Reading mode: Light Dark

Is Adobe getting too Greedy?

Go to last post
Well, I don't think the subscription option is a very good one for regular consumers. Large corporations might save money, but the cost of doing the regular $299 updgrades twice a year is cheaper than one year contract month to month of the standard package which comes out to $780 a year.

I don't think the subscription service really is intended for consumers, but small, medium and large businesses where having the very latest of everything is a must have.

My feeling with the yearly updates is that we are going to get a lot of .5 updates that don't offer much for most of us.

I think Adobe is just trying to cater to those that need the latest up to minute technology and can't wait the regular 1-1/2 update cycle. Unfortunately web technology and now epublishing technology is changing so fast right now that 1-1/2 year updates is like an eon of change. For Photography and such 1-1/2's isn't much of problem as long as Adobe keeps up the quarterly ACR/Lightroom RAW camera updates.

Again, I wouldn't worry about it.

As far as 5.5 being a free update. Well it was from Photoshop 5.0 to 5.5 Adobe has never done a free .5 update so you can't expect that to start now. The update that is going to mater to us is the one coming in May for Photoshop and that is free. So I can't complain. I am waiting for 6.0.

Robert
--

The hardest thing about Photography is choosing a camera! After that it is all fun!
 
The problem is that they don't have to. Nothing comes close to Photoshop. Sure you could go Corel, but that is a pretty much dead program. The amount of third party support is next to nil. You can so much more with Photoshop because of the third party support. When a plug-in comes out it will work with Photoshop, but it may not work with Corel or even Photoshop Elements. That kind of support and ability to use whatever you need is the reason Photoshop costs what it does.

Robert
--

The hardest thing about Photography is choosing a camera! After that it is all fun!
 
Then you don't upgrade until an upgrade offers you something you need. Geeze what is it with people that think just because there is new release they have to fork out the money. Sound like a bunch of dumb whiners. There isn't evening anything is .5 that would be useful for a photographer. The thing that is coming that adds the Touch support is a free update to all CS5 users.

Robert
--

The hardest thing about Photography is choosing a camera! After that it is all fun!
 
People who voiced their displeasure with Adobe's upgrade and pricing policy likely will not go with the update. Some people here have voiced Adobe's arrogance. I for one will have opted for other editing software. Makes one wonder --- for the price Adobe is charging, why is it that plug-ins are so popular ie: Silver Efex Pro ? Look around there are alternatives out there.....and some are better.
RobertBarnett said:
Then you don't upgrade until an upgrade offers you something you need. Geeze what is it with people that think just because there is new release they have to fork out the money. Sound like a bunch of dumb whiners. There isn't evening anything is .5 that would be useful for a photographer. The thing that is coming that adds the Touch support is a free update to all CS5 users.

Robert
--

The hardest thing about Photography is choosing a camera! After that it is all fun!
Click to expand...
 
bigfatron said:
That they are the de facto standard in most areas covered by CS products and there are often few or no remotely comparable alternatives makes the 'they will turn to a less expensive alternative' thing slightly tricky.

Some people will indeed always opt to obtain software for free where the option exists. And of course no one 'has' to pirate software.
Click to expand...
Completely valid points. What worries me is the percentage of people who seem to truly believe that software companies somehow deserve to have their product stolen.
bigfatron said:
There is however an argument to be made that reducing the price of a product could result in increased revenue.
Click to expand...
You may argue this - and you may well be correct - but the fact is that any large company spends a staggering amount of time and resources on pricing products and price research. There are software giants out there with HUGE pockets (looking at you Apple, Microsoft, Google, et al) who would crush Adobe's iron fisted grip on the design market in a 1/250th of a second if they could. This would give at least anecdotal evidence that Adobe is priced properly given their position in the market.

