ADOBE Monopoly

Discussion in 'Design and Graphics' started by rantingrich, Nov 3, 2014.

  1. rantingrich macrumors regular


    Aug 10, 2009
    Southern Illinois
    I was going to post this on the alternates for Photoshop and Illustrator but what the heck....

    One of my all time favorite vector programs is/was FREEHAND. Even 20 years after Adobe killed it, it is still light years ahead of todays Illustrator.

    Some groups have gotten together and tried to buy the rights for Freehand and resurrect it but of course ADOBE won't it out of the cellar.

    I know when I read about ADOBE buying up MACROMEDIA they would kill all the great programs acquired via that buy out, and stagnify what Adobe programs they already had.

    Now look! Adobe killed all the great programs such as Golive, Freehand and force us to over pay/RENT programs that not only don't get any better but in fact every release gets even worse.

    Ask anyone who has uses Dreamweaver. Version 4 was the last GOOD WYSIWYG version of that program and there is not one user of Dreamweaver that wouldn't say the latest version BITES harder than it ever did. I mean it really really sucks now. You can't even own it any longer you have to rent it….

    This is what happens when one ends up with a monopoly of any kind. Crap Products that never improve and higher costs and NO customer service.

    I wonder what the next 10 years will bring….

  2. chrono1081 macrumors 604


    Jan 26, 2008
    Isla Nublar
    There's a lot of great alternatives to Adobe products. Pixelmator is an excellent alternative to Photoshop. iDraw replaces Illustrator for my uses but many find that Affinity Designer replaces Illustrator for more professional uses.
  3. SwiftLives macrumors 65816


    Dec 7, 2001
    Charleston, SC
    Adobe of today is the Quark of Yesterday.

    My guess about the future - smaller startups are going to begin to eat Adobe's lunch. They've got a very long way to go, but I already see signs of Adobe's complacency - especially their blatant money grabbing move of requiring us to rent their **** software.

    Quark's complacency is exactly what allowed Adobe to eat Quark's lunch with InDesign.

    Ideally, Quark should partner/acquire a photo editor, vector editor, and web creation program. Or heck - combine them all into one mega-Quark program. Because I really believe that Adobe needs some competition.
  4. Jim Campbell macrumors 6502a

    Jim Campbell

    Dec 6, 2006
    A World of my Own; UK
    Affinity Designer is at least 90% of the way to being a complete Illustrator replacement, and that's at v1.1.2 —*the developers' responsiveness via their forums and clear commitment to filling out the application's feature set in response to requests from Illustrator users is very promising.

    All of which makes me very hopeful for Affinity Photo and Affinity Publisher, which are coming in beta late this year or early next and squarely target Photoshop and InDesign (indeed, they've already said that Photo will accept existing PS plug-ins).


  5. MechaSpanky macrumors 6502


    Sep 11, 2007

    I completely agree with you on the point that without competition, Adobe has and is taking advantage of their customers but as SwiftLives and Jim Campbell have pointed out, there are smaller companies rising up to offer alternatives to Adobe's software. I find it funny that Adobe bought Macromedia mainly for Flash, and now Flash is the bane of the internet. I too preferred GoLive to Dreamweaver but there is no going back. Macromedia's products were always very powerful but I always felt that their user interface wasn't as good as Adobe's. They also had a "window-ish" feel to it (just my opinion). Kind of like Corel Draw, a powerful program to be sure but with one of the worst UI's in software history. I hope that SwiftLives is right and that all of these smaller companies start to eat into Adobe's profits. Renting software is for chumps. Does anyone know how Adobe's profits are doing now that they are only renting most of their titles? I for one will not rent their software, the company I work for might but as a freelancer, I won't. I'm already starting to use other programs and I'm really excited about Affinity Designer and the other forthcoming programs from Serif.

    I too, like SwiftLives, was hoping that Quark would put together a competing photo/vector package to go with Xpress but it looks like Quark is once again late to the game (if they even bother to come to the game at all). Quark could have easily have made or bought a photo app and a vector app and then reshaped them to be more integrated with Xpress but Quark's management has never been "clever" and they appear to lack direction or any kind of leadership. Xpress is still good, I'm not sure if the newest version of Xpress is as good as InDesign but it is probably close to it. What hurts Xpress is you have to have a photo app and a vector app to go with it and they don't offer it. This is where the Affinity products are going to make a killing. At one time Quark was beta testing a Illustrator like program, to be used for package design but in the end they killed it and never released it. I tested it and while it was rough, I'm sure that they could have improved it to make it better.

