Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Why I don't like Adobe's subscription plan
Page 1 of 10 next> last>>
May 8, 2019 12:06:14   #
jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America
 
There has been a long discussion on why to go with the Adobe LR/PS subscription plan or why not to.

I'd like to offer a different view on this matter... on why I really don't like the Adobe subscription and why I do not recommend to anyone to follow this path.

No, it is not for the money... $10/month for the LR/PS subsciption, or $69 por ON1, or $50 for Affinity are always pennies next to the cost of photographic gear or the cost of the time we invest in this hobby or profession.

It is because the real reason because Adobe choose to *force* their customers to go to a subscription plan. The subscription is NOT an option (as for Capture One), but is MUST.

Adobe was facing a very severe competition, not only from other players, but specially from themselves. Photoshop has become such an amazing and extremely powerful piece of software that there is no real need to purchase an upgrade each year, at least for the majority of it's users.

If someone invested $700 in Photoshop, he or she would think twice (or trice) before throwing $300 for an upgrade. And this was the key problem: when a piece of software gets so enormous like Photoshop (or MS Word, or Autocad), it is increasingly difficult and expensive to add more features and improvements *that can be sold for a high price*. The problem is: how do you improve something that is already perceived as almost perfect?

Would you really pay $300 for some bugfixes and some new features you do not readily use?

The other problem is that Photoshop started in 1987... yes it is that old. Many of it concepts are hardcoded in the oldest lines of code, and the original programmers have left Adobe long since. I've already faced this problem in my line of work: you have a some huge program, and you reach a point where you have to start from scratch, because it is so complex that touching somethings makes fall the rest apart like a house of cards. And if the original developers are gone, you are dead in the water. You only option is to fix, fix, add, fix, add, wrap, fix, add ... it gets harder and harder. There is a theoretical curve for that... just google it.The cost goes up, the improvements go down.

Adobe has already a more modern product which is not nearly as powerful as Photoshop: Lightroom. Other players have chosen the newer path of adding non destructive photo retouch features to the RAW developing workflow (Capture One, ON1, DXO labs, etc.), but if Adobe went that path, it would necessary stop selling Photoshop. Why pay $700 for PS if LR already had 90% of the features an average photografer would need. THEY HAD TO THROTTLE the addition of new additions to LR, like masks, layers, and so on.

So they decided to go the subscription plan... now all the risk is on the customer!! The customer purchases the subscription and forgets about it (... its just 10 bucks a month ...) and Adobe is free to push the updates THEY want. They no longer need to convince the public to buy an expensive upgrade. And if you choose to cancel the subscription, you lose the ability to re-edit all your past photos, it's almost blackmail.

If you look at Adobe's changelog, most of the upgrades are rather minor (new camera compatibility, bugfixes, some menu regrouping some minor new features). Honestly, would you pay $300 a year for them?

The real reason behind the seemingly low price of the subscription is not they they are nice and cute people... it is simply because in a free market, *the price is set by the market itself *and it happens that LR+PS is not more worth than those $10 per month. This is the ugly truth. Capture One charges $20 per month for the OPTIONAL subscription... just because they can. Adobe cannot.

The other software vendors are forced to make great leaps between versions, or else their customers will not pay the upgrade fee. And it shows: look at the differences between ON1 2018 and 2019, or Capture One 11 and 12.

The same happened to MS Office: I have the subscription plan (it makes sense to my business... $99/year for 5 PCs), since 2017... and I really don't find any significant improvements (besides new fancy icons) between the 2017 and the 2019 software. It's just incremental.

This is the reason because I don't like subscription plans: because it is the last resource of a company to reduce their development costs at the expense of innovation. That is exactly was Adobe did.

I just don't want to play their game.

Reply
May 8, 2019 12:08:06   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
OK

--

Reply
May 8, 2019 12:17:27   #
Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas
 
jlg1000 wrote:

...

I just don't want to play their game.


Then don't - simple to stop - canx the subscription and go on to something else...

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2019 12:19:04   #
rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin
 
jlg1000 - Adobe does not force any subscription for Adobe Photoshop Elements. Also there are standalone non-subscription copies of Lightroom 6.0 available. So, go ahead, hate all you want ...

