Adobe Creative Suite charges

[sigmadog]

In addition to the increase in price, they've eliminated any choice I might have had to upgrade. With the subscription model, upgrades are forced on me, where before I could choose whether or not the new features made sense for me.

And as a final little insult to Adobe's customers, the subscription must be maintained in order to gain access to files that are stored or archived. So if you decide you no longer want to use Adobe software, you'll still need to pay them if you ever want to look at your old files.

 

[Abiatha Swelter]

I

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 was a happy FrameMaker user until it was bought by Adobe and the Mac product was killed. That was pretty hostile. FM users begged and begged for an OS X version, because we didn't want to move to what was clearly (and in some ways still is) an inferior product.

 

[Jim Campbell]

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!

I very clearly broke down my old Creative Suite costs in a post on the same page as your comment. Adobe CC works out comfortably twice as expensive as my old Design Standard model.

People keep pointing to the price of the Master Collection as justification for the cost of CC but, seriously, who uses the entire suite? How many people need a pro-level video editing suite and a DTP package? I'm not saying that there are no video production houses that do their own design and packaging, and no graphic design agencies that don't make their own promotional videos… but that's not the same as saying the same person will have a direct commercial need for all those applications.

Paying a lot more than I was in order to gain access to video editing software I will never use, web design software I will never use, audio processing I will never use, photo management I will never use… yeah, that's a fantastic deal.

 

[satchmo]

I very clearly broke down my old Creative Suite costs in a post on the same page as your comment. Adobe CC works out comfortably twice as expensive as my old Design Standard model.

People keep pointing to the price of the Master Collection as justification for the cost of CC but, seriously, who uses the entire suite? How many people need a pro-level video editing suite and a DTP package? I'm not saying that there are no video production houses that do their own design and packaging, and no graphic design agencies that don't make their own promotional videos… but that's not the same as saying the same person will have a direct commercial need for all those applications.

Paying a lot more than I was in order to gain access to video editing software I will never use, web design software I will never use, audio processing I will never use, photo management I will never use… yeah, that's a fantastic deal.

Adobe's (and others) have followed the cable subscription model. Charge them for 500 channels, when people only watch a few. And of course they'll simply point you to their a-la-carte options which if your want AI, ID, PS, will run you more than the full package.

Perhaps if they had a sliding scale like one for $20, 2 for 30, 3 for 40.
So if you paid an extra $10, you'd get everything.

 

[sigmadog]

As an aside, does anyone know if Adobe's Creative Cloud must have internet access to be used? In other words, if someone has CC and their access to the internet goes down, will CC still function? Knowing Adobe, I suspect they have some kind of online check function to verify registered users.

I ask because sometimes out here in the woods our ISP goes down. It happened a couple weeks ago during a windstorm. No power for four days, and the ISP was out for almost five. Because we have a generator, I was able to get work done in CS6 (though I couldn't email proofs). I wonder, if I had CC, would I have been able to use it during that time?

 

[Jim Campbell]

As an aside, does anyone know if Adobe's Creative Cloud must have internet access to be used? In other words, if someone has CC and their access to the internet goes down, will CC still function? Knowing Adobe, I suspect they have some kind of online check function to verify registered users.

I ask because sometimes out here in the woods our ISP goes down. It happened a couple weeks ago during a windstorm. No power for four days, and the ISP was out for almost five. Because we have a generator, I was able to get work done in CS6 (though I couldn't email proofs). I wonder, if I had CC, would I have been able to use it during that time?

As I understand it, CC will run offline, but 'phones home' once a month to confirm that the subscription is still active — if it can't access the internet on that day, the software runs in 'demo mode' until it can confirm that the sub is still ongoing.

 

[sigmadog]

As I understand it, CC will run offline, but 'phones home' once a month to confirm that the subscription is still active — if it can't access the internet on that day, the software runs in 'demo mode' until it can confirm that the sub is still ongoing.

Thanks, Jim.
Now that you mention it, I seem to recall reading something along those lines a couple years ago.

 

[fuchsdh]

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...

Depending on what you do, CC is absolutely a massive cash grab. Adobe knows it, they know you know, you know they know you know... "we're a knowledgeable family", as The Lion in Winter would put it.

Adobe would rather get the regular profits of a subscription, as well as benefit from the inherent laziness of people to cancel subscriptions plus shackling them with no hope of going elsewhere (unless you're willing to pirate CC to maintain access to your old files.)

There are enough benefits to Premiere and After Effects to justify the upgrade, but for print and photo types? I don't see why you'd ever need it. I know people who have managed to keep CS3 humming along just fine all these years. By this point their costs are probably amortized down to just a few bucks a month.

