Vito wrote:
So the vig for just PS is $19? for how long? when will it increase (because you know it will increase)?

For CS6 owners, it's $9.95/month for Photoshop only for the first year; that puts the costs around 30% higher than upgrading on each release. Non-trivial, but  not horrible.

For CS3-5.5 owners, it's $19.95/month for the first year. That's around 250% of the current cost of upgrading it each release. Very NON-trivial increase.

I've noticed that all the Adobe-side price comparisons include the cost of a new product as the starting point, rather than showing the impact to existing customers. One such showed an 'old' cost of Photoshop over 3 years to be around $750, vs the Cloud cost of $700. (New purchase, one upgrade vs subscription w/1st year discount.) That's not incorrect, but it's also a couple of special cases; the next upgrade costs (assuming historical trends) around $175 for the box-case, and the next 18 months of subscriptions run $360  (assuming no further price increases, and the annual rate is used rather than month-by-month, which would cost $540 instead.)

So it's around the same price for the first 2 years if you buy new, and after that, it's between 50% and 200% more for the subscription. If you're an existing customer, you pay around 30% more the first year, and around 50% more each year afterwards, with the increase based on current pricing schemes.

Users of the full suite, on the other hand, do appear to benefit greatly. Photographers, using almost exclusively Photoshop (and LR, out of plan), do not.

Hero Foto wrote:
I refuse to rent a product that I already purchased outright. That's fucking INSANE.

It's not insane if people think they have to pay it.

Think car liability insurance... the Obamacare health tax... Income taxes. Everyone bitched when they were introduced, but after time, we just admit defeat, write the check and forget about it.

This is what Adobe knows users will do.

Raphael Baker wrote:
Its really not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Been using CC since it was first announced. You don't have to be logged in to the internet for it to work. I have been a away from the internet for weeks at a time and never ran into any problems. I've also paid the bill a week late once and it still worked. Maybe should try it before complain or just stick with older versions!

Maybe you should actually read some of the very real concerns in this thread before posting. You haven't addressed anything we didn't already know.

KonstantKarma wrote:

It's not insane if people think they have to pay it.

Think car liability insurance... the Obamacare health tax... Income taxes. Everyone bitched when they were introduced, but after time, we just admit defeat, write the check and forget about it.

This is what Adobe knows users will do.

I personally find that "Obamacare" stuff insulting. That's a totally different situation than what Adobe is doing.

Asking you to pay a portion of your income towards health insurance is hardly the same as asking people to pay for software they have already purchased.

People with substance addictions, mental health issues and "adventure freaks" who don't have the good sense or moral fortitude to pay for their own lifestyles are hardly in the same category. We pay for them to live life as they want, and many of them were previously uninsurable.

Keith Allen Phillips wrote:

Maybe you should actually read some of the very real concerns in this thread before posting. You haven't addressed anything we didn't already know.

+1

Sheeple remain sheeple.

Glad to see Adobe stock taking a hit, even if it makes my prediction wrong.
It is rare that Wallstreet does not reward greed.

Gary Melton wrote:
I've been following this thread since it began...and the gist seems to be that a large majority of people DON'T like the subscription only plan, while a few (who are in a position for it to save them money) DO like it.

So why the hell doesn't Adobe just do what they were doing for a while: offer both choices - those that prefer to purchase the software could continue to purchase it, and those that like renting their software can do that.  Seems like a win-win.

...oh, except, it wouldn't allow Adobe to make OUTRAGEOUS profits from us all...

QFT

Gary Melton wrote:
...oh, except, it wouldn't allow Adobe to make OUTRAGEOUS profits from us all...

That's exactly why they are doing it. Adobe doesn't exist to make you happy, they exist to make money.

A lot of people are saying that they want Adobe's share prices to drop but if you owned stock that's exactly what you would want. Buy low, sell high. The share holders don't care about professional photographers and they probably don't even know what Photoshop is. They want money, that's why they buy stocks.

