The explosion they're using in the graphic is appropriate as Creative Cloud is going to prove to be disastrous.
It was good while it lasted Adobe.
It was good while it lasted Adobe.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Releases New Creative Cloud Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really? $19.99 monthly fee is $239.88 a year. 239.88/0.04= $5.997 perpetually (asuming a 4% interest rate). You should get a course in math and economic dude.
Leasing is paying double, you are still paying thousands of dollars, you just don't know it, and at the end of the lease you do not own anything.
Just a question.
Can I use CC without internet access?
While I don't mind leasing the apps, sometimes I work on remote locations without internet access or very spotty ones. If I can't use it then, forget it.
Can I use CC without internet access?
While I don't mind leasing the apps, sometimes I work on remote locations without internet access or very spotty ones. If I can't use it then, forget it.
It is a rip-off! Just calculate what your are paying over a period of say 10 years.........or more
Yes, you can, but if you pay monthly you will need to connect to the internet once per month. With an annual subscription, you need to connect every 180 days. Adobe says that this is required to "verify" your subscription.
Not to work, just to check your subcription and to pay......they just want more of your money.
"Thousands of dollars?"
Master Collection has been less than 800$ 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.
Students usually don't have $500 lying around; I imagine a monthly fee of $20 is much more reasonable.
It's interesting that adobe does not know how to make dollars to euro conversions, cause I might be wrong, but since when a dollar is worth more than an euro?
Users in Europe have to pay more for the same service than in the US???
Really, are you surprised, we have been paying a premium on everything for decades. Just check the Apple store, dollar prices and euro prices are almost equal despite the fact that the dollar is only 75-80% of the euro value (this gap is not covered by the US sales tax).
It is cheaper for me to buy a ticket to JFK, buy a rMBP 15 inch at Best Buy and fly back home than buying it overhere.
Maybe a solution?
Yeah. Me, too. Sweet, sweet Fireworks.
I'm on the mailing list here. Maybe something will come of it, as this is the former Macromedia Fireworks guy. As they say, "Hope Springs Eternal."
Yeah. Me, too. Sweet, sweet Fireworks.
I'm on the mailing list here. Maybe something will come of it, as this is the former Macromedia Fireworks guy. As they say, "Hope Springs Eternal."
It is not reasonable at all, it is a rip of. Are you really expecting that they are going to earn less via a subscription base? This is what they call a earnings-model.....you ending up paying more just for 'a right of use', you own nothing at the end.
Some financial panning might help you in understanding that you are paying more just for the convenience not to have to make that financial planning.....it is simply a very expenses loan for something that is not even yours.
Is Adobe killing off one-time payment? I was considering getting Photoshop but I want to own it, not constantly pay Adobe to use it.
Pixelmator it is then. What a great app. It's no Photoshop but at least I'll own it and for a one-time payment of £10!
Pixelmator it is then. What a great app. It's no Photoshop but at least I'll own it and for a one-time payment of £10!
You don't even need to go 10 years, 5 will suffice. After 5 years of paying monthly, Photoshop CC alone will cost a user $1,800.
Personally, I bought and paid for 1 full version of Photoshop (starting with CS1 for around $400) then paid for 1 upgrade (CS5 which cost around $150). When I bought CS1, CS2 had just come out and I received the upgrade for free. When I bought CS5, CS6 just came out and I received that upgrade for free as well. So in the 8 years that I have been using Photoshop CSx, I have spent about half what a 5 year subscription would cost a Creative Cloud user, and I own my software in the end!
That's a little misleading, Juli. The apps are not 'cloud based'. They run and act just like any other application, except that they (or rather, the Adobe Application Manager) checks with Adobe every 30 or 180 days to ensure your account is up to date.
If I were to have Creative Cloud for 10 years (ignoring the fact that prices will inevitably rise) it will cost me €8,853.24. Creative Cloud will currently set you back €737.77 per year
The Master Collection currently costs €3,568.23 to purchase, a copy of Photoshop alone will cost you €950.79
For the next 10 years my software is always up to date and I don't have to think about if and when I choose to upgrade it. Each month I loose a small amount of disposable income rather than having to shell out a large amount in one go, that may or may not be better invested in other things.
Last edited:
Many students don't have $20 just laying around either.
----------
In the real world, how many people really need the most recent version of the software?
I know many people who are using earlier versions of Adobe software, ranging from Photoshop 7 to CS5, that are doing just fine.
----------
I'm surprised by some dudes here who really thinks that Adobe, having spent so much money in establishing all the infrastructure of the software leasing program, is actually helping them to save money, instead of maximizing income
Same here. How does any reasonably-minded person think this will save them any amount of money in the long term? Just doing some simple math and calculations will show that a monthly subscription will cost far more than buying the software outright. Most users don't upgrade with every version and are more in line with a 4-6 year upgrade cycle, paying monthly will cost users double in the same amount of time.