More to the point, the number of people who upgraded every year was generally slim, and Adobe knew it. Hence why moving to a subscription model for everyone was the move they made. It was a far more economical choice in the past to upgrade every two or three years, and that hurt Adobe.

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…

You can still install newer versions of Java, but I presume there's some intrinsic quality to the 6SE install that Illustrator requires?

The main benefit of the 'all or nothing' subscription plans is to provide a sense of value (just like Apple sells some weaker products when you could pay *just* $100 or $200 more and get a much more capable machine) and to try and lock you in more to their ecosystem. It's fairly easy for some people to trade Lightroom or Photoshop for another competing product. It's possible for people using Premiere to go Avid or FCP. But there's no option for me to switch from After Effects. And they're banking on you using the CC cross-app functionality so much you will just swallow the costs.

My current job basically gives me access to the suite for free, but when I move somewhere else or if I go freelance I'll have to think pretty hard about whether or not it's worth the money.

 

[Jim Campbell]

You can still install newer versions of Java, but I presume there's some intrinsic quality to the 6SE install that Illustrator requires?

Yes… I won't pretend I understand it on any technical level, but AI CS6 is built very specifically on Java 6 and there's some stuff that's been changed and/or axed in newer versions that breaks Illustrator. Changes to the way OSX handles installers with El Cap meant that you couldn't just download and run an older installer – they had to write a specific El Cap-friendly installer to put the legacy version of Java onto machines running 10.11. It's been explicitly stated that they aren't going to do it again for 10.12.

I believe there's some command line trickery you can do to get that version of Java running without a custom installer (people were reporting getting it running before official solution was released) but I'm not sure I want my livelihood being dependent on my ability to force an out-of-date installer to install unsupported software onto my Mac.

 

[lucidmedia]

https://tech.co/adobe-profits-beat-expectations-2015-12

Adobe is seeing record profits even with so many jumping ship or refusing to upgrade. Their business model will not change in the near future, no matter who complains. It is a conversation that has been beat to death, frankly.

I think there are far bigger issues:

1. Their inability to produce a tool that integrates itself into a modern web workflow.

2. Their complete mess of a tablet strategy.

Adobe may be flush with cash, but they need to do something with that cash. They need to take some direction and not just maintain course or they will wind up like Yahoo, who missed out on the opportunity to use the Alibaba earnings to redefine the company.

 

[sigmadog]

Adobe is seeing record profits even with so many jumping ship or refusing to upgrade. Their business model will not change in the near future, no matter who complains…

I hate their business model for the many reasons I've posted here, but that didn't stop me from buying Adobe stock when it was around $35/share. Hypocrite? Sure, why not.

I actually wish I had bought more at the time, then I could sell it and maybe fund a couple years of a CC subscription.

…They need to take some direction and not just maintain course or they will wind up like Yahoo, who missed out on the opportunity to use the Alibaba earnings to redefine the company.

Maybe. Then again, Yahoo never sold products (AFAIK), which makes a big difference on the bottom line. Adobe definitely could use some competition, however; it might help clarify things for them.

 

[Jim Campbell]

https://tech.co/adobe-profits-beat-expectations-2015-12

Adobe is seeing record profits even with so many jumping ship or refusing to upgrade. Their business model will not change in the near future, no matter who complains. It is a conversation that has been beat to death, frankly.

Purely anecdotal, but I had an interesting conversation with another freelancer the other day, who said that two of his major corporate clients had 500-seat operations still running CS6 with a handful of stations running CC exclusively for the purposes of saving CC files down to CS6.

 

[MacGizmo]

I'm constantly amazed by people who complain about $500-$600 per year for Creative Cloud. Adobe's apps are pro-level software packages. They're not for hobbyists. And they're not for folks who think they're pros, but charge $50 for a logo design, $100 for a website, or $20 per hour for video editing.

The cost of a year subscription of CC can (and should) be made up in less than a day of work. Heck, for many designers, the inclusion of TypeKit is worth the cost alone.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I'm constantly amazed by people who complain about $500-$600 per year for Creative Cloud. Adobe's apps are pro-level software packages. They're not for hobbyists. And they're not for folks who think they're pros, but charge $50 for a logo design, $100 for a website, or $20 per hour for video editing.

