having to upgrade to CS6 to start the upgrade stream could have been more acceptable, but being forced to buy a "late in life" program to buy the next one is a bitter pill.

2 upvotes
sbohne
By sbohne (Nov 23, 2011)

I worked for many years as a professional photographer, and I always moved up to the newest version. Adobe had some stupid .5 upgrades, but you felt you had to upgrade. I was always angry when someone asked me to let them copy my disc...which I never did.

Now, I think everyone should copy the hell out of their software. You don;t need the latest greatest. My mac (a non-intel mac) still runs CS 2 just fine, and my PC has CS 3. I never missed 4 or 5, and I sure as heck won't miss CS 6.

4 upvotes
PhotoHawk
By PhotoHawk (Nov 23, 2011)

Let me get this straight - in my case I bought CS3, CS4 and I skipped CS5 because their wasn't a compelling reason to upgrade. The features of CS5 weren't dramatically better than CS4 is for me.
So now I get to pay $199 less 20% and then pay another $199 to upgrade to CS6? The full price of CS5 ia $699. So I guess my upgrade to CS6 is $159+$199=$358 if the upgrade price is still $199.
I think I paid just shy of $400 for CS3 and about $199 to upgrade to CS4.
Adobe I hope you price yourselves out of this market! I was going to upgrade to CS6 for which I would have paid the $199. But almost twice that - get real! I'll pass and I hope a lot of people do.
I have GIMP 2.7.3 loaded and Rawtherapee 4 as well - see ya!

4 upvotes
sh10453
By sh10453 (Nov 23, 2011)

Lucky me ... I paid $29 to upgrade my Corel PaintShop Pro X3 to X4, and I consider it far better than PhotoShop.

Even a brand new copy of X4 can be purchased for about $59.

I'd never pay Adobe's ridiculous prices.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 23, 2011)

Personally, I don't care. Here's why:

Lightroom isn't included. I use LR for probably 99.9% of all my photo edits because it's so many orders of magnitude faster and more efficient than PS.
For that other 0.1% (compositing, especially painful clone and heal stuff, etc.), I've always found Elements to be plenty powerful, lighter weight, faster, and easier to use than full-blown PS. I went from version 2, to version 3, to version 9. That's a pretty cheap upgrade path and it has a lot of power.

I don't really think PS is for photographers anymore anyway. It's for graphic artists, animators, and so on. So let the people that make a fortune using the unique features of CS pay for it. Let the rest of us pro and enthusiast photographers use Elements and Lightroom.

2 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm afraid, that "clouded" LR is a matter of a short time...

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 23, 2011)

You don't know that, and they haven't said that at all. LR has a long history of being different than CS - no authorization, cross platform licensing, etc.

0 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (Nov 23, 2011)

I stopped using PS at PS 6. Adobe wanted a full purchase for me to go from 6 to the first CS. Speak with your wallets.

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe should remember that their two breadwinners: Photoshop and Illustrator are just PIXELS and VECTORS.

"PIXELS and VECTORS, Maximus... Pixels and Vectors..." -Proximo

Comment edited 55 seconds after posting
1 upvote
DVDmike
By DVDmike (Nov 23, 2011)

I have no problem with a company making as much money as it can. Greed has everything to do with why we have better products and to say that Adobe is just greedy is ridiculous. If any of the profit haters want to give me some of their cash to help even things out, I will take it. But I certainly don't expect them or Adobe to do so.

That being said, I think that it is a stupid decision by Adobe. I think that they are getting desperate and are willing to make some bold moves. Steve Jobs' war against Adobe is obviously hitting hard on Adobe and Adobe is taking this opportunity to try a new business model. Perhaps they will succeed. But it just a matter of time before someone hires a few key engineers away from Adobe and starts their own outfit, or Apple steps up in a big way or the open source road may start to open. Either way, this does not bode well for those with Adobe stock. I have help Apple stock since the early 1980's, I guess I should wait a few more years to sell it.

1 upvote
DVDmike
By DVDmike (Nov 23, 2011)

I have have had a CS collection since they first came out, and before that PS and Premiere. As Recently as CS4, I had the master collection. But when I upgraded to CS5, I did not get the complete master collection this time. The only programs that I use on a regular basis are LR (not part of a collection), PS, PP, AE, and Bridge. When they came to CS5.5, I did not upgrade. So does this mean that I will not get an upgrade to CS6 because Adobe had a stupid .5 upgrade? IDK, but I don't care that much either. Other than RAW camera support, CS5 is pretty good and I doubt that CS6 will offer so many new features that I cannot live without it. But if Adobe wants me to upgrade to CS5.5 now to continue an upgrade path to CS6, they need to tell me exactly what new features will be included in CS6 and when it will be released. Why else would I ever upgrade to something I do not need just to save money on something that I have no idea if I will need or not? That would be pathetic.

1 upvote
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm pretty certain that CS5 to CS6 is the current plan, regardless of 5.5.

0 upvotes
Mark Hollister
By Mark Hollister (Nov 23, 2011)

I'm also all for companies making as much as they can, and I also believe in competition. I've already got Pixelmator. It has the vast majority of Photoshop's features for just $29. $29 versus $699 with the prospect of having to upgrade with every new version of Photoshop? It's an easy choice. Adobe's harebrained idea is going to inhibit people from upgrading. Not upgrading is free!

