Mike Farley wrote:Most of Adobe's customers are professional users and this change will make very little difference to them. The cost of the software is trivial compared to paying someone to use it and in any event it is tax deductible as a business expense. In some ways, paying for the software on a monthly basis rather than as a one off cost might also be a benefit for cashflows.
I'm curious how you know this? As in, how do you know what proportion of their client base is professional vs. semi pro vs. the rest, and also of those professionals how many of those are working for large design firms who likely won't have any option but to continue with the change, or who are perhaps more like Scott Kelby - independent design or photography professionals who still need a professional tool and for whom this represents an overall net increase in price. I've googled for a revenue breakdown for Adobe by product and by user type/sector and couldn't find one. Granted I agree it's probably true, same as Canon/Nikon cameras are a small part of their respective company turnovers, but not sure how you know it will make very little difference?
Also bear in mind that one of the reasons that businesses continue to upgrade is so they get the benefit of Adobe customer service. When CS6 support is stopped they'll have to move regardless or management will take the opportunity to look for a cheaper option, especially in the current financial climate.
People like you and I do not matter so much to Adobe, particularly when you consider how we buy our software, which is typically through intermediaries. That means that Adobe was having to share the proceeds with the likes of Amazon, whereas now Adobe gets to receive the full revenue stream from each and every one of its customers.
Totally agree we are a small % of the market share but it doesn't mean that the same frustration isn't being felt by others - MAJOR photo houses are expressing anger over twitter/facebook/online. Although the shift to remove the third parties like amazon is probably a major driver for them, I'd be interested to see their calculation that shows the loss from one off purchases vs. their projected revenue from increasing the cost to those who go with the subscription model. Doubt we ever will though!
However I think there will be a subset of people for whom they would have debated over getting photoshop or not will be put off completely, and the product will just be pirated. If 1000 people worldwide do that because of this change that's over 600k revenue they just lost.
Adobe can pull this stunt as it has a near monopoly in its markets and offers integration between its products. Indeed, less than £50 a month looks reasonable to be able to use all its products which if bought as a one off purchase would run into four figures. Admittedly, it looks less attractive if only a proportion of tjem are needed. It is unlikely to lose future business as it offers a cost affordable way into Photoshop via Elements and all the other products are already only available in premium versions. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that it has reduced the price of Lightroom, although it looks as though this could be offset by upgrades being annual in future.
I think one of the drivers for this is because it DOESN'T have a monopoly, not anymore. The open source stuff that was lagging behind has caught up rapidly and that's only for the Photoshop style apps. Lightroom is merely one among many other options for example, most of them free or considerably cheaper that do exactly the same job (you should see the debate on the work photo channel when a newbie says "What photo management tool should I use?"!). I use a freeware tool for editing images at work for those occasions I need to and it does 80% of what I need, for instance. If I upgraded no doubt that figure would rise.
Also the model of full digital distribution has been tried before, many times, and often fails. The early days of selling music online failed miserably simply because people who wanted that product just found ways to get it for free. It's only when places like iTunes have lowered the price to where people want to pay for it that it reached a tipping point and people switched over. People hate feeling like they are being taken advantage of and ripped off!
There are few digital distribution models that are actually working and let's not forget that many people and business like the reassurance of having a set of physical media they own forever. This is a very different psychological switch and one that business management will no doubt consider - do we want to fully invest in a toolset we need to continuously pay for and that will mean we are stuck with, or do we take this as an opportunity to look at the competition?
As photographers, we have a choice. The combination of LR and PSE is cost effective, covers most requirements and is still available to us. Nothing has changed here. If the full version of Photoshop is really important, then Adobe has put a new, higher price on that. Unfortunate, maybe, but Adobe is in business to make as much money as possible and doubtless has carefully calculated how much it can charge to maximise its revenues.
Yes, that's clearly the driver behind it all - but that doesn't mean it's misguided and not elicited a massive backlash among their users!
I contend that there is very little in PS CC that is "must have", other than possibly camera shake reduction. The CS6 update was also less than compelling, in my view. In a few months time, when the initial Creative Cloud discounts for existing users have lapsed, we will probably see a form of CSR in PSE 12. Similarly, LR seems to be a maturing product and provided Adobe does not change its policy to one of having to upgrade from the previous version, updating to each new version will become less essential. On the same basis, little has changed in PSE since version 9 other than the revised Raw conversion in PSE 11. Regular updates are not essential there either, especially if LR with its superior functionality is used for Raw conversion.
You're entitled to make your own view on these things of course. I've looked at CS5 and CS6 and decided there was little I needed in them either so I didn't upgrade. So the version I have is still providing value for money long, long, long after purchase. I can continue to use this now for as long as I want. I can use freeware raw conversion, such as DNG or the tools Canon provides, to access future camera raw files. With CC you simply won't be able to do that - the moment you stop paying, you lose the ability to work within your hobby (or business) using that tool. As a consumer I do not like that option so would take business elsewhere.
Remember too that when Adobe DO add something you want, to get it you are tying yourself into that outlay for as long as you want to use it. Simply saying "well I don't mind because there's nothing I want out of it now" is a bit short sighted, there'll be something you DO want from it soon enough. And if Adobe know they make money by forcing people into subscriptions there is no guarantee they will continue to incorporate it into cheaper products - certainly not at the same timescales as they have in the past and they could well introduce another subscription model for enthusiasts like us. Let's also not forget that because they've done this once, if Adobe management thinks it's provided them a benefit to their bottom line they'll look for places to do it again and Lightroom will be one of their options.
