This is terrible, regressive, invasive move. The console game industry used to work like this back in the SNES / Saturn days. One provider owns the market and the media, and if you want to play, it is entirely on their constantly moving terms. They can change terms, pricing, anything at any time. Also, they can monitor your activity, files, whatever.

Price is the tool they will use to get you - the same old story of the first one "being free". The argument there is they can say its cheaper than "buying". That argument holds as long as they reach the threshhold where they own X % of the market with this strategy. If a few people are angry because of a 10-20% price bump, what are they going to do?

For all that software "in the channel" has become unpopular - stores, resellers, distributors - it also provides a thriving tech economy, and regulates release quality. You don't put something out in the channel that's half baked. But direct download sales removes that.

Its a bad move for the consumer. But people are dumb enough to buy in so its inevitable, unless the creative community really rallies against it.

And in case any of you have missed it, here's Hitlers take on it all...

And in case any of you have missed it, here's Hitlers take on it all...

While i feel you have some form of a joke here I really dont think its relevant! Even if you do have a point hilter was bad so... your point is further invalid! AHAHA

EDIT:

Actually, i watched it again... and ill be damned if i cant tell if he is being legit ( the person who wrote this ) or if it is some form of a satire.... i dont know!!!!!

I understand the Cloud system and how they feel they need to combat piracy. I think if I worked at Adobe I'd probably be pissed that I was losing out on so much cash. It would be like if I made a game and it was be torrented out there to the world instead of being bought off me.

But as a person who's always had multiple copies of the Adobe suite, one at my company and a version at home for freelance, I'm pretty sure I won't pay for the subscription. I think it's fair that they offer the full suite on the cloud for a subscription. But I think their price point is way too high. They may not like the reality of it but for freelance designers, going from free to $50 a month is just too much of a jump. Those artists who are dependent on a pirated version don't make enough money to warrant paying that subscription. They'll find another way. And I think other companies will use this as an opportunity to steal away Adobe customers.

I think they would've received less of a backlash if they offered the master collection around $30. I think overall they'd make more money and get more of the pirated users on board if it were just a bit more reasonable.

I think they would've received less of a backlash if they offered the master collection around $30. I think overall they'd make more money and get more of the pirated users on board if it were just a bit more reasonable.

Changing the price of the subscription model wouldn't solve anything; it would still be a scam that benefits only them. Selling (as in "not renting") the software at more reasonable prices would be better for the consumer, and would do more to combat piracy (as in the miniscule fraction of the pirates that actually use the software commercially--something tells me most are just kids that run the program once or twice for kicks and don't have any money anyway). Like I said before, though, that would also force them to actually improve the product a significant amount with each new release to convince people to buy again, which is something they'd really like to avoid; free money with little to no effort is far more appealing to the execs.

This is not Adobe's model, it's Salesforce's model, and Adobe is only the last one to adopt it, after Microsoft (Office 365, anyone?). Though of course, the original selling gag was "you only pay for what you actually use (evil laugh)", not "you pay for everything, flat". It's not surprising that Adobe would pervert an already rotten concept further, though.

So you're upset, but honestly, who cares. They'll still go that way, even if people are unhappy. Adobe has been selling overpriced products for decades and has successfully used its market position to push inferior and ill-advised technologies (PDF, Flash) to mainstream. They're now only following the "everything must be cloud" movement that the entire industry is going, and they're using the opportunity to secure a market position for their less valuable products (people will use them since they've already paid for the package, and many people using a product raises its market value, think Microsoft Office) as well to make more profit on a regular, predictable base.

Someone said "open source" above, which if you allow me to say, is a joke. The sole reason why Adobe is in such a position is that there is no alternative. Open source (or gratis non-OSS) image processing software is ridiculous. Inkscape may be somewhat of an alternative as a vector drawing program, but that's about it.There's Blender for 3D, but that's an entirely different thing.

For pixel processing, there's Paint .NET, which offers about 1/4 of Photoshop 7.0's features and has an interface that apparently tries to look somehow like Photoshop, and then doesn't.There's GIMP which is unwieldy and slow, and the second worst software I know of. And then there's those 3-4 more or less similar programs from Corel (PaintShop and what they're called), which are just about good enough to crop the photos that you want to upload to Facebook. Oh right... Picasa. did I forget an important competitor? I think not. If you are somewhat serious about raster graphics, you have no choice but to use Photoshop, there simply exists no alternative.

Insofar, Adobe can do just what they want, they'll sell.

Well, to be honest 20 dollars per month for Photoshop is reasonable. Of course the concept of renting is not ideal, but it still gives some benefits to both Abode and their customers.

