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 Tests Doubling the Price of Photography Plan With Photoshop and Lightroom
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have online support and forums.
Also a plethora of YouTube videos, and there are two excellent Facebook groups posting tutorials and answering questions.
Many years ago, a congressperson in my state added something like a $0.02 tax for some certain situations.
There was an uproar. People not only made it clear that they wouldn't vote for the person again, but that they would seek to find some way to sanction him. Not so much because of the $0.02, but because of his public attitude: "It's only $0.02, nobody's going to notice."
The $0.02 tax was rescinded.
This is a lot more than $0.02. It's $10.00 more.
Sometimes it's not even that people care about $10. It's that people care about the attitude of the entity trying to charge them that extra money. Adobe in this case is trying to mask price gouging as "testing". Does any reasonable person think that people are going to like paying $10 more per month for effectively the same services? (Similar thing happens when a paid app goes subscription - I have learned not to get too attached to mobile creativity apps because, even when they start out as pay-to-download apps, they all ultimately move to a relatively incredibly expensive subscription-based app and then screw over all of those who paid for the app up front.)
If they had raised the price by $2 and at least made a reasonable effort to argue that it has to do with rising server costs or something partly logical, most people might gripe for a while but then eventually it'll just be the norm. But doubling the price and calling it "testing"? That's some pure grade-A bull.
Not to mention Adobe's software QA has gone to hell. I have to keep my copy of Premiere Pro downgraded since the current version won't even start up on a laptop with a dual-GPU solution. As someone who works in software development, I'm honestly getting tired of the whole "release incremental updates every week" strategy. It might work for Web apps, but for desktop professional apps, it's just not appropriate. (Microsoft is learning this the hard way with their snafu's over Windows updates.)
There was an uproar. People not only made it clear that they wouldn't vote for the person again, but that they would seek to find some way to sanction him. Not so much because of the $0.02, but because of his public attitude: "It's only $0.02, nobody's going to notice."
The $0.02 tax was rescinded.
This is a lot more than $0.02. It's $10.00 more.
Sometimes it's not even that people care about $10. It's that people care about the attitude of the entity trying to charge them that extra money. Adobe in this case is trying to mask price gouging as "testing". Does any reasonable person think that people are going to like paying $10 more per month for effectively the same services? (Similar thing happens when a paid app goes subscription - I have learned not to get too attached to mobile creativity apps because, even when they start out as pay-to-download apps, they all ultimately move to a relatively incredibly expensive subscription-based app and then screw over all of those who paid for the app up front.)
If they had raised the price by $2 and at least made a reasonable effort to argue that it has to do with rising server costs or something partly logical, most people might gripe for a while but then eventually it'll just be the norm. But doubling the price and calling it "testing"? That's some pure grade-A bull.
Not to mention Adobe's software QA has gone to hell. I have to keep my copy of Premiere Pro downgraded since the current version won't even start up on a laptop with a dual-GPU solution. As someone who works in software development, I'm honestly getting tired of the whole "release incremental updates every week" strategy. It might work for Web apps, but for desktop professional apps, it's just not appropriate. (Microsoft is learning this the hard way with their snafu's over Windows updates.)
But where will you go? The fact that Adobe did this means they know they have the market for themselves.
Capture 1, Affinity Photo, etc etc etc. There are plenty of great options now. Affinity photo having the full program on iPad is huge. It’s what pushed adobe to finally say they were going to do it.
Affinity Photo is an alternative for Photoshop, not Lightroom.
Alternative for Photoshop is plentiful, I agree. Alternative for Lightroom is not. So far there are only Capture 1 and on1 that I know, and although they are okay, they are still not as good as Lightroom imo. Those are not enough competition. There used to be a healthy competition (Aperture), but that’s history.
This. For Pros for whom photography is their business, the increased cost of the Adobe suite is an expense that can be passed on to their customers or possibly deducted from their business taxes as a business expense. But for hobbyists who obviously cannot do that, a doubling of the price can be a real hit and for those people, cheaper alternatives are readily available.
Personally I avoid Adobe products as much as possible, and not just for cost reasons. Their apps, while capable, are bloated from sloppy and lazy code writing (hence the term “bloatware”), sluggish, and insidious within the computer. For me, other alternatives do just fine.
Last edited:
Capture 1, is probably the one I'd move too. I'd also use Adobe Bridge (free) to manage my images, and then use another app for non destructive editing, and there are plenty of of those apps out.
There are some seriously good algorithms behind Lightroom’s tools that leave the alternatives in the dust.
But obviously doubling your price with no major changes to the software in years is going to tick everyone off, even if you’re a photographer who’s rolling in cash. It’s called taking the piss.