Apple did not drop the price of Aperture because they love the public and wanted to share. They have a product which, while well designed and beautiful, is not pulling the market share away from LR fast enough. So they drop the price & have more users the next day. This is not to say that they made more money though.
--
http://www.surefirephotography.com
 
bigfatron said:
RedFox88 said:
bigfatron said:
I've always wondered though what it would do for overall revenue if they cut the price of Photoshop by a third/half as I reckon they'd actually make more money overall that way. I wager Adobe are losing a hell of alot of potential sales to amateur snappers and other non-profit user groups who might buy it if it were cheaper but who use something else or pirate it because the entry cost cannot be justified for most.
Click to expand...
Those users buy Photoshop Elements which can often be found for $90 in stores. It has the most popular elements of photoshop. I would think the users of Photoshop Elements would either be lost or have no use for the extra full photoshop features. And I would think PSE users would choose to spend $90 on PSE than $350 (half the price of photoshop).
Click to expand...
For some then PSE is indeed perfectly adequate, but not everyone. There are however plenty of people out there who would buy full Photoshop (and get the extra use out of it) if it were cheaper. I use it at work because work can justify the cost. At home I can't justify £600 for personal non-profit use but would almost certainly have bought it had it been more like £300. Hence I use instead something else that cost considerably less. There is reason why its as heavily pirated as it is. Admittedly many will always prefer the free option but many would also buy into the product at a lower price. Of course Adobe have the market almost totally sewn up so no doubt they'll continue to charge whatever they can get away with (plus their usual significant regional markups too; compare the price for it in the US versus the UK/EU).
Click to expand...
I feel they would lose income because more regular photoshop users would be paying half price but it would not get a significant number of PSE users to upgrade. So it would be a loss for Adobe.
bigfatron said:
bigfatron said:
bigfatron said:
The same kind of thing was said about Microsoft Office and Windows a few years ago and they've now reduced the cost on some of the SKUs substantially to pitch at the home market.
Click to expand...
Only Office Home and Student . But Windows 7 is actually more expensive than Windows Vista was. They lower some prices, raise others. It's all a game.
Click to expand...
I don't have figures to hand for now but certainly like for like at respective launch times then retail Windows 7 was cheaper than Vista for the Home Premium version.
Click to expand...
I bought Vista64 OEM version for $85 and the place I bought it from sells Win7-64 OEM for $110 though newegg sells for $100.
 
I haven't used GIMP in a long time... I didn't like the UI and the strange way its tools were implemented.. .perhaps I should give it a go again... or just stay with CS5 for a few years... I'm not sure I really need to upgrade for awhile anyway!
 
With the push toward "cloud" computing, this is the wave of the future. Software will soon no longer not be sold at all -- you will "subscribe" to it, and when you stop making monthly payments, you will lose it.

Hang on to your old hardware as well; I'll bet that soon the hardware and software will "evolve" to make existing platforms functionally obsolete and force you in to the new model.
 
They alienated their customers a long time ago. That is why I am still using CS2 and will not upgrade any time soon.

That is also why they have a terrible problem with people cracking their software and stealing it, GREED.

Of course, they are not the only ones who have ventured into the GREED market. LucisArt did the same thing and their business has dropped off substantially. At least LucisArt has dropped the price some, but not enough. So, TOPAZ LABS has benefited greatly from the overpriced product that LucisArt is trying to sell. The same will happen to Adobe if they don't wake up soon.

--
Conrad Birdie
"Aspire to Inspire before you Expire"
 
There simply isn't any competition worth mentioning if you use more than just Photoshop in the Adobe suite. The cross-application compatibility isn't perfect, but it's a major boost to productivity for anyone doing more than image editing.

--
BJ Nicholls
SLC, UT
 
I agree if you are a Suite user. Adobe definitely does a good job at cross integrating between it's various packages. I do have to add that there is a pretty cool synergy between GIMP and Inkscape (wish someone would just combine the two already) but Adobe's Suite is more then just a vector and bitmap package. :)

--

 
If it wasn't for ACR, I would 100% agree (no real alternative imo. Trust me, UFRaw is not). Not sure what the difference is from PS Elements ACR and CS5's ACR though (didn't research this; if they are the same, then I truly do have mud in my eye since PS Elements is much cheaper). There are a few cool actions as well that keeps me using PS from time to time though. :)

--

 
Smart objects and Smart Filters. An organizer as good as the bridge or better yet Lightroom? If not are there third party plugin programs that can add these features to Gimp.