I don't think Adobe is too worried about what the pros are going to do. Pros have invested a huge amount of time learning how to use Photoshop and using Gimp makes you want to pull your hair out. Adobe is more interested in making the program affordable for (or making more money from) the regular person who would normally pirate it. There will be a huge number of people who are willing to pay the reasonably small fee to use it month by month rather than having to shell out the entire amount all at once.

Last month most photographers would have said that they were happy with Adobe for making a product like Photoshop but now it sounds like most are going to look for another program to use. "Photoshop you are my best friend ever... BUT I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL!"  haha

Apple has already been doing this kind of thing for years and they still have a huge following.

I bought PaintShop Pro last year (for $60) but I still haven't used it because I like using Photoshop... no matter how much it costs.

Kevin Connery wrote:

For CS6 owners, it's $9.95/month for Photoshop only for the first year; that puts the costs around 30% higher than upgrading on each release. Non-trivial, but  not horrible.

For CS3-5.5 owners, it's $19.95/month for the first year. That's around 250% of the current cost of upgrading it each release. Very NON-trivial increase.

Through July 31, 2013, owners of CS3+ can get Photoshop CC for $9.99/month for the first year.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/ … op-cc.html

Kevin Connery wrote:
Users of the full suite, on the other hand, do appear to benefit greatly. Photographers, using almost exclusively Photoshop (and LR, out of plan), do not.

Here's how I feel:



Click here to share on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … =1&theater

Raphael Baker wrote:
Maybe should try it before complain

Which would be giving victory to Adobe - and, besides, we can't all afford to try it.

Philip of Dallas wrote:
You (few) people who say this is fine really need to think about the long term ramifications. It's like Hansel and Gretal: "Great! A house made out of candy! What could possibly go wrong?!" Adobe is playing you for suckers.

You (few) people are also the ones that have the most power to get Adobe to change their ways. If most of you would protest and not subscribe, Adobe would have to give in. Really it's in your best interest to not let them get away with this.

Adobe CC is fine, but they need to have a box version, perpetual license option. Otherwise there is absolutely nothing to hold them accountable and they've got you by the balls for life.

It's bad, really bad. I urge you not to fall for the cheese in their mousetrap.

+1

They are not the only digital image manipulation software developer. They are only around as long as we feed them. On one side, paying bucks deluxe gets you their software and all their "latest greatest" tools. OTOH, paying far far less and doing the best you can with what you can feasibly afford and still stay in business - alike 70% of the photographers who make a portion/all of their living via photography - will allow you to *live, and retain control over what you do, and how. Adobe can suck a big meaty wart-covered greengoo-dripping............

Gary Melton wrote:
I've been following this thread since it began...and the gist seems to be that a large majority of people DON'T like the subscription only plan, while a few (who are in a position for it to save them money) DO like it.

So why the hell doesn't Adobe just do what they were doing for a while: offer both choices - those that prefer to purchase the software could continue to purchase it, and those that like renting their software can do that.  Seems like a win-win.

...oh, except, it wouldn't allow Adobe to make OUTRAGEOUS profits from us all...

I don't know the answer to your question.  I am one of the ones that likes it.  I am not necessarily saving money, but it is a monthly expense which is fully tax deductible.  I also get much better support since tech support is included so long as I am a member.

I think it is imperfect.  I also feel that at some point, I should have paid enough to be able to continue to use my existing version, unsupported.  In the end though, I have been a subscriber for some time now.  I do like it but I can see why it is not for everyone.

Photog Ed Devereaux wrote:
Or you could just buy Lightroom.

Which is no alternative to PS, it's just a  not very good Raw converter, with some not very good archiving software.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
If Apple got serious or any major company they could make a software to rival photoshop, because now they don't need to better just affordable and available, as photoshop moves to the cloud.

http://www.corel.com/corel/product/inde … rod4900069

You're welcome ;P.

WMcK wrote:

Which is no alternative to PS, it's just a  not very good Raw converter, with some not very good archiving software.