Reply
May 8, 2019 12:25:46   #
chippy65 Loc: Cambridge
 
A well reasoned explanation............... now wait for the trolls !

Reply
May 8, 2019 12:28:11   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Well, you've provided a very lucid reason for not wanting to subscribe to the PS/LR path. I'd say, in your case, don't.

Now, on the other hand, there are those who have invested a great deal of time doing some customization to PS. That time would be completely lost should one move to another application. In some cases years of work lost. Perhaps there are those who don't wish to piss years of work down the tube. The subscription fee, as it stands today, is a very reasonable trade off to continue to use those past years of time spent doing mods and programming.
--Bob

jlg1000 wrote:
There has been a long discussion on why to go with the Adobe LR/PS subscription plan or why not to.

I'd like to offer a different view on this matter... on why I really don't like the Adobe subscription and why I do not recommend to anyone to follow this path.

No, it is not for the money... $10/month for the LR/PS subsciption, or $69 por ON1, or $50 for Affinity are always pennies next to the cost of photographic gear or the cost of the time we invest in this hobby or profession.

It is because the real reason because Adobe choose to *force* their customers to go to a subscription plan. The subscription is NOT an option (as for Capture One), but is MUST.

Adobe was facing a very severe competition, not only from other players, but specially from themselves. Photoshop has become such an amazing and extremely powerful piece of software that there is no real need to purchase an upgrade each year, at least for the majority of it's users.

If someone invested $700 in Photoshop, he or she would think twice (or trice) before throwing $300 for an upgrade. And this was the key problem: when a piece of software gets so enormous like Photoshop (or MS Word, or Autocad), it is increasingly difficult and expensive to add more features and improvements *that can be sold for a high price*. The problem is: how do you improve something that is already perceived as almost perfect?

Would you really pay $300 for some bugfixes and some new features you do not readily use?

The other problem is that Photoshop started in 1987... yes it is that old. Many of it concepts are hardcoded in the oldest lines of code, and the original programmers have left Adobe long since. I've already faced this problem in my line of work: you have a some huge program, and you reach a point where you have to start from scratch, because it is so complex that touching somethings makes fall the rest apart like a house of cards. And if the original developers are gone, you are dead in the water. You only option is to fix, fix, add, fix, add, wrap, fix, add ... it gets harder and harder. There is a theoretical curve for that... just google it.The cost goes up, the improvements go down.

Adobe has already a more modern product which is not nearly as powerful as Photoshop: Lightroom. Other players have chosen the newer path of adding non destructive photo retouch features to the RAW developing workflow (Capture One, ON1, DXO labs, etc.), but if Adobe went that path, it would necessary stop selling Photoshop. Why pay $700 for PS if LR already had 90% of the features an average photografer would need. THEY HAD TO THROTTLE the addition of new additions to LR, like masks, layers, and so on.

So they decided to go the subscription plan... now all the risk is on the customer!! The customer purchases the subscription and forgets about it (... its just 10 bucks a month ...) and Adobe is free to push the updates THEY want. They no longer need to convince the public to buy an expensive upgrade. And if you choose to cancel the subscription, you lose the ability to re-edit all your past photos, it's almost blackmail.

If you look at Adobe's changelog, most of the upgrades are rather minor (new camera compatibility, bugfixes, some menu regrouping some minor new features). Honestly, would you pay $300 a year for them?

The real reason behind the seemingly low price of the subscription is not they they are nice and cute people... it is simply because in a free market, *the price is set by the market itself *and it happens that LR+PS is not more worth than those $10 per month. This is the ugly truth. Capture One charges $20 per month for the OPTIONAL subscription... just because they can. Adobe cannot.

The other software vendors are forced to make great leaps between versions, or else their customers will not pay the upgrade fee. And it shows: look at the differences between ON1 2018 and 2019, or Capture One 11 and 12.

The same happened to MS Office: I have the subscription plan (it makes sense to my business... $99/year for 5 PCs), since 2017... and I really don't find any significant improvements (besides new fancy icons) between the 2017 and the 2019 software. It's just incremental.

This is the reason because I don't like subscription plans: because it is the last resource of a company to reduce their development costs at the expense of innovation. That is exactly was Adobe did.