I guess using Lightroom for organization and RAW converter with Gimp as its image editing program would help but how would one be able to have smart object that are raw files without ACR? The last time I looked at Gimp I thought it had some big short comings. But its been years since I looked at Gimp. Has Gimp cough up is it a head or still behind Adobe today?
--
JJMack
 
RedFox88 said:
bigfatron said:
RedFox88 said:
bigfatron said:
I've always wondered though what it would do for overall revenue if they cut the price of Photoshop by a third/half as I reckon they'd actually make more money overall that way. I wager Adobe are losing a hell of alot of potential sales to amateur snappers and other non-profit user groups who might buy it if it were cheaper but who use something else or pirate it because the entry cost cannot be justified for most.
Click to expand...
Those users buy Photoshop Elements which can often be found for $90 in stores. It has the most popular elements of photoshop. I would think the users of Photoshop Elements would either be lost or have no use for the extra full photoshop features. And I would think PSE users would choose to spend $90 on PSE than $350 (half the price of photoshop).
Click to expand...
For some then PSE is indeed perfectly adequate, but not everyone. There are however plenty of people out there who would buy full Photoshop (and get the extra use out of it) if it were cheaper. I use it at work because work can justify the cost. At home I can't justify £600 for personal non-profit use but would almost certainly have bought it had it been more like £300. Hence I use instead something else that cost considerably less. There is reason why its as heavily pirated as it is. Admittedly many will always prefer the free option but many would also buy into the product at a lower price. Of course Adobe have the market almost totally sewn up so no doubt they'll continue to charge whatever they can get away with (plus their usual significant regional markups too; compare the price for it in the US versus the UK/EU).
Click to expand...
I feel they would lose income because more regular photoshop users would be paying half price but it would not get a significant number of PSE users to upgrade. So it would be a loss for Adobe.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to disagree on that I suppose.
RedFox88 said:
RedFox88 said:
RedFox88 said:
RedFox88 said:
The same kind of thing was said about Microsoft Office and Windows a few years ago and they've now reduced the cost on some of the SKUs substantially to pitch at the home market.
Click to expand...
Only Office Home and Student . But Windows 7 is actually more expensive than Windows Vista was. They lower some prices, raise others. It's all a game.
Click to expand...
I don't have figures to hand for now but certainly like for like at respective launch times then retail Windows 7 was cheaper than Vista for the Home Premium version.
Click to expand...
I bought Vista64 OEM version for $85 and the place I bought it from sells Win7-64 OEM for $110 though newegg sells for $100.
Click to expand...
You might note I cited the Retail SKU prices, not the OEM ones.
 
Surefire Photo said:
bigfatron said:
That they are the de facto standard in most areas covered by CS products and there are often few or no remotely comparable alternatives makes the 'they will turn to a less expensive alternative' thing slightly tricky.

