Adobe Creative Suite charges

[pwhitehead]

Why would you have updated every year? There hasn't been a massive update in years to the suite.

Being competitive in the business, it's always best to keep the software updated. Also, once adobe came out with new software, they didn't offer support anymore unless you updated.. I think it's kind of foolish people are still being bull headed about not upgrading to cc and are still using cs6.

 

[sigmadog]

Bull headed? Not hardly. I haven't seen much in the upgrade to CC that's worth the cost of a monthly subscription. Also, software updates aren't essential to maintaining competitiveness in a creative field – it's more about talent and experience at this point. Software doesn't provide that much of an edge these days, and Adobe updates tend to border more on "bloat" than real useful additions, in my view.

 

[pwhitehead]

Bull headed? Not hardly. I haven't seen much in the upgrade to CC that's worth the cost of a monthly subscription. Also, software updates aren't essential to maintaining competitiveness in a creative field – it's more about talent and experience at this point. Software doesn't provide that much of an edge these days, and Adobe updates tend to border more on "bloat" than real useful additions, in my view.

If you can't see the changes adobe has done in the recent years since cs5.5,cs6 to now, then along with everyone else; you're bull headed.. Sorry... Its much cheaper going with the monthly subscription then paying for a new upgrade every year like we use to in the past. I don't see what the problem is here with a handful of people not wanting to buy the subscription.. Is it because they never really ever paid for the software at all, sharing it with friends and co-workers? Are they just cheap? I don't understand why people won't move over to CC...

 

[smirking]

I really only need InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop (maybe Muse). Adobe knows these three apps are the cornerstone of the Creative Cloud. If this was offered at $25/month and the complete CC at $40/mth, I'd sign up. Until then, I'll stay on CS6.

I got my $29/month pricing offered to me again so I went back on the Creative Cloud plan. My earlier criticism was that the current pricing is excessive for light users like me and there should be some way to reach out to the people who would like to be Adobe subscribers, but only have an ancillary need for the software.

This will be my third year renewing at $29. Last year they gave it to me when I told them I would cancel. This year they let me cancel and offered it a month and a half later.

Perhaps they do have a way to address light users like me. If someone could function for a month and a half without Creative Cloud, the subscription is more of a want than a need and you'll get your light user rate if you can handle a gap of a few weeks in coverage.

On the other hand you take away my preferred programming tools for more than a few days, I'll be on my knees.

 

[satchmo]

[QUOTE="pwhitehead, post: 22302605, member: 595999" I don't see what the problem is here with a handful of people not wanting to buy the subscription.. Is it because they never really ever paid for the software at all, sharing it with friends and co-workers? Are they just cheap? I don't understand why people won't move over to CC...[/QUOTE]

You posted that you're paying $19/mth. at educational rates. Many don't have that luxury.

They aren't cheap, they're just prudent with their money and business costs. It's not that they don't WANT to buy a subscription, but rather the cost benefits don't make sense at the moment.

Everyone's situation is different so it has nothing to do with being bullheaded.

 

[sigmadog]

You posted that you're paying $19/mth. at educational rates. Many don't have that luxury.

Actually, he said he got it for $15.99 at the Student/Teacher rate. Hell! For that price, I'd do it too. Except after that first year the price would skyrocket again to $50/month per license. Oh! And I'm not a student or a teacher.

Of course, pwhitehead is entitled to his opinion that those not purchasing CC are bull-headed, but he can't then make a case for others to spend $600/year when he's are only paying $202.

Is pwhitehead a student? If so, I understand his attitude. Kids these days think they know everything.

Is pwhitehead a teacher? If so, I feel sorry for his students being taught by someone who thinks software is the key to success.

Is pwhitehead not a student or teacher? Then he's still a baby designer coasting off his education until his eligibility expires, and his opinions lack the seasoning of experience.

For those of us engaged in the business of graphic design, the decision to purchase subscription software is more than a "Gee-whiz! I want the latest stuff" calculation. It involves evaluating the Cost vs. Benefit of the subscription. For those of us using only the big three (InDesign / Photoshop / Illustrator) a subscription of $600/license is a steep price to pay for incremental improvements, assorted bells and whistles, and multiple applications we'll never ever use.

I've been doing this stuff for over 35 years. I retired my waxer and non-photo blue pencils when publishing software arrived on the scene and I've seen it improve to the point now where most upgrades offer diminished returns for the same maximum investment. That's the real reason for the subscription model, I believe: there are no great technological leaps left to make that justify the lump price, but they can guarantee the same revenue stream by switching to subscriptions and offer small, incremental improvements to keep the whiny kids happy.

