Adobe Releases New Creative Cloud Apps

[pionata]

The Supreme Court recently ruled that naturally existing genes cannot be patented...

There is a loophole in that ruling, the first of which is the % of modification of a natural genes tolerated for ownership. And it is not because it failed on the first try that companies like Monsanto will not try again.

Look at what is happening in Greece and how the properties are bought by the same bankers and coorporations that brought that country's economy down.

 

[danahn17]

Make it cheaper and sell more copies at a lower price point.

Just to play devil's advocate...

How much is "cheaper?" There's no guarantees that a lower priced product will sell enough copies. You're going to have to make up your profits with volume, which is not guaranteed, especially if people don't upgrade each time. Also consider that people pirate movies and music which are far cheaper than any software will be. I mean, when Installous was around for jailbroken phones, there were cracks of 99 cent apps!

And a lower price may NOT even spur sales... Gibson Guitars had trouble selling their guitars until they raised prices.

Again, just as devil's advocate. I'm not thrilled either (and will stay on CS6 for as long as I can) but I'm still not sure there's a win-win alternative out there.

 

[dragje]

Make it cheaper and sell more copies at a lower price point.

It's all-ready very cheap.

The price of Adobe CS6 is now, on Amazon $2,149.99 and this doesn't give you as much as CC even. A CC membership cost about 81 dollars so after two years you start paying more, only when you decide not to update your software....

And if you have a legal copy of CS6 which you probably have, you'll also pay way less the very first year... This bonus also counts for people who have just bought Photoshop C6 and it also counts for C5 packages...

$2150 investment means about $1075 a year to use all the newest software updates. What's $1075 a year when you can use all of Adobe's programs? If you're just a designer using photoshop only then it's about $384 dollars a year. Is it that hard to 'earn' 384 dollars with your clients assignments? In Holland the cost for CC can also be subtracted from you yearly tax income, so it's even way cheaper.

 

[pcmxa]

As a high school Multimedia teacher with 32 iMacs in a lab, I can tell you that this fee structure is completely unworkable. Pay for the same software every year? Ha! My computers are 6 years old and I can't remember the last time we bought software.

yeah, same problem here. I imagine were going to only update Lightroom since one can still "buy" that. And stick with the Photoshops we have. Maybe switch to FCPX for the few machines we need a higher end NLE on. No way our university department can afford 55 seats of Photoshop much less the master collection for just our one area. The single app fee will be twice what we have been given for our entire tech outlay. Our university had a bulk licensing deal though, so maybe something will happen with that.

 

[Jim Campbell]

You're still free not to agree with that and choose some other program to use.

This would be true, had Adobe not crippled their only serious competitor in page layout with some brutal pricing*, then bought the only serious alternative to Illustrator (Freehand) and discontinued it. At this point, they have a de facto monopoly in many sectors of the design industry, which is the only reason they could even contemplate gouging their customers to this extent.

*Yes, Quark Xpress was horrible and the company's attitude stank, particularly through versions 5 and 6, but remember that Adobe priced the original Creative Suite — InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop — for less than a single Quark license at that time. Essentially, if you used Illustrator and/or Photoshop, you got a copy of InDesign for free which played no small part in driving ID's widespread adoption.

----------

Again, just as devil's advocate. I'm not thrilled either (and will stay on CS6 for as long as I can) but I'm still not sure there's a win-win alternative out there.

Well, to be honest, a quick glance at Adobe's corporate earnings over the last few years really doesn't suggest that they were in crisis over piracy to start with.

And, again, this solution does nothing about piracy. It gouges their existing customers to inflate the company's (already substantial) annual profits.

 

[Comeagain?]

Anyone know why these updates are not being offered through the Adobe CC Application (where you normally update)? If I need to download and install them all separately, I guess I can, but isn't the whole point of the app to make all that easy? Other updates have always been offered through the app, I don't know why the new ones are not.