I mean, I live in Russia and even in IT many people get paid around 1000$ per month. Cut cost of living and there will be almost no money left, so if a person will want to buy Photoshop license, they will have to save money for a few monthes. On other hand, paying 20 dollars is affordable.

Though it is retarded to offer subscription as only option.

I understand the Cloud system and how they feel they need to combat piracy. I think if I worked at Adobe I'd probably be pissed that I was losing out on so much cash. It would be like if I made a game and it was be torrented out there to the world instead of being bought off me.

But as a person who's always had multiple copies of the Adobe suite, one at my company and a version at home for freelance, I'm pretty sure I won't pay for the subscription. I think it's fair that they offer the full suite on the cloud for a subscription. But I think their price point is way too high. They may not like the reality of it but for freelance designers, going from free to $50 a month is just too much of a jump. Those artists who are dependent on a pirated version don't make enough money to warrant paying that subscription. They'll find another way. And I think other companies will use this as an opportunity to steal away Adobe customers.

I think they would've received less of a backlash if they offered the master collection around $30. I think overall they'd make more money and get more of the pirated users on board if it were just a bit more reasonable.

Actually, the math ends up being cheaper than paying for a new CS suite every upgrade.

For the CS 6 master collection, it's 2600$ Canadian (mind you, this is what I'm going off of because I live in Alberta), or 50$ a month.

Now, looking from the past four years or so, I've seen two major upgrades for CS, from 4 to 5 (5.5), than to 6, but let's not include upgrade cost (which are covered by the subscription).

Now, for four years, 50$ a month is 2400$... 600$ a year, right? That's still cheaper than buying the CS Suite right now (it'll take four and a half years before the subscription starts costing more than the Creative Suite).

As a college grad trying to get started, 50$ a month is much more reasonable than 2600$ flat out, right? It's actually a much better deal if you include the fact that the next versions of the program are upgraded for free with subscription. I could pirate it, but rather than searching through a site for a cracked version, I could save time and effort just subscribing to Adobe, and not have any legal issues come up if I want to use it for commercial use. Not to mention I can get the suite for as long as I need it, stop subscribing when I have few projects to do (maybe I'm just setting up Wordpress sites, or coding CSS and HTML from scratch and don't need the Suite for a few months), and end up ultimately saving money (one of my instructors was thrilled that it was that cheap per month).

That being said, yeah, there are problems with the subscription module, but, cost wise, you can't say it cost more to pay monthly than it does to buy the Suite flat out (if you don't upgrade, you still get more value for your buck with the subscription module for four and a half years).

Personally I've been on CS 4 for the last few years, and I don't like the idea of needing to buy a new version (because I have a student licence), but I'd much rather pay 20/50$ a month to get the programs I'm using verses 550+$ for each program (or 2600$ for the full Suite).

Where it does start costing more is the situation the OP is in; Lightbox and Acrobat together cost about 600$, which, if you're not planning on upgrading for two editions, will end up costing more. Though Photoshop Extended is 1000$, you can get it alone for 20$ a month (which is only 240$ a year). One thing they could do to help balance the cost more is with programs like Lightroom and Acrobat, make it cheaper for them monthly (as they ARE the cheaper programs that will end up costing more over time).

I like the direction they've gone from a costwise standpoint (because for me, it works, as I use Photoshop, Flash, and Premier often, and those three programs alone cost about as much as the Suite), but I'm uncertain of the reliability of the subscription module if I'm unable to stay connected to the internet (if they'll copy Diable 3 and Sim City, for example, where you need to be online to even use the programs).

The fact that the only way to get Adobe products now is subscription based is a kick in the teeth; not everyone has the bandwidth (again, Canadian, I'm paying 40$ a month for 1mbps download speed, because I'm in rural area and can't get higher speeds) to download the programs and their upgrades every update. If I'm not able to connect to the internet for a month (say I move and am trying to find an ISP that can suit my needs, and not finding one at a reasonable cost), will the programs shut down after the pay period (or will they even open if I'm not online)? They should have a retail copy available for the public; there is no reason not to (having the subscription based system is a great way to combat pirates, IF it's not the only method of purchasing the programs. When it's not convenient anymore, it's a waste of effort). Because it's the standard for web development is the only reason why I'd pay for monthly an upgrade (currently I'm staying with CS 4 until I get enough hours to cover my living cost before I start trying to upgrade).

At least CS 6 is going to be available (though in six to ten years, who knows how that'll hold up). Maybe there will be more competition coming in the future, who knows? Until that time we're going to have to either get the latest version of the tools we need and never use Adobe again, or pay monthly; not the most ideal options (unless we as content creators decide to develop our own tools, which isn't out of the realm of possibility).