I just don't want to play their game.
There has been a long discussion on why to go with... (show quote)

Reply
May 8, 2019 12:39:19   #
CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska
 
jlg1000 wrote:
There has been a long discussion on why to go with the Adobe LR/PS subscription plan or why not to.

I'd like to offer a different view on this matter... on why I really don't like the Adobe subscription and why I do not recommend to anyone to follow this path.

No, it is not for the money... $10/month for the LR/PS subsciption, or $69 por ON1, or $50 for Affinity are always pennies next to the cost of photographic gear or the cost of the time we invest in this hobby or profession.

It is because the real reason because Adobe choose to *force* their customers to go to a subscription plan. The subscription is NOT an option (as for Capture One), but is MUST.

Adobe was facing a very severe competition, not only from other players, but specially from themselves. Photoshop has become such an amazing and extremely powerful piece of software that there is no real need to purchase an upgrade each year, at least for the majority of it's users.

If someone invested $700 in Photoshop, he or she would think twice (or trice) before throwing $300 for an upgrade. And this was the key problem: when a piece of software gets so enormous like Photoshop (or MS Word, or Autocad), it is increasingly difficult and expensive to add more features and improvements *that can be sold for a high price*. The problem is: how do you improve something that is already perceived as almost perfect?

Would you really pay $300 for some bugfixes and some new features you do not readily use?

The other problem is that Photoshop started in 1987... yes it is that old. Many of it concepts are hardcoded in the oldest lines of code, and the original programmers have left Adobe long since. I've already faced this problem in my line of work: you have a some huge program, and you reach a point where you have to start from scratch, because it is so complex that touching somethings makes fall the rest apart like a house of cards. And if the original developers are gone, you are dead in the water. You only option is to fix, fix, add, fix, add, wrap, fix, add ... it gets harder and harder. There is a theoretical curve for that... just google it.The cost goes up, the improvements go down.

Adobe has already a more modern product which is not nearly as powerful as Photoshop: Lightroom. Other players have chosen the newer path of adding non destructive photo retouch features to the RAW developing workflow (Capture One, ON1, DXO labs, etc.), but if Adobe went that path, it would necessary stop selling Photoshop. Why pay $700 for PS if LR already had 90% of the features an average photografer would need. THEY HAD TO THROTTLE the addition of new additions to LR, like masks, layers, and so on.

So they decided to go the subscription plan... now all the risk is on the customer!! The customer purchases the subscription and forgets about it (... its just 10 bucks a month ...) and Adobe is free to push the updates THEY want. They no longer need to convince the public to buy an expensive upgrade. And if you choose to cancel the subscription, you lose the ability to re-edit all your past photos, it's almost blackmail.

If you look at Adobe's changelog, most of the upgrades are rather minor (new camera compatibility, bugfixes, some menu regrouping some minor new features). Honestly, would you pay $300 a year for them?

The real reason behind the seemingly low price of the subscription is not they they are nice and cute people... it is simply because in a free market, *the price is set by the market itself *and it happens that LR+PS is not more worth than those $10 per month. This is the ugly truth. Capture One charges $20 per month for the OPTIONAL subscription... just because they can. Adobe cannot.

The other software vendors are forced to make great leaps between versions, or else their customers will not pay the upgrade fee. And it shows: look at the differences between ON1 2018 and 2019, or Capture One 11 and 12.

The same happened to MS Office: I have the subscription plan (it makes sense to my business... $99/year for 5 PCs), since 2017... and I really don't find any significant improvements (besides new fancy icons) between the 2017 and the 2019 software. It's just incremental.

This is the reason because I don't like subscription plans: because it is the last resource of a company to reduce their development costs at the expense of innovation. That is exactly was Adobe did.

I just don't want to play their game.
There has been a long discussion on why to go with... (show quote)


The reasons you state that are behind what adobe is doing are just your opinion about what you “think” they are doing. Much of what you say doesn’t ring true for me. I’ll pay the money and enjoy two great programs that are updated constantly and help me do great things to my photographic files.
...Cam

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2019 12:39:43   #
Cameraman
 
I think everyone is missing something important here.
One of the primary reasons was that there was tremendous loss of revenue for Adobe because illegal copies were available made by some hackers releasing keys and allowing folks to copy the programs like Photoshop for free.