CC Applications are being offered separately from CS. If you update the application manager, it should offer the new apps in addition to CS ones. I just went and clocked download for Photoshop CC, and it updated the entire Application Manager for mem to the new Creative Cloud style.

 

[airdrop]

Any fee based news seems to divide opinion. The CS suite is aimed at professionals who generally make a living out of the applications. Same as the MacBook pro. If you're using a pro laptop with pro software to earn a living then this is the price you pay. If you're not doing well enough to cover the cost of the tools you require to do your job then it may be time to switch profession rather than moan about prices.

If you like free stuff, there's options elsewhere. If you're mad because you're used to illegally downloading the apps and now you can't do that then your problems obviously lie elsewhere and you're not someone adobe needs to really care about.

Adobe is a business, not a charity. You buy their software, and you make a living out of it either as a photographer, a designer, a developer or whatever it may be. They make a profit from the software that they continue to develop.

Cloud based subscription services is the way it's all going. As we have multiple devices, and are using them from multiple locations then it makes sense to be able to log in and resume where you left off. If the price is too expensive, then they're not for you. You have other options available to you from other software companies. I don't know why moaners feel that adobe need to be all things to all people. Why don't they have subscription and single payment? Why can't I open new files in older software? Why why why? Because they need to make a profit! Why would I upgrade if I could open cs6 files in cs2??? It's built in redundancy, but then that happens in everything you buy. Are you driving the same car for 15 years? Are you wearing the same clothes you wore 4 years ago? If so then go look elsewhere for your software because you're not and never will be appealing to a business that's out to make profit.

The same pro software was 66% cheaper before CC (remember CS ?) ... so why you writing crap like this ... THINK! look on FACTS!

But answering your ridicules questions ... I bought a car (I finished paying installments) and now is MINE. I bought clothes which are MINE. Fuc.. Abobe CC will NEVER be mine ...

I'm professional, but 50 - 120 $ per month is ROBBERY (at the moment CS cost me 15 usd / month) ... ABOBE IS GREEDY, nothing else, that is why I don't have respect for adobe, just pure hate from now ...

 

[samcraig]

It's all-ready very cheap.

The price of Adobe CS6 is now, on Amazon $2,149.99 and this doesn't give you as much as CC even. A CC membership cost about 81 dollars so after two years you start paying more, only when you decide not to update your software....

And if you have a legal copy of CS6 which you probably have, you'll also pay way less the very first year... This bonus also counts for people who have just bought Photoshop C6 and it also counts for C5 packages...

$2150 investment means about $1075 a year to use all the newest software updates. What's $1075 a year when you can use all of Adobe's programs? If you're just a designer using photoshop only then it's about $384 dollars a year. Is it that hard to 'earn' 384 dollars with your clients assignments? In Holland the cost for CC can also be subtracted from you yearly tax income, so it's even way cheaper.

I would never accuse you of working for Adobe - but here's something you aren't understanding (I think). Your use case is not the same as others. Others have different update cycles and/or requirements that are either not being met by Adobe now and/or will cost more over the lifetime of using the product. I don't think I can be clearer. For you - CC makes sense. For others - it doesn't.

 

[dragje]

The same pro software was 66% cheaper before CC (remember CS ?) ... so why you writing crap like this ... THINK! look on FACTS!

But answering your ridicules questions ... I bought a car (I finished paying installments) and now is MINE. I bought clothes which are MINE. Fuc.. Abobe CC will NEVER be mine ...

I'm professional, but 50 - 120 $ per month is ROBBERY (at the moment CS cost me 15 usd / month) ... ABOBE IS GREEDY, nothing else, that is why I don't have respect for adobe, just pure hate from now ...

Seriously... making text bold and using caps lock on doesn't it make it more accurate, you forget that professional's would be able to pay small amount of money each month.

But by all means, burn your copies of CS6, and you don't have to buy CC you know. Pure hate.... is exaggeration your middle name?

If you can't afford 15 usd / month what would make me convince you could spend several hundreds to buy the program to begin with? Just saying...