Yet again: Creative Cloud is fantastically bad value for money compared to the vast majority of the old CS bundles. My objections are multiple and price gouging is only one of them. Being entirely at Adobe's mercy with respect to future pricing is another; Adobe's less-than-stellar record with cloud services and security is another. Add to that the fact that if Adobe has a server outage on the day your software needs to dial home, you're just plain out of luck until it comes back online.

(Although, if you decided to abandon your CC subscription, it's worth noting that Affinity Photo and Designer will open your .PSD and .AI files perfectly well respectively.)

 

[sigmadog]

I'm constantly amazed by people who complain about $500-$600 per year for Creative Cloud. Adobe's apps are pro-level software packages. They're not for hobbyists. And they're not for folks who think they're pros, but charge $50 for a logo design, $100 for a website, or $20 per hour for video editing.

The cost of a year subscription of CC can (and should) be made up in less than a day of work. Heck, for many designers, the inclusion of TypeKit is worth the cost alone.

I'm so very weary of responding to this argument again and again. Here's my response (posted to my blog because it's easier to link to it than type it out here every time):

Adobe Creative Cloud - not a great deal

 

[fuchsdh]

I'm so very weary of responding to this argument again and again. Here's my response (posted to my blog because it's easier to link to it than type it out here every time):

Adobe Creative Cloud - not a great deal

Solid writeup. I've been staying on CS6 and the initial release versions of CC on my home computer because upgrading and migrating all my AE scripts and plugins and keeping them compatible is a pain, and I'd rather not jump between versions while I'm still working on projects (a big and complicated animation is still in the pipe). There's definitely benefits to the new versions for me in AE and AI that I use at work, but like you say, for those who are in mature industries there's really no major compelling reason to update.

The most recent Adobe Illustrator changes are entirely for those people using touch interfaces. I laughed out loud when I saw that.

 

[Jim Campbell]

Here's my response

Succinct and well-put. Just out of curiosity after reading that, I went through the what's new list for InDesign and there are literally zero features that would have compelled me to upgrade under the old model, which interestingly makes both my point and Adobe's…

(I'll admit, I can see slightly more value on the Photoshop list, but not £600/yr's worth…)

 

[sigmadog]

Time permitting, I'll probably take a look at the new features in InDesign and Photoshop as well, just out of curiosity. I focused on Illustrator because I use it for roughly 70% of my work.

It's hard to imagine any new feature in InDesign that would make my publication workflow any easier. Considering it's the youngest of the three (PS, AI, ID), only having come out within the last 15 years or so, it has reached peak maturity quite fast.

I could see Photoshop adding a "Gee Whiz" factor with new image manipulation features, but for the most part, the way I use Photoshop really hasn't changed much over the last few versions. My workflow, efficiency and habits are pretty well established.

 

[Jim Campbell]

I could see Photoshop adding a "Gee Whiz" factor with new image manipulation features, but for the most part, the way I use Photoshop really hasn't changed much over the last few versions. My workflow, efficiency and habits are pretty well established.

I've used most of the major versions going back to 1.0… The number of real "YES!" features have been few and far between, IMO. Editable text was a big one. Layers was a real 'This changes everything' feature. Adjustment Layers was a very logical extension of that (we got History in the same update, I think, which was also a decent addition). Since then…? Umm… the Content-Aware stuff has been more useful than I expected…

 

[satchmo]

I wouldn't be as much of a holdout if Adobe made it easier for Canadians to pay. For some unknown reason, we are one of the countries that can't pay with our national currency.

Meanwhile, you can pay in Turkish Lyra or Indian Rupee, but the country that borders the US, can't pay in Cdn dollars.
Instead, we must add in another few percentage points to our credit card companies.

 

[sigmadog]

I wouldn't be as much of a holdout if Adobe made it easier for Canadians to pay. For some unknown reason, we are one of the countries that can't pay with our national currency.

Meanwhile, you can pay in Turkish Lyra or Indian Rupee, but the country that borders the US, can't pay in Cdn dollars.
Instead, we must add in another few percentage points to our credit card companies.

That's the Apple Poutine Tax.

 

[MacGizmo]

I'm so very weary of responding to this argument again and again. Here's my response (posted to my blog because it's easier to link to it than type it out here every time):
Adobe Creative Cloud - not a great deal

Great write-up, but for crying out loud, you could have attributed my quote

I want to respond to your six points, because I think people mistake my "understanding/acceptance" of Adobe CC for "satisfaction."

1. Adobe CC is most certainly “pro-level” software, but so is CS6. And the good news is, CS6 is paid for.
This is perhaps the only point I don't have a comment on; other than to say that CS6 is only going to work for so long — unless you're going to never upgrade your hardware or OS.

