Adobe Announces New Creative Cloud Apps, Abandons Creative Suite

[Mac21ND]

And there it is, the downfall of the software industry. First Adobe, then Microsoft and then the rest. Goodbye to purchased software, goodbye to reselling of software. Pretty soon software companies will just be the next mobile service providers, screwing us all with monthly charges and fees and whatever else they decide to charge us on any given day. And if you don't pay, your software stops working.

On the plus side, this might actually get people to get serious about Adobe alternatives. For small businesses, the subscription model is a disaster. Corporations already have annual budgets for updates to their software, but small businesses often stretch their purchases as long as they can to make ends meet. All I can say is thank goodness for open source and indie developers.

We'll end up with two models:

1) Subscription (i.e. Adobe, Microsoft)

2) Google (free, but at what costs???)

It's your typical have / have-nots.

Companies like Pixelmator will try to provide a third option, but will never have the resources to compete against the other two.

 

[Renzatic]

$600 a year is still a lot for folk who updated their software on a 2-3 year schedule. Once the price increase hits, and it's $60 a month or $1200 a year, that is a HUGE amount, especially for folks that might only be making $40k a year or so..

It's still the cheaper option. Even if they don't upgrade at all, they've paid $1800 over three years, rather than $2500 up front.

And where is everyone getting the price increase from? I'm looking at the buying guide, and it's not mentioning anything about a price increase to come later. The only catch is you're paying less for a yearly sub, rather than going month by month.

edit: Okay, I found this. But that's if you want the entire suite for $30 for the first year instead of the $50 we've all been talking about.

 

[RolyPolyBird]

Lame software model. I hope we don't see this come to the Mac.

 

[x86isslow]

For all the small businesses I've dealt with, large lump-sum payments are a disaster for budgets. It's a lot easier to pay a small amount per month for the months where you actually use the software than to pay for the whole suite up-front, and then have it sit on your dock unopened for half the year.

And there it is, the downfall of the software industry. First Adobe, then Microsoft and then the rest. Goodbye to purchased software, goodbye to reselling of software. Pretty soon software companies will just be the next mobile service providers, screwing us all with monthly charges and fees and whatever else they decide to charge us on any given day. And if you don't pay, your software stops working.

On the plus side, this might actually get people to get serious about Adobe alternatives. For small businesses, the subscription model is a disaster. Corporations already have annual budgets for updates to their software, but small businesses often stretch their purchases as long as they can to make ends meet. All I can say is thank goodness for open source and indie developers.

 

[JoeyCloverfield]

Johnny asked, "Grandpa... is it true that back when you were in your twenties you only had to pay once for software?" and I replied, "Yes grandson, that's true. But let's not worry about that now, the aliens are catching up to us".

 

[3282868]

Lame software model. I hope we don't see this come to the Mac.

Thankfully, Apple has a tendency to offer [complimentary] app's at a lower/more competitive cost (such as OS X) as it bolsters Mac sales. Unfortunately, those lower prices have come with lower performance (I'm looking at you, Final Cut "Pro" X - although the last update made a big difference).

Cupertino, if you're watching, this is a prime opportunity to get back the pro's who abandoned ship by producing solid pro-App's as you once did.

 

[wildmac]

It appears the CS6 upgrades are indeed gone from Amazon already. Based on prices elsewhere, the Design Standard 5.5 to 6 upgrade is ~290 or so. So a CC sub would be a bit more over one year. Folks with older versions of CS would save some money IF they were planning on upgrading.

What happens after the first year? who knows.

I can also see Adobe cutting off the updates if you quit CC and reinstall your 5.5 or something else in a year or two.

If you have an older version, keep it installed and updated on your HD, you many never get it back otherwise.

 

[the8thark]

And the 2nd issue I have is, what if abobe kill one version of CC and force you to update? Most professional places internally authorise software when they feel it's bug free enough for their projects. Now Adobe is saying we won't wait for you, you update when we tell you to.

 

[jyroflux]

This is not Adobe's first mistake, but perhaps their biggest. I'll not rent software.

 

[the8thark]

We'll end up with two models:

1) Subscription (i.e. Adobe, Microsoft)

2) Google (free, but at what costs???)

It's your typical have / have-nots.

Companies like Pixelmator will try to provide a third option, but will never have the resources to compete against the other two.