    Adobe bought Macromedia in April 2005, and they didn't discontinue it until 2007, so it hasn't been 20 years (sure it may feel like that but it hasn't been that long).
  6. TechZeke macrumors 68020


    Jul 29, 2012
    Rialto, CA
    Pixelmator and MacPhun's software like Snapheal and Intensify do everything I need.

    I don't do anything professional, so indy software works well for me.
  7. JamesPDX Suspended


    Aug 26, 2014

    I remember designing tray cards and j-cards with Quark in 1995. It kicked the ass of Pagemaker and it just worked. Then everything went backwards.
    Enough time passes, and people just say, "Oh, you can't do that..."
    Where did all the tight programmers go? Did they all retire 15 years ago?

    Feature-bloat is not the same as code-optimization.
  8. Larry-K macrumors 68000

    Jun 28, 2011
    Don't you remember Quark's "Photoshop Killer"?

    Adobe may need competition, but Quark's not going to provide it at this point.
  9. phrehdd macrumors 68040


    Oct 25, 2008
    I have Photoshop CS6 and that will be the LAST photoshop program I pay into. Lots of the big companies are just plain greedy and really don't do major improvements to their software but just perhaps 10 percent to the 90 percent fluff changes. It is hard to believe that in 2014 we are still having to screw around with this crap behavior from large companies and worse, we really do put up with it for the most part making us just as bad.
  10. superscape macrumors 6502a


    Feb 12, 2008
    East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
    Quite agree that Adobe got lazy and greedy once they had a monopoly. There really are some good alternatives that are *so* close to being able to replace the Adobe equivalents. I don't think any are quite there yet, although I have high hopes for coming versions of the Affinity suite.

    What I don't think Adobe realise is that many of their 'big' customers - design studios, repro houses etc feel the same as the 'little' users and will switch like a shot one there's a viable alternative.

    What I do hope is that the emerging competition gives Adobe the kick it needs to get its house in order.
  11. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Sep 5, 2009
    For me:

    Coda 2.5 >>>>> Dreamweaver. With their last update they really nailed what a perfect web development app should be. At least for me.

    Pixelmator - Photosop. I don't like that much Pixelmator. Their very dark UI and everything floating around are not to my taste. But I'm willing to use it to stop having to buy PS.

    The only program that I haven't been able to replace is InDesign. I really like this Adobe app.
  12. MechaSpanky, Nov 6, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2014

    MechaSpanky macrumors 6502


    Sep 11, 2007

    Of all of Adobe's print design applications, InDesign is the easiest program to replace. Number one would be Quark Xpress. Sure some Adobe snobs will tell you that they are nothing alike but that isn't true, Xpress used to be the industry leader as far as layout apps go and they are very similar programs. Xpress as far as feature parity goes is pretty similar to InDesign. I like InDesign but I think Quark Xpress is just as capable and you don't have to buy a subscription to use it. Quark Xpress is just as powerful as InDesign. There are also some other slightly less powerful programs that are more inline with Apple's Pages but for me, right now the only professional alternative to InDesign is Quark Xpress. Check out programs like MultiAd's Creator or iStudio Publisher too (although not in the same class as Xpress).

    As well, Serif the company that makes Affinity Designer is working on a layout program called Affinity Publisher. It will be available some time next year. There are many companies making vector apps and photo apps and a few layout apps but none of them offer vector, photo and layout. Serif seems to be the only company so far to have had the foresight to develop a suite of its own. I'm looking forward to seeing Affinity Photo and Affinity Publisher. Although I wish they had chosen a different name. Publisher makes me think of Microsoft Publisher, the worst layout program ever conceived of.
  13. NutsNGum macrumors 68030


    Jul 30, 2010
    Glasgow, Scotland
    The Quark guys are going to love you.
  14. HarryPot macrumors 6502a

    Sep 5, 2009
    I've never used Quark except for the trial some time ago. It is a good product, but I think I still prefer InDesign. If only because I'm used to it.

    Quark is almost as expensive as InDesign, if not more. InDesign right now would cost me $250 per year. Quark is $850 and upgrades are $350.

    I also tried many of the apps in the App Store, some of them are pretty decent. Swift Publisher looks promising. But none of them can replace InDesign or Quark.

    I will keep an eye on Affinity, and see what they release next year.
  15. jpine macrumors 6502

    Jun 15, 2007
    I still miss Authorware. Adobe killed it off when they purchased Macromedia, touting Flash as a replacement. :mad:
  16. macjoshua macrumors 6502

    Mar 4, 2011
    Nashville, TN
    I agree that there a number of good software alternatives. The catch is if you are professional designer and have to share files and projects with other designers. Every design company I've worked in uses Adobe products. Until some of the other apps become more popular, or they band together and create a suite, Adobe isn't going away any time soon.