+1

They're different types of programs altogether, tfor chrissakes! I'm pretty sold on LR3 (dislike tyhe looks of LR4, which I've considered seriously), but Adobe can kiss my dick if they think I'm signing-up for monthly payments. I don't need no more monthly payments

GPS Studio Services wrote:

I don't know the answer to your question.  I am one of the ones that likes it.  I am not necessarily saving money, but it is a monthly expense which is fully tax deductible.   I also get much better support since tech support is included so long as I am a member.

I think it is imperfect.  I also feel that at some point, I should have paid enough to be able to continue to use my existing version, unsupported.  In the end though, I have been a subscriber for some time now.  I do like it but I can see why it is not for everyone.

I am unsure what you mean by this.  I think you are saying that the monthly expense (since you don't "own" the software) is fully deductable in the current year vs. "purchased" software which is depreciated over a number of years?

Either way, ignoring time periods, the software is deducted, no?

Herman Surkis wrote:
Too funny despite a couple of errors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … 7Iw9q2X9cU

I almost fell out of my chair when he got to the Panzers.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Too funny despite a couple of errors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … 7Iw9q2X9cU

+1

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I don't know the answer to your question.  I am one of the ones that likes it.  I am not necessarily saving money, but it is a monthly expense which is fully tax deductible.   I also get much better support since tech support is included so long as I am a member.

I think it is imperfect.  I also feel that at some point, I should have paid enough to be able to continue to use my existing version, unsupported.  In the end though, I have been a subscriber for some time now.  I do like it but I can see why it is not for everyone.

Digitoxin wrote:
I am unsure what you mean by this.  I think you are saying that the monthly expense (since you don't "own" the software) is fully deductable in the current year vs. "purchased" software which is depreciated over a number of years?

Either way, ignoring time periods, the software is deducted, no?

Of course they are both deductible.  Indeed, in a year where I would turn a profit, I could deduct the entire cost of the software as section 179 accelerated depreciation.  That is not the point.

Every month that I pay for the software, the government is effectively paying for 35% of the cost through reduced corporate taxes.  When I look at the net cost to me -vs- the benefit of having the software ... always having the latest version of the software along with full technical support, I find the business expense to be worthwhile to me.

I signed up for the cloud subscription, because for me, when I balanced ultimate cost -vs- benefit for my business, it worked out to be a good thing.  For many others, I can see it as a monthly expense you won't want to absorb.  It is no doubt true that my business is much larger than most of yours and that will factor in.

My expectation is that medium sized companies and larger companies will evaluate this and continue to use Adobe products.  Smaller companies, like mine, will have to take a closer look.  For some of us, it will make sense.  For others it won't.

I think for individual photographers and artists, it will represent an increased cost that they will have to look at carefully.  I think for hobbyists, it may make Adobe products too costly to use and they may look for alternatives.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Too funny despite a couple of errors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p … 7Iw9q2X9cU

Robert Feliciano wrote:
+1

This is funny but this video has been out with a slew of different sub-titles for years.  It is cute and creative though.  Hitler just seems to be mad about everything.

Ike Lace Photography wrote:
http://www.corel.com/corel/product/inde … rod4900069

You're welcome ;P.

Amazon has PaintShop Prox 5 Ultimate for just $49.99 right now (that's half off regular price)!  I just got mine...about to install it...

Gary Melton wrote:

Amazon has PaintShop Prox 5 Ultimate for just $49.99 right now (that's half off regular price)!  I just got mine...about to install it...

1/4 of a PS upgrade , a twelvth of a new license, and 2.5 months of a subscription.  I doubt if it is nearly as robust as PS but my guess is that many are going to find out.

Leighthenubian wrote:
I personally find that "Obamacare" stuff insulting. That's a totally different situation than what Adobe is doing.

Asking you to pay a portion of your income towards health insurance is hardly the same as asking people to pay for software they have already purchased.

People with substance addictions, mental health issues and "adventure freaks" who don't have the good sense or moral fortitude to pay for their own lifestyles are hardly in the same category. We pay for them to live life as they want, and many of them were previously uninsurable.