 

[samcraig]

you forget that professional's would be able to pay small amount of money each month.

I don't agree with the previous OP's tone. But your statement here is missing the point. It's not a question of whether or not someone is a professional - you can be a professional and use CS3, 4 or 5 right now. Doesn't make you any less professional. And paying "more" doesn't make you any more or less a professional. And sometimes it's also about principle.

 

[dragje]

I would never accuse you of working for Adobe - but here's something you aren't understanding (I think). Your use case is not the same as others. Others have different update cycles and/or requirements that are either not being met by Adobe now and/or will cost more over the lifetime of using the product. I don't think I can be clearer. For you - CC makes sense. For others - it doesn't.

Of course, you have different views and different opinions and you're right, I'm not working for Adobe. I just look at the facts, and those facts telling me that buying the whole Adobe Suit Master Collection cost me more then 2 years of renting the stuff. And I don't buy it that people don't update there programs for over more then two years time. Most people simply download CS6 Master Collection, hack it and would download CS7 as well to hack it once more. I dare to state that many of the creative people I know are doing so...

And most of my fellow designer friends are professionals making way more then the amount of money Adobe is asking now with the programs from Adobe. They just don't like to pay for it. I understand that, the more money you safe the better. But when you earn good money with program's there is nothing wrong with paying for the license, weather that means you "own" a license or when you "rent" a license.

The only thing I regret, is that Adobe is not doing both. They could, maybe, lower the monthly prize a little bit and make the updates in CC so much attracting that taking a CC account would simply become more attractive then to actually buy the program on disc.... But looking at the way how most of Adobe users using illegal software I do feel sympathy for Adobe's approach in this. It's not the end of the world and as a company who are making these products they are allowed to come up with payment methods the way they feel will do justice to their products....

Some of the reaction's are way over the top.

----------

I don't agree with the previous OP's tone. But your statement here is missing the point. It's not a question of whether or not someone is a professional - you can be a professional and use CS3, 4 or 5 right now. Doesn't make you any less professional. And paying "more" doesn't make you any more or less a professional. And sometimes it's also about principle.

True, but you're missing the point that CS3 and 4 and 5 and 6 owners can still use these products. And hack, if you're not willing to update from CS3 to 6 that overlaps 6 (!) years then what's the problem to begin with? Buy CS 4 from someone else next to Adobe, you're able to sell the software you've bought. At least, here in Holland that is.

For those who can wait 6 years before buying an update can surely wait another 6 years before going to subscribe for an Adobe Account.

As stated in my previous posting, I do regret Adobe is not offering both. But at some point, especially with all this piracy going on, I can understand why a company decides to ask money in a serious matter from it's users whom make money with their products as well.

I understand your principle, but I tend to believe that principle is most often something in the eye of the beholder accompanied with dollar signs....

 

[samcraig]

True, but you're missing the point that CS3 and 4 and 5 and 6 owners can still use these products. And hack, if you're not willing to update from CS3 to 6 that overlaps 6 (!) years then what's the problem to begin with? Buy CS 4 from someone else next to Adobe, you're able to sell the software you've bought. At least, here in Holland that is.

For those who can wait 6 years before buying an update can surely wait another 6 years before going to subscribe for an Adobe Account.

As stated in my previous posting, I do regret Adobe is not offering both. But at some point, especially with all this piracy going on, I can understand why a company decides to ask money in a serious matter from it's users whom make money with their products as well.

I understand your principle, but I tend to believe that principle is most often something in the eye of the beholder accompanied with dollar signs....

That's today's scenario. But if CC is the only option available- a user won't be able to jump on board (say a few years from now) and have either the latest or slightly older as something they OWN. They will be forced into the CC model. And once you're on the CC model - you can't get off nor can you decide which upgrades you want or not (yes you can decide to not update the software as per a previous post) but since you never own it - if you decide to keep with the same version for 3 years - you are paying more for that same software than the previous model.

So we agree - Adobe really should offer both options.