I've always been required to be up to date. I work a lot with design studios and advertising agencies and the second one of them upgrades I have to follow suit. This of course is due to the fact that Adobe, in their infinite wisdom, don't allow older versions of their software to open files created in newer versions. It's always seemed unprofessional to have to ask for everyone to downgrade files for me so I can open them.
Photoshop has always been more forgiving with this, allowing users to stay on an older version for much longer. But I do understand your point of view.
If you were an Adobe customer who upgraded the most expensive suite (Master Collection?) every single time it was updated, then you'll save some money on Creative Cloud. Pretty much everyone else is getting screwed.
I use Design Standard because I only need Design Standard. Creative Cloud will amount to me paying the full retail box price (not the upgrade price) for Design Standard every two years, with the added wrinkle that I will never own my software and if I hit a cashflow crisis* and can't make a monthly payment for a couple of months, the software on which I rely to make a living will simply stop working.
Adobe have been quite clear about this: Creative Cloud is about normalising the peaks and troughs in their own cash flow and is only about piracy in as much as it's a means of gouging the poor saps that actually pay for their software. It's a very bad deal for the vast majority of their customers but, because Adobe have a de facto monopoly in the design industry, they just don't care.
My last CS upgrade will be just that. My last.
Cheers
Jim
*Because that never happens to self-employed people and, besides, self-employed people aren't a big part of Adobe's customer base, right?
I use Design Standard because I only need Design Standard. Creative Cloud will amount to me paying the full retail box price (not the upgrade price) for Design Standard every two years, with the added wrinkle that I will never own my software and if I hit a cashflow crisis* and can't make a monthly payment for a couple of months, the software on which I rely to make a living will simply stop working.
Adobe have been quite clear about this: Creative Cloud is about normalising the peaks and troughs in their own cash flow and is only about piracy in as much as it's a means of gouging the poor saps that actually pay for their software. It's a very bad deal for the vast majority of their customers but, because Adobe have a de facto monopoly in the design industry, they just don't care.
My last CS upgrade will be just that. My last.
Cheers
Jim
*Because that never happens to self-employed people and, besides, self-employed people aren't a big part of Adobe's customer base, right?
Other things you pay for by the month but don't get to own:
Your cable bill
Your Netflix bill
Your cell phone bill
And now your Adobe bill
If you stop any of those payment... you don't get to use the product anymore.
Adobe products are considered to be the best software packages around. Now are they no longer the best because you have to pay by the month?
In other words... since you can't buy a version of Photoshop and sit on it for 5 years anymore... it is no good at all?
Creative Cloud has been available for some time. In that time Adobe has tested it's business model. The model of subscription holds up well again a user/company who upgrade at every cycle. I'm one of those and find cc to be a beneficial upgrade. Regular updates, cloud storage. Looks like the new apps have a more integrated approach. I don't think adobe sees a future in having their software ripped of by anyone with little snitch and/or access to their mac host file. Can you blame them?
Not true
Photoshop by itself is $19.99 a month, and if you own CS3 or more, it's only $9.99 a month the first year. So $1079.40 total if you own CS3 or higher for 5 years, and $1199.40 total if you don't own Photoshop at all. You would spend at least $1100 if you didn't own it with the $199 upgrades every 18 months, so the pricing isn't all that different, and you get constant upgrades.
The other option for most people is to BUY Lightroom 5. As a professional photographer, I can do 95% of my editing in Lightroom, and it's only $149 to buy, and only $79 to upgrade.
----------
You can still buy CS6, and then the Cloud is much cheaper if you want to try it. Only $9.99 for just Photoshop CC, but then only $19.99 a month (1st year) for EVERYTHING.
Other option is to BUY Lightroom 5. As a pro I use both, but LR5 does 95% of what I need to do.
Photoshop by itself is $19.99 a month, and if you own CS3 or more, it's only $9.99 a month the first year. So $1079.40 total if you own CS3 or higher for 5 years, and $1199.40 total if you don't own Photoshop at all. You would spend at least $1100 if you didn't own it with the $199 upgrades every 18 months, so the pricing isn't all that different, and you get constant upgrades.
The other option for most people is to BUY Lightroom 5. As a professional photographer, I can do 95% of my editing in Lightroom, and it's only $149 to buy, and only $79 to upgrade.
----------
You can still buy CS6, and then the Cloud is much cheaper if you want to try it. Only $9.99 for just Photoshop CC, but then only $19.99 a month (1st year) for EVERYTHING.
Other option is to BUY Lightroom 5. As a pro I use both, but LR5 does 95% of what I need to do.
Not the same comparison.
If their usual practice is anything to go by, backwards compatibility of files (PS excepted) sucks. So...
Say I sign up for CC. Next year the subscription rate goes up big time (it could happen with Adobe) and hey, suddenly I'm in a hole. I either pay up or I lose access to all my work. MY WORK, that I created over the last year.
If you want to become Adobe's bitch then go ahead. Me, I'll stick at CS6 while I look for alternatives. After all, when Quark acted like this they created an opportunity for another company to step in and take the crown. Now, who was that?