You're missing the point entirely -- Whoosh, over the head.

The point is, the *majority* of people (current poll at 56%) oppose paying for Obamacare.  The point is, they will have to pay it anyway. And then eventually they will forget they had a time when they didn't.

This is what will happen to Adobe users, if they feel they need the software.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I don't know the answer to your question.  I am one of the ones that likes it.  I am not necessarily saving money, but it is a monthly expense which is fully tax deductible.   I also get much better support since tech support is included so long as I am a member.

I think it is imperfect.  I also feel that at some point, I should have paid enough to be able to continue to use my existing version, unsupported.  In the end though, I have been a subscriber for some time now.  I do like it but I can see why it is not for everyone.

Of course they are both deductible.  Indeed, in a year where I would turn a profit, I could deduct the entire cost of the software as section 179 accelerated depreciation.  That is not the point.

Every month that I pay for the software, the government is effectively paying for 35% of the cost through reduced corporate taxes.  When I look at the net cost to me -vs- the benefit of having the software ... always having the latest version of the software along with full technical support, I find the business expense to be worthwhile to me.

I signed up for the cloud subscription, because for me, when I balanced ultimate cost -vs- benefit for my business, it worked out to be a good thing.  For many others, I can see it as a monthly expense you won't want to absorb.  It is no doubt true that my business is much larger than most of yours and that will factor in.

My expectation is that medium sized companies and larger companies will evaluate this and continue to use Adobe products.  Smaller companies, like mine, will have to take a closer look.  For some of us, it will make sense.  For others it won't.

I think for individual photographers and artists, it will represent an increased cost that they will have to look at carefully.  I think for hobbyists, it may make Adobe products too costly to use and they may look for alternatives.

I am not trying to be argumentative.  I just am seeking clarity.  Do we agree that in either case (subscription or licensed), the expense for the software is tax deductible and therefore in either case   is actually 35% (or whatever the company or individual pass through rate is) less expensive and the "list price" (subscription or license)?

If so, the tax benefit is a wash to the adobe pricing model,  right?

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Of course they are both deductible.  Indeed, in a year where I would turn a profit, I could deduct the entire cost of the software as section 179 accelerated depreciation.  That is not the point.

Every month that I pay for the software, the government is effectively paying for 35% of the cost through reduced corporate taxes.  When I look at the net cost to me -vs- the benefit of having the software ... always having the latest version of the software along with full technical support, I find the business expense to be worthwhile to me.

I signed up for the cloud subscription, because for me, when I balanced ultimate cost -vs- benefit for my business, it worked out to be a good thing.  For many others, I can see it as a monthly expense you won't want to absorb.  It is no doubt true that my business is much larger than most of yours and that will factor in.

My expectation is that medium sized companies and larger companies will evaluate this and continue to use Adobe products.  Smaller companies, like mine, will have to take a closer look.  For some of us, it will make sense.  For others it won't.

I think for individual photographers and artists, it will represent an increased cost that they will have to look at carefully.  I think for hobbyists, it may make Adobe products too costly to use and they may look for alternatives.

Digitoxin wrote:
I am not trying to be argumentative.  I just am seeking clarity.  Do we agree that in either case (subscription or licensed), the expense for the software is tax deductible and therefore in either case   is actually 35% (or whatever the company or individual pass through rate is) less expensive and the "list price" (subscription or license)?

If so, the tax benefit is a wash to the adobe pricing model,  right?

Yes, I have already said that.   In fact, I have said that the cloud is more expensive overall.  I am sorry, perhaps I am not being clear.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Yes, I have already said that.   In fact, I have said that the cloud is more expensive overall.  I am sorry, perhaps I am not being clear.

Nope.  You are being clear now.  I was just confused why you  bothered to mention taxes at all, if it was a wash, in your point here:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st18246962

I thought I was missing something and the subscription model was treated differently for tax somehow.

WMcK wrote:

Which would be giving victory to Adobe - and, besides, we can't all afford to try it.

Almost anyone can afford to try it.  It's using it for the long-term that will screw you over.