 

[dragje]

That's today's scenario. But if CC is the only option available- a user won't be able to jump on board (say a few years from now) and have either the latest or slightly older as something they OWN. They will be forced into the CC model. And once you're on the CC model - you can't get off nor can you decide which upgrades you want or not (yes you can decide to not update the software as per a previous post) but since you never own it - if you decide to keep with the same version for 3 years - you are paying more for that same software than the previous model.

Nope they can jump on board, previously for several thousands of bucks now for just a small amount each month.

The whole owning the software doesn't really appeals to me that much. I got programs from the last century and those are worthless now. Any program will be at some given time, i don't know anyone who is seriously making money witch CS1 as example. Software is no art with value it's no car either that despite being old can still be used.

So we agree - Adobe really should offer both options.

Not should, could I wouldn't mind no.

 

[iMikeT]

My workflow generally consists of both apps, although any heavy increase in the DR is best done in PS. I use a Nikon D800.

I consider myself an amateur.

However I disagree with you. Millions of great shots are taken that require very little processing apart from a gentle contrast boost. You seem to be making work for yourself so as to be able to wear a badge that says I am a pro. The tool is just a tool and great shots don't always require the best tools. If you go to ps every time then it strikes me that you are all too eager to make up for what you lacked in the field. A lie is always a lie and I have never seen a great photo of a poor field shot. I have seen a great photo of a great shot that never went near PS.

I am sure you are a pro, but greater photographers than you don't use PS and your use of it won't lift you to their level. Field work will.

I know my craft very well, than you very much. You really want to tell me that I should take a good shot to being with? Buddy, when I began my photography training, every shot counted as I was using film. Yes film, a thin layer of gelatin chemically charged with a light-sensitive emulsion. There were no instant previews and the scene needed to be perfect before you even opened the shutter because the only do-over was a complete re-shoot. When it came to processing, I had to go into an actual dark room with smelly chemicals. I can still remember the smell of fixer being stuck in my hair and fingernails. The closest thing there was to Photoshop in the darkroom were the tricks learned while using an enlarger but the finished product relied solely on the shot being right in the first place. When digital came in, I brought all that knowledge and experience with me and I make sure every shot counts before I even go into my digital darkroom. The tools might have changed but the technique has not. Don't ever categorize me as one of those amateurs that relies on Photoshop to make my images look better than they really are.

The beauty about Photoshop CSx is that it is a complete package compared to Lightroom or Aperture. I remember when those came out and I did try them out and thought to myself that they were as dumbed-down as Photoshop Essentials. I have all the tools I'll ever need and then some in a single application without having to buy separate baby software in addition to Photoshop because a bunch of people aren't as tech savvy as some of us.

 

[samcraig]

Nope they can jump on board, previously for several thousands of bucks now for just a small amount each month.



Not should, could I wouldn't mind no.

Missing my point. Cut to 5-10 years from now. The only model (as of right now) would be pay to play. No ownership.

Not sure I can be clearer.

 

[hexcalibur]

Adobe short-sighted

No way our university department can afford 55 seats of Photoshop much less the master collection for just our one area. The single app fee will be twice what we have been given for our entire tech outlay. Our university had a bulk licensing deal though, so maybe something will happen with that.

And we're the same. Our lab is using CS4 and I *might* have been able to argue for an upgrade to a new suite if the initial expense could be amortized over 3 or 4 years, but this CC model kills that dead.

So they're going to force a LOT of education customers to defect because there simply isn't money in the budget. And so students won't learn to use the tools in school, and then guess what happens when they hit the workforce?

This model may make sense to large corporate accounts, but for SMB owners and the education market it's a disaster, plain and simple.

 

[iMikeT]

What everyone can agree on and a point that hasn't been made

After the last couple of days reading and posting in this thread, one thing we can all agree on is the fact that Adobe's software is a tool correct? We use these tools to get the job done.