There is a 3rd choice.

3) Apple (cheaper software but has the hardware price as a requirement to use the cheaper software)

Apple can do this cause they have the hardware as a profit point.

 

[JamesInLA]

I wonder if Adobe realizes how large of a gap this opens in the market for design applications. Who wants to be tethered to a subscription? With this move, many designers may move to other applications even if they're inferior simply to escape Adobe's moronic licensing.

If I were the developer behind Acorn or Pixelmator, upon hearing this news I'd be busting my rear right now producing a professional version capable of properly competing with Photoshop. There's money to be made.

Actually, if I were the developer of Acorn or Pixelmator, I'd be ringing up Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Quark to initiate acquisition talks.

Last week it wouldn't make sense for anyone to throw a few hundred million dollars at developing a CS competitor. But now it does, and there are several obvious players with the money to do it.

 

[Renzatic]

And the 2nd issue I have is, what if abobe kill one version of CC and force you to update? Most professional places internally authorise software when they feel it's bug free enough for their projects. Now Adobe is saying we won't wait for you, you update when we tell you to.

I think it'll update the same way Photoshop and co. update now. If you don't want to use the latest version, then don't download it. I doubt they'll care much if you're not using the latest rev to come down the pipeline.

 

[wildmac]

It's still the cheaper option. Even if they don't upgrade at all, they've paid $1800 over three years, rather than $2500 up front.

And where is everyone getting the price increase from? I'm looking at the buying guide, and it's not mentioning anything about a price increase to come later. The only catch is you're paying less for a yearly sub, rather than going month by month.

edit: Okay, I found this. But that's if you want the entire suite for $30 for the first year instead of the $50 we've all been talking about.

Do you work for Adobe? You keep comparing either to Master Suite upgrade prices or a fresh purchase. My CS6 upgrade would not cost me $2500 up front. It would be around $600, if I can still find it.

Also, the page you linked pretty much guarantees that the $30/month will only be the first year, likely $60/month after that.

So that's $360 for the first year, and $720 (or more) for the second year and beyond.

And as others have noted, no more concurrent usage, so goodbye to editing on your laptop and your workstation.

 

[Seppentoni]

That's certainly one way to look at it. If I have no customers this month, I don't pay to use Cloud. If I have customers, I pay $50 to use it. Certainly easier than dropping $2000+ on Creative Suite all at once.

So you are able to just leave moneygaps in your subscription, when you don't use the software?

 

[fivedots]

There is a 3rd choice.

3) Apple (cheaper software but has the hardware price as a requirement to use the cheaper software)

Apple can do this cause they have the hardware as a profit point.

That'd be great. Except where is this software? Where's Aperture? Logic anyone?

Actually, if I were the developer of Acorn or Pixelmator, I'd be ringing up Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Quark to initiate acquisition talks.

Last week it wouldn't make sense for anyone to throw a few hundred million dollars at developing a CS competitor. But now it does, and there are several obvious players with the money to do it.

Except first wind of this and Adobe would shift their licensing scheme in some way to counter it. They've got virtually no competition in many of their areas, so they have very little to lose.

 

[3282868]

There is a 3rd choice.

3) Apple (cheaper software but has the hardware price as a requirement to use the cheaper software)

Apple can do this cause they have the hardware as a profit point.

Unfortunately, Apple abandoned the "pro" market some years ago in favor of the mass consumer market. They're now feeling the consequence(s) *cough*marketsaturation*cough*cough*AAPL*cough*cough*. Many of us are hoping WWDC brings the business/pro-market back to Apple. Once upon a time, Apple lead industry's with phenomenal pro-Apps and hardware. Bring back displayS with more options for desktop use, the previous gen CCFL LCD's were fantastic with Mac's, even Windows systems, in three sizes (!) and cables long enough to reach a desktop Mac. Then came the [dreaded] stripped down iMac LED LCD panel as their one display offering (and how's that Mac Pro coming along? It's been, ummm, 3 years).

 

[JamesInLA]

For all the small businesses I've dealt with, large lump-sum payments are a disaster for budgets. It's a lot easier to pay a small amount per month for the months where you actually use the software than to pay for the whole suite up-front, and then have it sit on your dock unopened for half the year.

Sure, but in this model you don't just pay for it in the months you use it. It's recurring. The individual "cancel at any time" price is $75/mo. How many of your small businesses are going to sit and think about whether they should pay $75 this month to edit their flyer? It's not a viable option.

