Adobe backs down

...

These changes aren't about "you" as in the hobbyist photographer, Adobe created Lightroom and Elements for you.
...
I personally understand that. And I undestand that wall street perceptions play a role in corporate policies. But wall street pressures are an unworthy and fleeting reason for screwing a segment of a customer base.

Despite Adobe's apparent target audience for Photoshop, I suspect that hobbyist photographers make up a significant market for PS. Of course we'll never know the breakdown, but anecdotally, I am in a club with over 200 photgraphers, the vast majority of whom are amateurs. I'd say that over half of us use Photoshop (not Elements).

My issue with this whole update pricing change involves Adobe's relation to its customers. In effect, Adobe is reneging on a promise -- made through their well-publicized former upgrade policy -- that purchasers of CS 3, 4, and 5 would get deeply discounted update pricing when they next decide to purchase for up to three versions down the road.

Now if the upgrade policy was some secret internal corporate thing, I would not call it a "promise." But, the policy was publicized, used as a marketing tool, and it communicated added value for price. To change the policy and apply it retroactively to purchasers of CS4 and 5 is IMO extremely unfair. It's the retroactive part that bites. Unless the advertised policy at the time of purchase prevails, Adobe's publicized policies are valueless the day after you read them, subject to whimsical revision.

As an buyer of PS CS 5, I want what I was promised when I purchased: to next purchase CS 8 at a discounted upgrade price. As it now stands, I have to buy CS6 to receive an upgrade discount.

Hope I didn't shoot the messanger!

--
JerryG

My galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1
 
As for Adobe, I am so confused on all of their offerings. I am still not clear on what this Adobe Cloud is.

What I did pick up from their site is it's all going to very expensive and I don't know who they are catering to but it won't be from most of us on this forum. Only the rich that can afford it and those companies where their livelihood comes from will use it. I can't imagine how much all of that wireless apps and the software is going to cost a company to allow each of their employees have i pads and use their software.
--
Melissa aka mustang_fan
 
Adobe and all the associated businesses that trade off of it had better be sure that that they (Adobe) still will controll the major market share.

We are seeing new alliances forming all the time and software is not as expensive as changing a Camera System.

Hands up those who believe in DNG after this fiasco!
 
From Adobe: pricing on Creative Suite 6 to customers who own CS3 or CS4. This offer will be available from the time CS6 is released until December 31, 2012.

As I read it, Adobe has now included PS CS3 in addition to PS CS4 . . . no???? I mean, I could care less, as would most serious pros, as I upgrade every year. However, many an amateur will start searching for illegal copies . . . and they are out there!!!!!
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
As I said earlier, I mainly use GIMP, but I also use PostworkShop Pro, DAP, and several other cool utilities/programs including Photoshop of course. These are tools to reach and end; I know Adobe needs to make money, but still, maintaining upgrades at a reasonable time has been very cost effective to me; it didn't break the bank. I've tolerated upgrades (started from my student license PS that I got from taking a tech class which included a laptop which had a myriad of licensed software including Photoshop 5.5 or 7; can't remember. lol) and have been upgrading since (of course transferred to PC's over time). I paid the $150 to $215 upgrades because PS can do a few things easier (more convenient) then GIMP, but I won't get pigeon-holed by this upgrade every other year fiasco either. Very glad that I upgraded from CS2 to CS5 a year ago. CS5 has some fantastic features (really haven't delved in them, but have played with them and very impressed), but, as mentioned earlier, creating new versions of PS without much value may possibly be a good business model from them since companies need to make money, but requiring folk to upgrade each time in order to keep up with the Jones is a sad business model imo. I didn't mind the 3 generations route; made sense. Every generation route is just not tolerable imo. Maybe if I was a professional, that would be true, but, like most folk here, I'm an avid armature Retoucher that enjoy sharing and especially enjoy the comradely of folk with like desires/hobbies. Photoshop still were making money since the Pros pretty much already upgrade each generation and the avid amateur followers still did every 2 or 3 generations. Now they just lost the amateur revenue imo. Of course I might be wrong; time will tell, but still, strong arming folk is not a wise thing to do. :)

--



Psalm 109:8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20109:8&version=KJV
 
Guess you did ! ;-)
 
Here's what John Nack says in his blog
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/

QUOTE FROM JOHN NACK BLOG:
New upgrade options for CS3 and CS4 customers

In November Adobe announced Creative Cloud subscriptions, a new combination of CS desktop apps, cloud services, and touch tools. Unfortunately, on the whole we’ve done a poor job of explaining the real benefits to customers, leading to considerable confusion & concern. I’m sorry for the pain that’s resulted.