Now if we examine other fields, carpentry or plumbing for example, though different from the tools we use, these trades use tools as well to get their respective job done. Now what would happen if for example, URREA were to charge plumbers a subscription to use their wrenches on a monthly basis? Or Black & Decker charged carpenters a subscription to use their power screwdrivers on a monthly basis? Would people in these professions be able to get their jobs done if they didn't own their tools and constantly had to worry about their subscription being current? Further, what happens if they didn't pay the bill for the month, will URREA or Black & Decker come and take away their tools in the middle of a job?

 

[hexcalibur]

Double-think

Here's the magic of "software as a service". Adobe is trying to convince you that software is a *thing* you shouldn't *steal* ("Piracy is Bad!") and at exactly the same time it wants you to believe that it isn't a *thing* you can *own* ("Services are good!").

Of course there's no technical reason Adobe software can't be owned -- it just doesn't serve to optimize their business model, so they've decided to remove that option. And this isn't about making money versus not making money, it's about making money versus making a LOT more money via locking-in consumers to their (currently) monopolistic position in the graphics and design profession.

 

[jtrauscht]

It's a love/hate deal for me.

When my start-up business upgraded to CS6 last year, we made the decision to go with the monthly service fee due to our budget. At the time, I was very pleased with the immediate lower cost and, frankly, the Cloud service has been a very satisfying experience. But now we're locked in because there is no more option to "own." Make no mistake – that policy is very troubling to me.

However, I cannot criticize the actual service. It's been fantastic. Updates come way more often than in years past, and we have access to the full array of products, and new products and services are made available as they are released.

The larger problem that I now have is that my clients' production standards still require CS5 formats, and that's not going to change anytime soon, thanks to this new fee-based policy. Sure, we can save down, but it's never that simple.

As I write this, all the new CC apps are ready and waiting for me to download for no additional fee. It is REALLY tempting! But doing so might be problematic until other people upgrade. So for now, I've got to hold off.

 

[Wie Gehts]

I know my craft very well, than you very much. You really want to tell me that I should take a good shot to being with? Buddy, when I began my photography training, every shot counted as I was using film. Yes film, a thin layer of gelatin chemically charged with a light-sensitive emulsion. There were no instant previews and the scene needed to be perfect before you even opened the shutter because the only do-over was a complete re-shoot. When it came to processing, I had to go into an actual dark room with smelly chemicals. I can still remember the smell of fixer being stuck in my hair and fingernails. The closest thing there was to Photoshop in the darkroom were the tricks learned while using an enlarger but the finished product relied solely on the shot being right in the first place. When digital came in, I brought all that knowledge and experience with me and I make sure every shot counts before I even go into my digital darkroom. The tools might have changed but the technique has not. Don't ever categorize me as one of those amateurs that relies on Photoshop to make my images look better than they really are.

The beauty about Photoshop CSx is that it is a complete package compared to Lightroom or Aperture. I remember when those came out and I did try them out and thought to myself that they were as dumbed-down as Photoshop Essentials. I have all the tools I'll ever need and then some in a single application without having to buy separate baby software in addition to Photoshop because a bunch of people aren't as tech savvy as some of us.

I as well, and chances longer than you. Outside of what appears to be a bit of cognitive dissonance in your above post, the view you hold of Lightroom being a dumbed down app and unprofessional is so ridiculous as to defy description.

If anything, Lightroom, Aperture or any other raw processor would be more akin to the darkroom process. PS... that's a pixel pushing and painting application. Where PS might have its analogy in the darkroom would be multiple images and sandwiching negatives

 

[jdiamond]

Hopefully we agree about competition at a deeper level...

After the last couple of days reading and posting in this thread, one thing we can all agree on is the fact that Adobe's software is a tool correct? We use these tools to get the job done.

Now if we examine other fields, carpentry or plumbing for example, though different from the tools we use, these trades use tools as well to get their respective job done. Now what would happen if for example, URREA were to charge plumbers a subscription to use their wrenches on a monthly basis? Or Black & Decker charged carpenters a subscription to use their power screwdrivers on a monthly basis? Would people in these professions be able to get their jobs done if they didn't own their tools and constantly had to worry about their subscription being current? Further, what happens if they didn't pay the bill for the month, will URREA or Black & Decker come and take away their tools in the middle of a job?