 

[pwhitehead]

The price actually goes from 15.99 a month to 29.99 a month after the yearly contract, thats if I don't renew for the student teacher price; normally its 19.99 a month. I'm a student, yes. No I'm not a teacher. You remind me of an old geezer who doesn't wana give up his flip phone for a smart phone, unless you're forced into it..

Two years ago i attended an Adobe CC event and you wouldn't believe the people moaning and groaning about how they're not leaving cs5.5 and/or cs6. People are acting like a dog with a bone, they don't like to let go. CC is the wave of the future. I use a plethora of the programs (premiere, after effects, edge animate; along with photoshop, illustrator and indesign.) If you're only using PS, AI and ID then I see your point of not getting CC.

 

[pwhitehead]

[QUOTE="pwhitehead, post: 22302605, member: 595999" I don't see what the problem is here with a handful of people not wanting to buy the subscription.. Is it because they never really ever paid for the software at all, sharing it with friends and co-workers? Are they just cheap? I don't understand why people won't move over to CC...

You posted that you're paying $19/mth. at educational rates. Many don't have that luxury.

They aren't cheap, they're just prudent with their money and business costs. It's not that they don't WANT to buy a subscription, but rather the cost benefits don't make sense at the moment.

Everyone's situation is different so it has nothing to do with being bullheaded.

I was paying the 19.99 a month, but I renewed for the black friday special

 

[satchmo]

I was paying the 19.99 a month, but I renewed for the black friday special

But would you spend $50/mth if you didn't have the educational rate?

 

[pwhitehead]

But would you spend $50/mth if you didn't have the educational rate?

I would yes. I've been using adobe products since way before they bought out Macromedia and took ownership of dreamweaver, fireworks and flash. I love creating things with the programs for business and pleasure. $50 a month really isn't a lot of money..

 

[Jim Campbell]

If you can't see the changes adobe has done in the recent years since cs5.5,cs6 to now, then along with everyone else; you're bull headed.. Sorry... Its much cheaper going with the monthly subscription then paying for a new upgrade every year like we use to in the past.

No, it's not, and I'm getting tired of people claiming that it is. I only need the Design Standard part of the suite and my ongoing costs were ~£250 for an upgrade every 12-18 months. Even if we call it £300 every 12 months, that's £25/month.

Even with the special offer Adobe are currently running, a CC sub will run to £36.59/month (they're quoting that price, even though the offer expired on Nov 27), full price is £45.73 a month — more or less double the most expensive estimate of what I was paying before. What do I get for the extra money? Access to cloud storage I don't need (and don't trust — Adobe don't have a great track record in this area) and use of additional software that has no value to me.

Set against that, I'm locked into paying Adobe a monthly fee that they can change any time they feel like, regardless of whether they are making any compelling improvements to their software, essentially for the privilege of being able to open my own files.

It's been explicitly stated that the next OSX version (10.12) won't support Java 6, which will break Illustrator CS6, so I'm making plans for the final migration away from an Adobe workflow. Affinity's Designer and Photo packages have just put out a very impressive beta for v1.4 — Designer is now capable of replicating about 95% of my AI workflow, so I think it's time…

 

[sigmadog]

It's been explicitly stated that the next OSX version (10.12) won't support Java 6, which will break Illustrator CS6,

Thanks for that news. I was not aware of this.

I have no problem holding on to older systems as long as my software needs align with it (I only upgraded from Snow Leopard a year ago). Barring any major changes in my workflow and/or needs, I suspect my systems will be capped at El Cap.

I'm sure pwhitehead would probably agree, I'm a cranky curmudgeon.

 

[Jim Campbell]

Thanks for that news. I was not aware of this.

Yeah, they had to put out a legacy Java installer for El Cap to keep CS6 running and it was stated unequivocally at the time that they wouldn't be doing this for the next version. That said, I think* the issue is with the installation process rather than any specific issue with Java itself so its possible that some bright spark will find some command-line hackery that will coax an unsupported installer into running.

*Waaay beyond my technical expertise!

 

[sigmadog]

*Waaay beyond my technical expertise!

Understood.

By the way, I took a look at your "scribbles" on Deviant Art. Some good stuff up there. You do nice inking.

 

[pwhitehead]

Affinity Photo is a really nice program I must agree. Its the child version of photoshop. I was able to download it a couple of days ago, ill try it out with my Wacom Tablet coming in the mail tomorrow.