    I for one like the subscription model, since before it I upgraded nearly every version, and older versions just got deleted anyway. But to each his own.
  17. kd5jos macrumors 6502


    Oct 28, 2007
    Denver, CO
    You know what I did three years ago to protest Adobe? I switched. I use Final Cut, Motion, Pixelmator, iDraw, FluxV, iStudio, Hype 2, Aperture... Not one Adobe product. I am not any the worse for wear. Worked for me. I am sure that someone somewhere will tell you why switching is a bad idea, and they are likely right. It's probably dumb to switch away from Adobe... I've never been happier.
  18. rocknblogger macrumors 68020


    Apr 2, 2011
    New Jersey
    I don't know how many of you actually subscribe to Adobe CC but I can tell you without reservation that they are not sitting on their laurels. I continually get updates throughout the year on all the products I have installed which include Photoshp, Illustrator, Audition, Bridge and Lightroom.

    For those that may not realize this they put out just as many if not more updates now as they did when they used to introduce new CS versions each year. Back then you'd hear about the event they would hold and all the features introduced at said event. Now we get the same type of updates throughout the year but they're staggered and don't get the same type of hype because only the people who have CC know about them and even some who don't realize it. Tech bloggers get excited when there are huge events and updates but with CC and the staggered updates we get there's nothing "huge" to talk about.

    They actually did a 2014 event because of the reasons mentioned above where they showed all the new features and updates. They did it too because there was a perception that there were fewer updates. You can watch the keynote and other videos here.

    I'm no Adobe evangelist or fanboy but I see a lot of fud and misconceptions and even out and out lies from haters. The reason they're still number one at what they do is because no one can replicate what they've done so far. The fact of the matter is Photoshop and Illustrtor and the rest of the CC suite of apps are phenomenal and continually get better. I heard an Adobe exec in an interview say that now because people pay them monthly (or yearly) that the pressure is higher than ever to continually make improvements and add features. Otherwise those customers can easily cancel and try other software. I see his point and I see their efforts by the amount of updates I get. The people that say "Now that they have you locked in they don't need to update like they used to" are simply dumb or don't know what they're talking about. Or they hate for the sake of hate.

    Lastly here's a great article about what I've been saying and how it relates to Photoshop specifically, by Scott Kelby. It's worth a read and if your attention level can't get you through the article, scroll down to see all the Photoshop updates between 2013 and the time the article was written
  19. primalman macrumors 6502a

    Jul 23, 2002
    at the end of the hall
    This. Bump this. In total agreement. In 25 years of using Adobe software I have not seen a more active and productive outlay of the iterations of the software. Since they are are all now effectively on their own update schedules [for the most part] many of the titles are updating at least once a quarter. That is fantastic. The Muse project leader told me that they intend to have a minimum of 4 significant updates a year, and many more minor ones. I see updates in my CC menu bar at least once a month for 2 or 3 titles, and I do not have all titles installed. The cloud integration with the new mobile apps is fantastic as well, I am able to capture colors, vector traces and sketches on my phone and iPad, and send those directly to my desktop installations instantly. Can't beat it! Shoot, they are even putting effort into Dreamweaver! That has been a while coming.

    This is good for the industry and great for the users. It should make the ones trying to compete with Adobe step up their games if they can. For me, I did the math, and the CC subscription actually saves me money in the long run, which is awesome, especially since I use this software investment to make money! If you don't operate on a business basis [ie just for fun], or your fees are below average [for whatever reason], it could just not be for you. Then, you should look for alternatives. But if you look back in time, the cost of CC over a year at retail price [$600], is way cheaper than the Master Collection buy-in was just a few years ago, at like $3000. Even upgrading only every 3 years in the past, you can come out ahead with CC.

    As this poster said, they are not resting, but moving fast.
  20. MechaSpanky macrumors 6502


    Sep 11, 2007

    What you are missing is that most people didn't need (and didn't buy) the Master Collection. Most people bought either the Design Standard or the Design & Web Premium. Sure there are some people who used to buy the Master Collection but I'm sure they were a small minority compared to the other suites. So you can't really use the Master Collection for comparison. The upgrade price for the Design & Web Premium Suite was cheaper than the upgrade to the Master Collection and it was cheaper than what you are paying for a year's subscription. Now Adobe is charging everyone like everyone wants and needs the Master Collection when not everyone does (I would guess that very, very few people need all of their programs). If you only want 4 programs you still have to pay to have access to all of them. That doesn't seem fair to me.