Sure, now that Adobe's stopped selling DVDs (and soon Microsoft Office), I'm scrambling to find alternatives, which seem to be in the form of multiple $30 programs that actually do things better than Adobe does, but not as many things in one program.

I think if you speak of competition, you all MUST acknowledge the key point that a subscription service has no incentive to make the software better - they are charging you to not LOSE your software completely, along with access to your files. So you get crappy software - software just good enough that you will cringe and keep using it because it's too much of a hassel to leave it. Compare this to the upgrade model, where you buy a new version because it's better. This effects professionals and individuals.

It also raises the bar for competition, even as the quality of software drops. Imagine that another company came out with a suite that really was all of CS and more, such that businesses would consider switching to it. But it's a subscription model too. Now, the only feasible way to switch over is to pay for both subscriptions until you truly don't need Adobe at all anymore. Before, you could use your old Adobe software while exploring the new brand. So now you've gotta be wealthy enough to pay for all possible software subscriptions, and let's not forget also constantly upgrading your hardware and OS to keep compatible with the latest version. It's much "stickier", like an AT&T family plan. And "stickier" means worse for consumers.

 

[sgscreate]

Surprisingly Shortsighted

"Thousands of dollars?"

Master Collection has been less than 800$ for for a long time (for students).

And that's for everything included (which few people ever need). If you needed just a few apps, you could have done with one of their smaller, less expensive suites.

While the Master Collection is 'only' $800 for students that is an up front fee that many cannot choke down in one lump sum. Additionally that one time fee does not grant the 'owner' of the software the ability to upgrade. Adobe upgrades their software about every year and a half.

As for the student cost, it's only $29.99 after the special offer is over. Not a 'Full Whack' as was said. Just $10 more. Still within a students budget, where dropping $800 each year is typically not.

Many students, and many designers, require more than one of Adobe's products. For a web developer you would need at least Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Edge, Muse, and Illustrator in your arsenal just to be competitive. A video professional would use Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Encore, etc. Even a graphic designer uses Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and others just to be successful.

It's quite short sighted for a professional to rely on only one main program. In today's design field you would be outdated very quickly if you relied on one program that you didn't upgrade every iteration, or every other at least.

'Owning' your version of CS6 is all well and good, until you are behind a version or two and a client requires you to use a feature or deliver a project in the newest version. At the very least you can be embarrassed and force them to support your old version, or you can dump the funds at that time and install all the upgrades then and there just to save face. If you think this doesn't happen then you are not a professional in the field. Happens all the time when you use Flash, After Effects, Premiere, and InDesign. MAYBE you can get away with Photoshop or Illustrator if you happen to only deliver final work that a client does not integrate into other workflows.

Having been an Adobe user for the past 20+ years, as well as many other software developers, I'm very happy to have a monthly fee of $49.95 a month rather than dumping thousands of dollars every couple of years. And yes, I have used nearly every piece of software that Adobe makes throughout my career.

 

[dragje]

Missing my point. Cut to 5-10 years from now. The only model (as of right now) would be pay to play. No ownership.

Not sure I can be clearer.

You are clear enough, but I don't see the need to be owner of software which isn't worth anything in years ahead and can't probably not even been used eight years later.. That's the difference on how we look at software. I rather pay a monthly bill so I'm up to date and able to use the latest development then to pay upfront thousands of dollars for software that will be obsolete in a few years time.

Another good excuse for me to pay monthly is to be able to use "new" software and if I don't like everything what Adobe does I can even stop paying so I'm not wasting a few thousand of dollars on expensive software I don't want to use. It's not relevant for me, but it could be if other software companies should establish the same method to pay for software...

Hack, I remember times where animation packages cost round about 20.000 dollars, these days you have it for less then 5000 and with payment methods like this it could be possible to use it fully for a phew bucks a month.