2. Adobe CS6 software for print design (PS, ID, AI) is fully mature software. The features being added via CC are nice, but not earthshaking enough to justify $600/year/user.
Well this is (obviously) a matter of opinion. CC Libraries are EXTREMELY valuable to me and the teams I work with. The small improvements to InDesign are worth the price of CC alone, in my opinion—that's not even including new features. However, I do understand your position here, and it's clearly one that a lot of users share.

3. I only need three software applications, not the whole collection of Adobe apps for web design, video, and all the rest, but with CC, Adobe forces me to pay for all packages whether I want them or not.
This is one area where we're in 100% agreement. This part really pisses me off, because like you, I basically only used the print apps (ID, PS, AI and Acrobat). If given the choice, I would prefer a bundle that includes only those apps.

That being said, more and more companies are hiring designers who know how to code websites, use Premiere & After Effects, etc... This also pisses me off, but that's for another discussion. I suspect more and more new users (Adobe's future) is made up of these people. We my friend, are Adobe's past.

4. In CC, I must maintain my subscription if I ever want to open the files again.
Certainly true for some apps, but others have no problem being opened/used in other apps. Actually, if/when a certain company releases their ID competing app next year and it opens ID files, I will most likely cancel my CC subscription.

That being said, I recall having this problem/decision back in the late 90s when I made the decision to switch from Quark to InDesign. What I found was that the transition (and the need to open old files) was grossly overblown.

5. Adobe has removed any chance I have of judging for myself whether the upgrades are worth the price for me and my workflow
They have demos. Unless I'm mis-interpreting what you're saying there.

6. Because I generally upgraded only every other version, the $600/user subscription cost is actually about a 260% increase over what I used to pay.
There's no argument there... except that there are great many users who upgraded every to every new version. And those upgrades were only slightly less that the yearly CC subscription fee. So the value is there for a lot of us "old-timers."


I don't consider myself an Adobe apologist. I am not happy about the subscription pricing. But I'm also not getting so worked up about it. It's a relatively minor expense for a pro user. And they are great products, it's not like they're junk that we're forced to use.

 

[sigmadog]

Great write-up, but for crying out loud, you could have attributed my quote

Done!

Regarding #5, What I meant was that under the subscription model, all upgrades are forced on me whether I want them or not. In the past, I could choose not to pay for the upgrades if I felt they weren't useful to me, saving me the cost of a yearly upgrade price. Lots of users did skip versions, because, frankly, the upgrades weren't compelling enough. Adobe's solution to this problem was not to make each upgrade truly amazing (an admittedly difficult to near impossible task, in my opinion) and hard to ignore, but instead to adopt the subscription model which boosts their income because those users like me who would have skipped upgrades and saved their money are now subscribers and no longer can choose not to pay.

I suspect the subscription model was conceived for this very reason. It makes business sense for Adobe, but it's an added burden on me (as I point out in #6 - the 260% increase in cost).

Yeah. I can afford it for both users, but I'm not happy about the idea of "renting" software. I'm old-school - I prefer to own my tools (and my music, but that's for another forum). I'll probably switch to the CC eventually because like you say, CS6 is only going to work for so long. But I'm holding on to my hardware and OS as long as possible to avoid that dreaded day.

Here's a scary thought: What if Apple adopted the subscription model also? I usually keep my computers for 6 or more years. I think I'd consider retiring at that point. Ha!

PS: MacGizmo, I've bookmarked your web site. Looks like a lot of useful information lurking there.

 

[Possumgal]

There's another consideration for people who run equipment connected to their computers. Some have to run a system not up to date, because their expensive digital equipment or platesetters won't run on a newer system. When adopting CC would require spending tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade peripheral equipment, it's just not feasible to go that route.

 

[chaosbunny]

I'm constantly amazed by people who complain about $500-$600 per year for Creative Cloud. Adobe's apps are pro-level software packages. They're not for hobbyists. And they're not for folks who think they're pros, but charge $50 for a logo design, $100 for a website, or $20 per hour for video editing.

The cost of a year subscription of CC can (and should) be made up in less than a day of work. Heck, for many designers, the inclusion of TypeKit is worth the cost alone.

I like your later, longer post but this is a stupid argument. So you are not a pro if you care about your expenses and their value for money? Quite the opposite is true if you are running a business!

I was very close to giving in and getting the cc subscription but I always found something that would actually be more important/beneficial for the money - a lens, some camera equipment, a better gpu, more hd/ssd space, ...

Oh and by the way, here in central Europe it's not $ 500-600, it's € 720!