 

[Jim Campbell]

By the way, I took a look at your "scribbles" on Deviant Art. Some good stuff up there. You do nice inking.

Very kind of you — thank you!

 

[chaosbunny]

Being competitive in the business, it's always best to keep the software updated. Also, once adobe came out with new software, they didn't offer support anymore unless you updated.. I think it's kind of foolish people are still being bull headed about not upgrading to cc and are still using cs6.

And I think many (not all) people who pay for the cc subscription are just stupid idiots who do not even know how to operate the software but need to have the newest version just to feel "pro". I get more and more Illustrator/InDesign cc files these days, but guess what, from the features used they could as well have been created in Illustrator/InDesign CS3 from 10+ years ago within the same time.

Adobe knows its software has been mature enough for a long time, that's why they introduced the subscription model. Because hardly anybody bought the update of the master collection every year. They offer no different packages like they used to because hardly anybody needs the whole suite. But why offer the people value for money when you can just milk them because of your monopoly? They act worse than Quark did in its prime time. Eventually I'll have to get the cc subscription because of compatibility. It's just frustrating to pay € 60/month - that's what it costs without a student discount - when I don't need 75% of the included software.

I used to update my design standard package every 2 years for € 500, now I'd have to pay € 700 every year. I'd not use anything more than the design standard package either way. So I'm a bull headed fool for not happily paying 3 times as much for some tiny winy improvements that save maybe 5 minutes every month at best?

Being competitive in the business has not much to do with updated software. It's about ideas and imagination and about knowing your tools and creating what's inside yor head with them. A wacom tablet expands the possibilities of Photoshop very much. A Wacom tablet + Photoshop CS4/5/6 will be much better for retouching than Photoshop CC with a mouse.

 

[lucidmedia]

And I think many (not all) people who pay for the cc subscription are just stupid idiots who do not even know how to operate the software but need to have the newest version just to feel "pro".

I am not sure why you would equate a lack of professional skills with software tools with the desire to own up to date software. I actually find it is quite the opposite.

I get more and more Illustrator/InDesign cc files these days, but guess what, from the features used they could as well have been created in Illustrator/InDesign CS3 from 10+ years ago within the same time.

This I agree with. The simple fact is that print technology has slowed in development, and software like Illustrator and InDesign does not need major changes to it.

For those of us who do UX, interaction design or web work the tools are quite different. Development in Adobe software has happened where it has been needed -- in support of the web and interaction design, not print. In the context of my practice, I quite like the regular updates of features, as many of them are directly attributable to my workflow. The way I use photoshop today is completely different than what was possible 5 years ago.

They act worse than Quark did in its prime time. Eventually I'll have to get the cc subscription because of compatibilit. It's just frustrating to pay € 60/month - that's what it costs without a student discount - when I don't need 75% of the included software.

I'll respectfully disagree about Quark. Quark 3 went 7 years without an update. Quark 4 went 5 years. Quark was openly hostile to designers. Adobe has a very different tone.

I used to update my design standard package every 2 years for € 500, now I'd have to pay € 700 every year. I'd not use anything more than the design standard package either way. So I'm a bull headed fool for not happily paying 3 times as much for some tiny winy improvements that save maybe 5 minutes every month at best?

Your not a fool, but thats the cost of doing business. The cost of my CC seats comes back at the end of every year as a tax write-off. The cost of CC is actually quite reasonable compared to some of the other packages I have to invest in.

Being competitive in the business has not much to do with updated software. It's about ideas and imagination and about knowing your tools and creating what's inside yor head with them.

As someone who evaluates and hires a lot of designers, I agree with you that ideas and imagination are what get you in the door. But your ability to produce those ideas is what gets you paid. If I set a freelancer in front of a modern version of photoshop and at the end of the day they give me files that reflect a PS6 workflow, they are not going to be asked back the next day.

 

[satchmo]

For those of us who do UX, interaction design or web work the tools are quite different. Development in Adobe software has happened where it has been needed -- in support of the web and interaction design, not print. In the context of my practice, I quite like the regular updates of features, as many of them are directly attributable to my workflow. The way I use photoshop today is completely different than what was possible 5 years ago.

Frankly Photoshop is a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to true modern UX design. There is a new breed of apps like Macaw and Webflow etc..that bypasses the need for PS. They generate HTML code on the fly. And while it doesn't provide graphic effects (i.e. filters etc), it's approach to designing for web and mobile is more streamline and efficient.