Where you see obstacles, I see possibilities.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Cut to 5-10 years from now. The only model (as of right now) would be pay to play. No ownership.

Not sure I can be clearer.

Using the traditional method of purchasing software... in 5-10 years you'd have a bunch of old DVDs with outdated versions of the software.

I'm sure there are people right now with boxes of CS2, CS4 and CS6.

Sure... you "own" that copy of CS2... but what good is it doing?

You can't legally do anything with it. It's just a piece of plastic and some paper manuals.

 

[dragje]

And we're the same. Our lab is using CS4 and I *might* have been able to argue for an upgrade to a new suite if the initial expense could be amortized over 3 or 4 years, but this CC model kills that dead.

That's simply nonsense. Big updates came out each 2 years, when you speak about 4 years you're talking about 2 mayor updates minimum. When you also calculate the cost you'll not pay more. Those are facts.

So they're going to force a LOT of education customers to defect because there simply isn't money in the budget.

That's pure speculation. Fact remains that older software can still be used and will be updated as well. And even when you are right that not everybody will jump in, many school systems will.

And so students won't learn to use the tools in school, and then guess what happens when they hit the workforce?

Pure, even dramatic, speculation. You making it sound like CC won't be used on any school, that's just not true.

This model may make sense to large corporate accounts, but for SMB owners and the education market it's a disaster, plain and simple.

Funny, I'm a small business owner and CC is heaven for me. And I now MANY designers who work for themselves who already have a full CC account. All it takes is to make some money which those professional designers have no issues with. The only difference now is that they don't have to pay thousands of dollars up front but just a small prize a month...

Your statements are simply incorrect and in my humble opinion are based on emotions rather then facts. The very fact that many of my colleagues designers have a full CC account already shows that CC is not that much of a disaster as you're suggesting it would be

----------

Using the traditional method of purchasing software... in 5-10 years you'd have a bunch of old DVDs with outdated versions of the software.

I'm sure there are people right now with boxes of CS2, CS4 and CS6.

Sure... you "own" that copy of CS2... but what good is it doing?

You can't legally do anything with it. It's just a piece of plastic and some paper manuals.

Exactly my point. I totally agree with Michael Scrip.

----------

While the Master Collection is 'only' $800 for students that is an up front fee that many cannot choke down in one lump sum. Additionally that one time fee does not grant the 'owner' of the software the ability to upgrade. Adobe upgrades their software about every year and a half.

As for the student cost, it's only $29.99 after the special offer is over. Not a 'Full Whack' as was said. Just $10 more. Still within a students budget, where dropping $800 each year is typically not.

Many students, and many designers, require more than one of Adobe's products. For a web developer you would need at least Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Edge, Muse, and Illustrator in your arsenal just to be competitive. A video professional would use Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop, Encore, etc. Even a graphic designer uses Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and others just to be successful.

It's quite short sighted for a professional to rely on only one main program. In today's design field you would be outdated very quickly if you relied on one program that you didn't upgrade every iteration, or every other at least.

'Owning' your version of CS6 is all well and good, until you are behind a version or two and a client requires you to use a feature or deliver a project in the newest version. At the very least you can be embarrassed and force them to support your old version, or you can dump the funds at that time and install all the upgrades then and there just to save face. If you think this doesn't happen then you are not a professional in the field. Happens all the time when you use Flash, After Effects, Premiere, and InDesign. MAYBE you can get away with Photoshop or Illustrator if you happen to only deliver final work that a client does not integrate into other workflows.

Having been an Adobe user for the past 20+ years, as well as many other software developers, I'm very happy to have a monthly fee of $49.95 a month rather than dumping thousands of dollars every couple of years. And yes, I have used nearly every piece of software that Adobe makes throughout my career.

I couldn't state it better myself.

----------

I'm scrambling to find alternatives, which seem to be in the form of multiple $30 programs that actually do things better than Adobe does, but not as many things in one program.

LOL Good luck building up a multimedia company with notepad, iMovie and paint