 

[the8thark]

I think it'll update the same way Photoshop and co. update now. If you don't want to use the latest version, then don't download it. I doubt they'll care much if you're not using the latest rev to come down the pipeline.

You don't know this. Adobe might only allow monthly activations/renewals of the latest versions of their software. And this is a very import question to the pros out there.

 

[handsome pete]

$600 a year is still a lot for folk who updated their software on a 2-3 year schedule. Once the price increase hits, and it's $60 a month or $1200 a year, that is a HUGE amount, especially for folks that might only be making $40k a year or so..

I still fail to see how it's that much more for those customers. Let's take CS production premium for example. It's $1700 for the suite. So if you're a person who upgrades on the 3 year path, you were originally spending $566 per year where now you'll be spending an additional $34. However if you upgraded on the 2 year schedule you're actually saving $500 over that first two years.

Of course this only accounts for the initial purchase cycle. Where the cost differential really comes into play is when you look at multiple cycles. That's when you start losing money. And it only gets worse from there.

The increase in monthly price is purely hypothetical. It could just as easily go down in price, especially if Adobe does end up facing any sort of competition.

 

[JamesInLA]

Except first wind of this and Adobe would shift their licensing scheme in some way to counter it. They've got virtually no competition in many of their areas, so they have very little to lose.

They have no competition now because it wouldn't have made sense for anyone to spend the money to develop a competitor. But if they stick to their guns on this licensing model, it sure seems like a profitable niche, particularly for a company that already has some of the pieces in hand.

 

[the8thark]

Unfortunately, Apple abandoned the "pro" market some years ago in favor of the mass consumer market.

I would downvote you if I could. Apple have not abandoned the pros. Apple is just taking a different direction with it all. Some pros like it, others don't. Can't please everyone all of the time.

 

[anim8or]

Admittedly I have only read page 1 of this thread but I just had to comment based on those replies already...

I have been using Adobe Creative Cloud professionally for a year now.... And it is definitely the better option than expensive upgrades every year or two.

For those not in the know, the applications ate not cloud based, thy are downloaded and installed directly on your mac/pc, only requiring a Internet connection once a moth to check subscription status.

£30 - £45 a month is a hell of a lot more affordable than huge outlay at one time and easier to budget for... Plus subscription apps allow the developers to issues major feature updates without releasing whole (or .5) version updates for a cost!

As usual everybody jumps on the whinging bandwagon before trying the package for themselves.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Sure, but in this model you don't just pay for it in the months you use it. It's recurring. The individual "cancel at any time" price is $75/mo. How many of your small businesses are going to sit and think about whether they should pay $75 this month to edit their flyer? It's not a viable option.

Adobe has always made expensive software catered to professionals.

If all you're doing is making a monthly newsletter... you might need to find a better alternative.

 

[handsome pete]

It's still the cheaper option. Even if they don't upgrade at all, they've paid $1800 over three years, rather than $2500 up front.

And where is everyone getting the price increase from? I'm looking at the buying guide, and it's not mentioning anything about a price increase to come later. The only catch is you're paying less for a yearly sub, rather than going month by month.

edit: Okay, I found this. But that's if you want the entire suite for $30 for the first year instead of the $50 we've all been talking about.

Yeah, the price increase is just some hypothetical people seem to be conjuring up.

However if you consider long term buyers (say over a 10 year period), the new model will cost substantially more than the old one.

 

[thatisme]

I still fail to see how it's that much more for those customers. Let's take CS production premium for example. It's $1700 for the suite. So if you're a person who upgrades on the 3 year path, you were originally spending $566 per year where now you'll be spending an additional $34. However if you upgraded on the 2 year schedule you're actually saving $500 over that first two years.

Of course this only accounts for the initial purchase cycle. Where the cost differential really comes into play is when you look at multiple cycles. That's when you start losing money. And it only gets worse from there.

The increase in monthly price is purely hypothetical. It could just as easily go down in price, especially if Adobe does end up facing any sort of competition.

double the subscription cost if you use 2 machines. Current licenses of CS allow for 2 installs under the same license. You can have the software run concurrently on both machines. Does CC allow that? (I'm not sure it does). If it does not, then your subscription cost should be double to account for the second machine.