But obviously doubling your price with no major changes to the software in years is going to tick everyone off, even if you’re a photographer who’s rolling in cash. It’s called taking the piss.
When you look in the dictionary for greed, I'm sure Adobe is listed as example. Much like ebay, they drive away their customer base by increasing prices beyond sanity. The good news is: that's what capitalism is there for. Adobe is not alone. Their apps are good but far from superior. In fact, competitors have apps that are much less bloated than Photoshop, Lightroom,...
Adobe is one of those companies that loses customers due to their high prices, then raises prices again to compensate for the lack in revenue. Management gets a medal & boni for high revenue in another year. Next time when subscriptions expire, more people leave. Result: drop in revenue, community shrinks. That drives even more users away.
Unfortunately -and ironically- the community of Adobe is so large mostly due to piracy. As such, I would appreciate if their software even vanishes from the warez & torrent pages so people discover the alternatives.
Adobe is one of those companies that loses customers due to their high prices, then raises prices again to compensate for the lack in revenue. Management gets a medal & boni for high revenue in another year. Next time when subscriptions expire, more people leave. Result: drop in revenue, community shrinks. That drives even more users away.
Unfortunately -and ironically- the community of Adobe is so large mostly due to piracy. As such, I would appreciate if their software even vanishes from the warez & torrent pages so people discover the alternatives.
At this point is there anything Adobe does or makes that doesn’t have better value somewhere else?
Yes. As mentioned Lightroom and Adobe’s tools (with a few exceptions) produce far superior results to the competition. For example, Lightroom’s highlight recovery absolutely kills that from C1, Affinity Photo, or anything else I’ve tested.
Lightroom and Photoshop have their faults, but under the hood there’s some formidable tech.
You’re talking about people who make $$$ on their photos. It’s the casual, hobbyist, and just starting out ones that don’t have that kind of money that are pissed.
Exactly as stated in the first paragraph. And the proposed increase was just for the photo portion.
I use the Design Premium and can’t afford/justify that. Can you imagine if they doubled that price.
I’m still eking by on my old CS3 suite though I know the next iteration of Mojave will not support it. I’ll not update Mojave until I’m completely settled in with the Affinity apps. I love the apps, on desktop and iPad. Just can’t wait for their page layout app later this year. Betas on it have been pretty nice.
Greed, greed, greed..... nothing else can explain this. But LR would be enough for me, I have Affinity which can do what I otherwise use PS for.
But this is the best example of corporate greed one have seen in a long time.
But this is the best example of corporate greed one have seen in a long time.
You may some great points for sure.
I think where the anger/shock is coming from is the fact that there are software packages out there which rival LR so having Adobe increase their prices (if it happens for sure), might push people to other programs.
I use Affinity Photo and C1. C1 sucks for cloning (you need a layer for everything...annoying). But for everything else, it's great. Affinity Photo is only missing the content aware. Other than that, it's very powerful for a fraction of the cost. I should clarify that Affinity Photo does have 'inpainting' which is their answer to content aware. It's works well. I forgot about it to be honest. My mistake
Yes, it isn't 1 software package together which has its benefits, but there are alternatives.
For buying the gear you mentioned, there are rarely cheaper alternatives.
I think that's where it all stems from, but for me, I could care less because I don't use it. Although I still personally don't like subscriptions. I get why companies are doing it however.
Cheers,
Brian
Last edited:
Well, this is unwelcome news, and likely to cause some soul- (and app-) searching for me if they go through with it.
I go in spurts with my photography, sometimes going a couple of months between picking up the camera and getting creative. I would assume I'm in the same lane with a lot of artistic and hobbyist photographers. At $9.99 a month, I can sit on a few months and not feel like I'm wasting my money. At $19.99, that decision becomes starkly different.
I go in spurts with my photography, sometimes going a couple of months between picking up the camera and getting creative. I would assume I'm in the same lane with a lot of artistic and hobbyist photographers. At $9.99 a month, I can sit on a few months and not feel like I'm wasting my money. At $19.99, that decision becomes starkly different.
Surely not! I use PS CS6, Illustrator CS6, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks, etc., etc., etc....
As I posted previously in this thread, I refuse to "rent" software at Adobe's prices. If I were still a designer for a living that may, I said MAY, be different. And whereas I use all of those apps on a regular basis for my business and for image editing related to my music career, I do not use any of them on a daily basis. So I would be a near-fool for paying Adobe to rent software I do not use on a daily basis.
Actually, I would be looking elsewhere even if I did still design for a living. I don't like the "rent-to-never-own" model of software usage.
I keep an older Mac with an older version of OS X just to be able to use all of those CS6 apps (CS5 version of one app) safely with no problems.
So no... you're not alone!