That said, Adobe is getting into the game with apps in CC like Muse and Reflow. I suspect given their clout and reach, Adobe will eventually develop an app that crushes everyone else (perhaps re-imagining Dreamweaver).

 

[handsome pete]

The price actually goes from 15.99 a month to 29.99 a month after the yearly contract, thats if I don't renew for the student teacher price; normally its 19.99 a month. I'm a student, yes. No I'm not a teacher. You remind me of an old geezer who doesn't wana give up his flip phone for a smart phone, unless you're forced into it..

Two years ago i attended an Adobe CC event and you wouldn't believe the people moaning and groaning about how they're not leaving cs5.5 and/or cs6. People are acting like a dog with a bone, they don't like to let go. CC is the wave of the future. I use a plethora of the programs (premiere, after effects, edge animate; along with photoshop, illustrator and indesign.) If you're only using PS, AI and ID then I see your point of not getting CC.

CC is fine, but you're way too dismissive of those hanging on to older versions. We use CC, but it honestly hasn't changed a thing in our workflow. I have it on my home machine as well, but only because I qualify for educational pricing. I'm pretty sure the $29.99 pricing isn't in perpetuity.

 

[chaosbunny]

I am not sure why you would equate a lack of professional skills with software tools with the desire to own up to date software. I actually find it is quite the opposite.

That's why I wrote "many not all". It's just something I notice quite often. There are so many people who still use Photoshop for webdesign for example. Photoshop was never meant to be a layout app, but it became the standard for that in the 90ies because it was more or less the only solution for pixel based layout. But doing layouts with it was always clumsy at best. InDesign for example has been a way better and way faster tool for webdesign since well before CS6 now. Use master pages for headers/background colours etc. create multiple subsites within 1 document, use styles to change the fonts within multiple subsites with 1 click, simply select and export each element as a picture just to name a few advantages.

Quark was openly hostile to designers. Adobe has a very different tone.

Like I mentioned, the cost of owning the Adobe software I work with has tripled with the introduction of the creative cloud. That's pretty much openly hostile for me.

As someone who evaluates and hires a lot of designers, I agree with you that ideas and imagination are what get you in the door. But your ability to produce those ideas is what gets you paid. If I set a freelancer in front of a modern version of photoshop and at the end of the day they give me files that reflect a PS6 workflow, they are not going to be asked back the next day.

Here I agree with you. A designer has to produce his ideas as fast as possible. Knowing your tools and choosing the proper, most cost efficient tool is a part of that. Some people might produce results faster with a PS6 workflow than others with a cc workflow.

I even agree that the cc subscription might be a great solution for some. It's simply not for everybody, like some narrow-minded Adobe apologists believe.

Adobe could just offer the option of buying again, or offer different packages like before. Instead they boldly write "there is a creative cloud subscription for every purpose and every budget" on their website when there actually are only 2 different subscription models. That's quite insulting actually. They get away with it simply because of their monoploly within the design industry. To claim that they created the cc subscription to actually benefit the designers like some people do is simply false.

 

[Jim Campbell]

To claim that they created the cc subscription to actually benefit the designers like some people do is simply false.

Quite. They did it to even out their cashflow, and have been quite open about that.

The fact that they decided to then gouge their customers with a significant price hike for anyone who falls between the only-uses-one-application and actually-has-a-valid-use-case-for-Master-Collection scenarios (ie: pretty much everyone) was just the icing on the cake.

 

[pwhitehead]

Quite. They did it to even out their cashflow, and have been quite open about that.

The fact that they decided to then gouge their customers with a significant price hike for anyone who falls between the only-uses-one-application and actually-has-a-valid-use-case-for-Master-Collection scenarios (ie: pretty much everyone) was just the icing on the cake.

Dude you were paying almost $1500 for master suite and $1000 for various packages (web, photoshop, video). You're still saving money getting creative cloud!

 

[handsome pete]

Dude you were paying almost $1500 for master suite and $1000 for various packages (web, photoshop, video). You're still saving money getting creative cloud!

Not many people upgraded with every release. For those, it's certainly not saving money.

 

[sigmadog]

Dude you were paying almost $1500 for master suite and $1000 for various packages (web, photoshop, video). You're still saving money getting creative cloud!

Dude, I was paying for three program upgrades once every two or three years.

They usually ran about $150 each.

So for argument's sake figure $450 (150 x 3 = 450) spread out over two years. That's $225 per year for Illustrator, Photoshop, and InDesign.

Now Adobe wants $600/year in perpetuity, a 260% increase in my yearly cost.

That's called price gouging to this old-timer.