    "This is good for the industry and great for the users." I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one as well. The whole subscription only model that Adobe has forced on everyone was created with only Adobe's bottom line in mind. The subscription model might be beneficial for small number of people but it is leaving a huge number of people out in the cold. What it has done is it has made many users realize how much Adobe was overcharging for their software. If companies can produce software like Affinity Designer, iDraw, Pixelmator, and Sketch at much lower prices it makes you wonder why Adobe is charging so much for their software. Especially when the cheaper software offers very similar if not the same features but for less money. Sure none of them have caught up with Adobe's "industry leader" programs completely yet but give them time, they will. Many of them are close now and in time they will close the gap even more. Several people here have commented on how Adobe is the industry standard but the industry standard can change very quickly so don't think that just because you are the biggest name in the market that you are invulnerable.
  21. sigmadog, Nov 15, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2014

    sigmadog macrumors 6502a


    Feb 11, 2009
    near Spokane, WA
    I'm still using CS6 with no real plans to upgrade to the subscription model.

    As a print designer, I have no need for Premiere, After Effects, etc., but aside from individual subscriptions there's no economical way to get just the programs I want.

    Right now, Adobe is offering the complete one year subscription for $360 to CS users like me (after the initial year it goes up 66% to $600). I admit it is an attractive offer for the first year; not so much after that.

    From a purchasing standpoint, it makes no sense to purchase a total package knowing full well that I will only use a third of it at most. No matter how great the deal may be, the unused portion makes it seem like a waste of money.

    If I were to only purchase individual subscriptions for the four apps I use (PS, LR, ID, and AI) it would cost me $960/year!

    To me this is crazy! Why is Adobe pushing ALL its programs? It would seem smarter to go back to a range of packages like they did when they sold total rights.

    Adobe stock has risen considerably since they moved to the subscription model. .
  22. D*I*S_Frontman macrumors 6502

    May 20, 2002
    Lombard, IL
    I have the original Adobe CS package running under Rosetta on my old refurbed 2006 MBP. It was the academic version, so, alas, no upgrades possible.

    I am not a professional publisher, but I do layout work on my own projects. I can't imagine needing anything more than the version of InDesign I'm currently using to put a magazine or book together with.

    I understand that newer versions of Photoshop have some interresting new "smart" features, but I can still get a lot done with my old one. Same with Illustrator.

    For the "do-it-yourself'er," renting the Adobe apps isn't practical. I am more than happy with my old CS Suite, all things considered.
  23. MechaSpanky macrumors 6502


    Sep 11, 2007
  24. sigmadog, Nov 17, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2014

    sigmadog macrumors 6502a


    Feb 11, 2009
    near Spokane, WA
    I can't explain why Adobe profits have fallen while the stock price has climbed. That seems quite counter-intuitive, but I'm not a financial expert.

    A couple years ago, the stock price was in the mid 30's. Now it's right around 70. The highest I can recall it going before that was around 50. The correlation I draw is the switch to subscriptions, though the actual causation may be something else.

    At any rate, I would like to know why Adobe thinks it's so important to prod me to subscribe to programs I will never use.
  25. smirking macrumors 65816


    Aug 31, 2003
    Silicon Valley
    If I'm able to keep using their software at the $30/month price point, I'm ok with their current pricing system. I got my renewal notice that my rates were going to go up to their regular rates at $50/month and that crossed the line for me. I use a lot of their products, but they're not integral to my work. My work invovles doing a fair bit of front end design and sometimes graphics design and publishing layout, but my work's not driven by these things. I would have fine with alternatives. I would just have to spend the time to find alternatives and that extra $20/month adds just enough to to disgruntled renter factor for me to make it happen.

    They really should make some kind of plan that works out for people who are modest users of their programs. Sometimes the only reason I even launch one of their programs is just to be able to talk someone else through how to open or save a file over the phone. At that point, I'm practically doing customer service for them. I'm not going to join the gripe about how I deserve free upgrades forever! I'm a software developer myself. It costs money to keep it going.

    Paying for an updated and smoothly running copy should not be free, but it should be priced fairly and the terms of licensing shouldn't box in someone from being unable to get off of the subscription... that's where I'd join the gripe. If I change my line of work and I only touch the occasional Adobe product on a few weekends a year, there's no way I want to be paying through the nose just to dabble in my old life.

    Anyway, I canceled my CC subscription when I couldn't get my trial rate of $30/month renewed for another year. Actually, I was going to do Photoshop + Lightroom for $10/month and pick up other programs ala carte as needed on a month by month basis. That would have been enough for me. Before that transaction finished, they reversed course and gave me another year at $30/month.

Share This Page