Adobe was losing millions of dollars via these tricks. )I understand - I used to work for a small software company and this was a huge problem for us too.)

Now that copying has stopped because Adobe can check if you are a real subscriber.

It also makes it easy for them to upgrade the clients with changes and improvements to the program instead of having to create a whole package which is expensive and also expensive for clients to purchase.

Some of the changes may seem minor to one user but may be extremely important to others e.g. support for RAW for a new camera that one just purchased and needed Photoshop to support this new version of the RAW files..

Reply
May 8, 2019 12:55:40   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
jlg1000 wrote:
There has been a long discussion on why to go with the Adobe LR/PS subscription plan or why not to.

I'd like to offer a different view on this matter... on why I really don't like the Adobe subscription and why I do not recommend to anyone to follow this path.

No, it is not for the money... $10/month for the LR/PS subsciption, or $69 por ON1, or $50 for Affinity are always pennies next to the cost of photographic gear or the cost of the time we invest in this hobby or profession.

It is because the real reason because Adobe choose to *force* their customers to go to a subscription plan. The subscription is NOT an option (as for Capture One), but is MUST.

Adobe was facing a very severe competition, not only from other players, but specially from themselves. Photoshop has become such an amazing and extremely powerful piece of software that there is no real need to purchase an upgrade each year, at least for the majority of it's users.

If someone invested $700 in Photoshop, he or she would think twice (or trice) before throwing $300 for an upgrade. And this was the key problem: when a piece of software gets so enormous like Photoshop (or MS Word, or Autocad), it is increasingly difficult and expensive to add more features and improvements *that can be sold for a high price*. The problem is: how do you improve something that is already perceived as almost perfect?

Would you really pay $300 for some bugfixes and some new features you do not readily use?

The other problem is that Photoshop started in 1987... yes it is that old. Many of it concepts are hardcoded in the oldest lines of code, and the original programmers have left Adobe long since. I've already faced this problem in my line of work: you have a some huge program, and you reach a point where you have to start from scratch, because it is so complex that touching somethings makes fall the rest apart like a house of cards. And if the original developers are gone, you are dead in the water. You only option is to fix, fix, add, fix, add, wrap, fix, add ... it gets harder and harder. There is a theoretical curve for that... just google it.The cost goes up, the improvements go down.

Adobe has already a more modern product which is not nearly as powerful as Photoshop: Lightroom. Other players have chosen the newer path of adding non destructive photo retouch features to the RAW developing workflow (Capture One, ON1, DXO labs, etc.), but if Adobe went that path, it would necessary stop selling Photoshop. Why pay $700 for PS if LR already had 90% of the features an average photografer would need. THEY HAD TO THROTTLE the addition of new additions to LR, like masks, layers, and so on.

So they decided to go the subscription plan... now all the risk is on the customer!! The customer purchases the subscription and forgets about it (... its just 10 bucks a month ...) and Adobe is free to push the updates THEY want. They no longer need to convince the public to buy an expensive upgrade. And if you choose to cancel the subscription, you lose the ability to re-edit all your past photos, it's almost blackmail.

If you look at Adobe's changelog, most of the upgrades are rather minor (new camera compatibility, bugfixes, some menu regrouping some minor new features). Honestly, would you pay $300 a year for them?

The real reason behind the seemingly low price of the subscription is not they they are nice and cute people... it is simply because in a free market, *the price is set by the market itself *and it happens that LR+PS is not more worth than those $10 per month. This is the ugly truth. Capture One charges $20 per month for the OPTIONAL subscription... just because they can. Adobe cannot.

The other software vendors are forced to make great leaps between versions, or else their customers will not pay the upgrade fee. And it shows: look at the differences between ON1 2018 and 2019, or Capture One 11 and 12.

The same happened to MS Office: I have the subscription plan (it makes sense to my business... $99/year for 5 PCs), since 2017... and I really don't find any significant improvements (besides new fancy icons) between the 2017 and the 2019 software. It's just incremental.

This is the reason because I don't like subscription plans: because it is the last resource of a company to reduce their development costs at the expense of innovation. That is exactly was Adobe did.