Some people will indeed always opt to obtain software for free where the option exists. And of course no one 'has' to pirate software.
Click to expand...
Completely valid points. What worries me is the percentage of people who seem to truly believe that software companies somehow deserve to have their product stolen.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is something i've noted for some time also. The same applies with music/film piracy where a great many people seem to believe its morally justified. Looking from the other side of the fence I can see some small merit in the argument that some pricing practices can make it more attractive a proposition.
Surefire Photo said:
Surefire Photo said:
There is however an argument to be made that reducing the price of a product could result in increased revenue.
Click to expand...
You may argue this - and you may well be correct - but the fact is that any large company spends a staggering amount of time and resources on pricing products and price research. There are software giants out there with HUGE pockets (looking at you Apple, Microsoft, Google, et al) who would crush Adobe's iron fisted grip on the design market in a 1/250th of a second if they could. This would give at least anecdotal evidence that Adobe is priced properly given their position in the market.
Click to expand...
There are a number of ways you can look at this. Firstly, as you noted, Adobe are in a massive position of power here having been the undisputed de facto industry standard for a long while and now hold a virtual monopoly at the 'serious' end. Of the companies you mention, for Microsoft it would represent a huge change of direction into (for them) a whole new sector. Not to mention trying to force themselves into a sector where a very large percentage are wedded to Macs. For Google and Microsoft it would represent a departure that doesn't necessarily sit well with their core activities and objectives of late. For Apple then Adobe is probably one of the main reasons Macs didn't vanish off the face of the planet through the 90s (even if the Flash issue now means the two aren't comfy bedfellows), and their focus of the last few years has been very much hardware and OS platforms and not end user software. Basically you have a market that Adobe dominates now and the entry barrier to even try and contest it is set very high indeed. And of the names you mentioned then it would not be a natural fit for any of them to try and break in. I think a bit of real competition in the sector would be brilliant and its been said that without competition then Adobe's standards have slipped in some areas, but I really can't see it happening any time soon.

As for Adobe's price setting, take a look at regional price variances to see why alot of non-US users take a dim view of Adobe. As I mentioned in a previous post, Photoshop would cost you the equivalent of $400 more if bought from Adobe UK versus Adobe USA. Ask an Australian the same question and the gap there is as bad/worse. Local taxation differences don't even begin to explain the gaps. They can't use the 'increased local support costs' argument either as the call centres these days tend to be centralised in India. Basically they'll charge whatever they think they can get away with in any given market. Which, of course, they're entirely entitled to do. That doesn't however mean people are going to like them for it.
 
harrygilbert said:
With the push toward "cloud" computing, this is the wave of the future. Software will soon no longer not be sold at all -- you will "subscribe" to it, and when you stop making monthly payments, you will lose it.
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago, I think Adobe made a statement that they feel in about 10 years (from announcement) that their products would be available via log-in over the internet so you could access the programs you have a license to use from any computer anywhere in the world that has an internet connection.
harrygilbert said:
Hang on to your old hardware as well; I'll bet that soon the hardware and software will "evolve" to make existing platforms functionally obsolete and force you in to the new model.
Click to expand...
But it will also be older operating systems that are necessary to use old hardware and software. And I'm sure there will be a time when Microsoft does not allow "activation" of Windows XP or even Windows Vista. So if you end up installing XP on old hardware say in 5 years, you might only be able to use it for 30 days before XP turns into non-bootable or only bootable in safe mode - where you can't do anything.
 
Quick answer is :Of Course!
 
Are they greedy? Their sole purpose on life is to maximize profit. I don't mean that as a putdown, just as a statement of fact. That is how a business works...I don't understand why so many question this. You don't have to like it, of course...I don't either...

Is the software overpriced? No. I know this because Adobe is still in business, profitable, and thriving. And there is no true substitute. Does it cost too much for you? maybe, but Adobe doesn't price things for YOU. And that is the problem...Photoshop is worth tens of thousands of dollars to certain graphic artists. To my grandmother it is worth zero dollars.

So where do you price it? Hmmm...at the profit maximizing price, of course. For all the brilliant folks out there that think they would make more profit by reducing the price, I think you underestimate this multi billion dollar enterprise. Of course they've looked at the impact of reducing price on the product, and guaranteed it doesn't increase total profit for the company, otherwise they'd have done it.

All this said, I don't understand why a REAL substitute hasn't emerged on the market. I think Corel should do what I thought Lotus should have done years ago as Office took over...give the product away. Cut a deal with the camera makers and get it incuded with every new camera. The key is critical mass...so then the books get written to support the software...there is buzz on forums...plugins get made to support it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top