First, let’s be clear: Adobe does well when you do well. Subscriptions have to be good for customers, or they’re not going to be good for Adobe–period.

What sucks is that the very real advantages of subscriptions (most notably, faster access to feature improvements) have gotten drowned out by the perceived disadvantages. The whole story is clumsy because Adobe hasn’t announced a CS6 version, or any real details about pricing, etc. Now’s not the time for that (sorry–I wish we could share more right now), so I can only ask for your patience. Subscriptions will be more interesting & attractive than you might think, so please stay tuned.

Meanwhile, I’m pleased to say that Adobe has announced a new introductory upgrade offer for customers using CS3/CS4:

•The old deal: If you were on CS4 or earlier at the time CS6 shipped, getting a subscription would be the only way to upgrade to CS6.

•The new deal: If you’re on CS3 or CS4 when CS6 ships, you’ll have until the end of 2012 to upgrade to CS6. You can of course choose a subscription option, and we think you’ll want to.
•Bottom line: During 2012, you don’t have to buy CS5 just to buy CS6.
As I say, please do stay tuned, and please let us know what you think.

[Update in response to comments below: If you recently purchased CS 5.5 and have questions/concerns about that order in relation to this upgrade announcement, please contact customer service so that they can assist you.]

END OF JOHN NACK BLOG QUOTE
 
I've read where photographers are 10% or less of total Photoshop users.
 
The revised policy for upgrading does not mean you have another two years with CS4. For CS3 and CS4, it will be possible to get an upgrade price to CS6 ONLY until the end of 2012. That's the way things stand now, which is better than the original declaration that people must own CS5 in order to get the upgrade price to CS6.

Libby
 
I've read where photographers are 10% or less of total Photoshop users.
Unless that came from an Adobe spokesperson, I'd call that number highly dubious. No one else could know. Besides, companies with ten-year-old products normally value 10% of their customer base very highly. A new 10% will not be easily found if those bail.

--
JerryG

My galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1
 
Hands up those who believe in DNG after this fiasco!
Everyone should!

DNG (like all open de facto and de jure standards) increases flexibility and opportunities for new entrants in the market place. At least one raw converter supported only DNG at first release, then added other formats afterward.

DNG reduces the chance for large "comprehensive system supplier" companies to shut out competitors. Just as TIFF (now owned by Adobe, of course) helped open up scanning, so DNG helps open up raw shooting.

And remember that for years many photographers have used the free DNG Converter to enable them to continue to use old versions of Photoshop with camera models launched after that version of Photoshop. (Adobe knew from the start that DNG would enable this).
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/ps_cs.htm
 
Don't shoot the messenger!!! :)

1) this is about pros in many categories (not just photography) and that is why Adobe went to Creative Suites. Full Photoshop's greatest importance is to pros within the overall creative world, including illustration, web design, publishing, video and so forth. This concentration drives all corporate decisions, and I suspect Scott Kelby was a minor factor at best, as photographers are only one part of the picture.
Good point. Nowadays, how many people who use full Photoshop just for photography really need it rather than something much cheaper? Or could use (say) Lightroom plus Elements 10?

(When I've run workshops and supplied tutorials on Photoshop, I feel that I start to lose people people if I'm showing things that aren't commonly available in other products. But that may be my fault of course!)

If I hadn't started with Photoshop over 10 years ago, and didn't use it for images during website development, etc, I would struggle to show that I needed the full version.
 
. . . and Adobe pushed DNG as hard as they could but most, like Nikon, Canon, and others firmly rejected it. I mean there was a major campaign to make DNG universal. JPG, tiff, etc all all universal but there is some revenue generated that goes to someone somewhere, but a small fraction of what could be generated if they were not universal standards.
Hands up those who believe in DNG after this fiasco!
Everyone should!

DNG (like all open de facto and de jure standards) increases flexibility and opportunities for new entrants in the market place. At least one raw converter supported only DNG at first release, then added other formats afterward.

DNG reduces the chance for large "comprehensive system supplier" companies to shut out competitors. Just as TIFF (now owned by Adobe, of course) helped open up scanning, so DNG helps open up raw shooting.

And remember that for years many photographers have used the free DNG Converter to enable them to continue to use old versions of Photoshop with camera models launched after that version of Photoshop. (Adobe knew from the start that DNG would enable this).
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/ps_cs.htm
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
There’s a line at the start of Woody Allen's Love and Death, something like:
I’m going to be executed at 6am tomorrow. It was going to be 5am but I have a smart lawyer. I got remission.
Adobe have put off the change a year or so, as by then it won’t be a new change and they hope there won’t be so much fuss.

Like Woody Allen's Boris in Love and Death, we got remission.
--
Simon
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top