I also have Apple's Aperture, for which I paid $79. Between those two, I can get by just fine.

Photoline is another great alternative to Photoshop.

Adobe should learn a lesson from the Netflix debacle. We're in a major recession, people just don't have money to throw around anymore.

0 upvotes
h00ligan
By h00ligan (Nov 23, 2011)

I agree..and with apps like pixel actor hitting the app store..well..it gets better every time

0 upvotes
Rolo King
By Rolo King (Nov 23, 2011)

If you think Pixelmator has the vast majority of Photoshop's features, you didn't dig enough. It might cover almost all of your needs, so I won't tell you not to use it when the price is so low.

That being said, I think Adobe is just jumping on that cloud bandwagon. All the software companies are salivating at the thought of computing as a service because it means recurring payments from their customers. Same thing is happening right now with movies and music. Why sell DVD's that people will own for years when you can bill them every month or every time they want to watch something?

0 upvotes
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Nov 24, 2011)

Anyone who claims that Pixelmator has the "vast majority" of Photoshop's features basically proves, by making that statement, that they don't really know Photoshop at all.

So I want to take a raw file, import it as 16-bit, downsample it for a website and also for a print piece that's going on press, so I'll need a CMYK version.

Pixelmator would choke almost all the way down the line. No way to tweak a raw, no support for 16-bit, no support for CMYK... some Photoshop substitute!

Pixelmator is a great substitute for Photoshop ELEMENTS.

0 upvotes
itchhh
By itchhh (Nov 23, 2011)

You really need to ask yourself, do you "really" NEED their software? Microsoft Office gets away with what they do because they ARE the standard, Adobe is NOT the standard in graphics software. Unlike Microsoft Office, Adobe cannot snuff out the competition.

3 upvotes
Marcin 3M
By Marcin 3M (Nov 23, 2011)

Never really used office - open office was all i needed.
But You are not right - Adobe is a standard (unfortunatelly) since aldus is dead, macromedia gave up and corel does very little since version 7 (more than 10 years).
And therefore it's a really big problem for the industry. Like in our life wee need confidence, and now lot's of us lost it. Not only to the PS alone - but to the whole brand, including LR.
Once i lost it, i want to be free - like a free software is. I can even pay for a small details (small apps, plugins), but the basic app HAS TO BE FREE.

1 upvote
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Nov 23, 2011)

and why does "basic app has to be free" ? so that developers can die of starvation? IMHO what if whatever field ur in demands to be free except for side features?
Free is only possible in open source where developers are free in the first place.

Open office waste a number of clicks and conversion everytime u use it to share/open other people's documents (which is MS office), its not so productive but its free since nobody wants to buy it.

Microsoft should sell MSoffice at much lower prices given their market dominance. As for Adobe, u can always use GIMP instead of PS, thats free for u.

1 upvote
Toddles
By Toddles (Nov 23, 2011)

Disagree with you. Adobe is the standard in the graphic industry, I don't know how MW is included. MW is the standard for the office industry NOT graphics.

1 upvote
PicOne
By PicOne (Nov 23, 2011)

It's all about volume.. THe sheer number of Photoshop users (inclusive of hobbyists) has to be 10x what it was even 6-7 years ago. So they lose half their 'subscribers', getting twice the upgrade fees every 1.5 years they will still be ahead, at the continued growth rate.

0 upvotes
nonuniform
By nonuniform (Nov 23, 2011)

This isn't about not paying for software. This is about Adobe flexing a monopoly power in the design software market.

Explore this more closely:

The upgrade schedule accelerates to 18 months between paid upgrades:

Upgrade: $199 (current price)
Subscription: $700 (based on cheapest annual Photoshop-only subscription)

I have to imagine that the next step for Adobe is to eliminate perpetual licences, and move everyone to a subscription model.

4 upvotes
Bobbygray
By Bobbygray (Nov 23, 2011)

I've been using photoshop sense 2.5 and have upgraded regurlly till version CS 2. I find myself using the older photoshop 7 far more often because the layers setup is far better for the type of work I do. My fear is if my computer dies, I will be forced to up grade everything, which I can ill afford. In this economy I'm just trying to hold on and Adobe's decision will aleanate more people than just me. In the late 90s there was another competitor of Adobe that charged $2+K for their image editing software. They died a horable death and Adobe slid in. This will dedinately open the doors for someone else to fill the gap.

1 upvote
Lan
By Lan (Nov 23, 2011)

I've been buying Photoshop for more than ten years now, but on the basis of this, it looks like my current version will be my last.

I'm not going to pay to upgrade and then pay to upgrade immediately again. Nor am I willing to spend the money to buy the full version outright every two versions.

Adobe please reconsider your decison.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Nov 23, 2011)

The problem to switch to different software gets more complicated as many plugins and add-ons only work with Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture. I mean stuff like Nik Software and different noise reduction, raw conversion and sharpening software. The same goes for scanning I guess.

1 upvote
Aaron MC
By Aaron MC (Nov 23, 2011)

Adobe is killing their golden goose. It won't be long before open source options like GIMP have all of the core features that most Photoshoppers need.

4 upvotes
magneto shot
By magneto shot (Nov 23, 2011)

its unfortunate that at the point of writing, GIMP is pretty much "stupid" to most users who are using adobe. if you start straight on GIMP, well life goes on, u would think its a great tool.
i agree on 2 points abt GIMP, "stupid" and free.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 398
1234