I just don't want to play their game.
There has been a long discussion on why to go with... (show quote)


Well, you have revealed yourself as someone who is math challenged and lacks understanding of value, economics, business principles, the cycle of software development and generating revenue, and the difference between Lightroom, a parametric editor with an image database, and Photoshop, which is a full-featured raster and vector image editor that uses an image browser to manage files. Both use the same engine for raw conversion.

But that is besides the point. Your rant caused me to use up over a minute of my precious time, lost forever, on your drivel and misinformation. Photoshop was not commercially available as a standalone product until 1990, previous versions were bundled with a scanner and were not available without the purchase of that scanner. Also, since 2014, I have been using the CC plan, and I still have not spent as much as I did when I purchased CS5 and Lightroom. ($520 for subscription vs my original purchase of CS5 extended @$1000 and Lightroom 3 2 $300 - making the subscription version significantly lower in cost.

Me? I am a Luddite - I still like my original, original, original Photoshop, inb use long before 1987. And $10/mo is the very definition of value.

If you are going to rant - I guess all bets are off. But at least some may find my rant over your rant somewhat humorous, while your original rant is either a troll post or you really do feel that way, and just needed to whine about it.

SMH . . .


(Download)

Reply
May 8, 2019 13:03:43   #
Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas
 
.



Reply
May 8, 2019 13:08:37   #
BebuLamar
 
Gene51 wrote:
Well, you have revealed yourself as someone who is math challenged and lacks understanding of value, economics, business principles, the cycle of software development and generating revenue, and the difference between Lightroom, a parametric editor with an image database, and Photoshop, which is a full-featured raster and vector image editor that uses an image browser to manage files. Both use the same engine for raw conversion.

But that is besides the point. Your rant caused me to use up over a minute of my precious time, lost forever, on your drivel and misinformation. Photoshop was not commercially available as a standalone product until 1990, previous versions were bundled with a scanner and were not available without the purchase of that scanner. Also, since 2014, I have been using the CC plan, and I still have not spent as much as I did when I purchased CS5 and Lightroom. ($520 for subscription vs my original purchase of CS5 extended @$1000 and Lightroom 3 2 $300 - making the subscription version significantly lower in cost.

Me? I am a Luddite - I still like my original, original, original Photoshop, inb use long before 1987. And $10/mo is the very definition of value.

If you are going to rant - I guess all bets are off. But at least some may find my rant over your rant somewhat humorous, while your original rant is either a troll post or you really do feel that way, and just needed to whine about it.

SMH . . .
Well, you have revealed yourself as someone who is... (show quote)


The OP is not responsible for your lost minute. You can't rant about lost minutes here on the UHH.

Reply
 
 
May 8, 2019 13:08:49   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
And now we return you to our regular programming.

Reply
May 8, 2019 13:55:54   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
jlg1000 wrote:
There has been a long discussion on why to go with the Adobe LR/PS subscription plan or why not to... now all the risk is on the customer!! ....


You are entitled to your opinion.

In my opinion, I get value for my subscription. I use LR/PS a lot. To me it is not a risk. If I were to want to edit some older images, I would probably start from scratch anyway because the new software would probably have new algorithms and processes that were not available the first time.

I don't want to waste my time trying to develop a new workflow with some other software. I am where I want to be with the CC Photography package. It works for me.

Reply
May 8, 2019 15:14:00   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
BebuLamar wrote:
The OP is not responsible for your lost minute. You can't rant about lost minutes here on the UHH.


Yes I can if I want to! I understand it's another couple of wasted minutes . . . but I don't care!

BTW, is that the only thing you took away from my rant?

C'mon, really, didn't you at least smile at my "old school" Photoshop setup?

Reply
May 8, 2019 17:20:51   #
G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK
 
Tch Tch.....don't malign the icon!!!

Yes I can remember people offering illicit Photoshop in the late 70's but my 086 PC couldn't use it (used gimp) and digital photography was not available then!

Seems like a well thought out argument - but not necessarily popular.

Use what you will - whilst we have choice.

PS Microsoft just announced using AI to help people 'write correctly' in Word......How more annoying can Ms make Office!!!!

have fun

Reply
Page 1 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.