stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

Not all of them. As a "bean counter" of many years I think manipulative is a good word for it. Marketers think it's a good marketing strategy.

BebuLamar

I agree with you Jerry!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

What's obvious is you can't answer my question. Where's the deception? Where's the sneaky? Are they misinforming you? How so?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

How are they being manipulative? Are they lying somewhere somehow? Is everyone who sells you a subscription being manipulative? I have a subscription to the New Your Times. How are they manipulating me?

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

It's analogous to the coffee companies quietly, with no announcement or warning, reducing the amount of coffee in a "one-pound" can from 16 oz to 13 oz but keeping the price the same. They do it legally by putting the correct weight on the can but that doesn't mean it's not sneaky and underhanded. They know most people won't notice and even if they do there is nothing they can do about it so they keep on buying the coffee. Why can't you see that?


In some/many ways it is just like the government adding "fees" and "surcharges" to your phone bill, then telling everyone they did not raise taxes. True? Of course, but still sneaky and underhanded.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

So tell me when you ever had the option to purchase a lifetime subscription to the NYT for a set, one-time price? The fact that you read that rag tells me volumes.

Manipulative comes into play because they know they are making you make a commitment to their software forever. Sure, you have the option to drop it and change, but they know most people won't do that because (a) they get used to the software which makes change difficult and uncomfortable, (b) many people will have it charged automatically to a credit card and then forget they are being charged every month, and (c) most people don't stop to figure out what they are actually paying.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

So when did Adobe take away what you get in the subscription while keeping the price the same? All I'm aware of is they added more while keeping the price the same. You're the one being deceptive.

stanikon Loc: Deep in the Heart of Texas

I give up. I'm done with you. Go read your paper and wallow in your own deceptive self-satisfaction.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Wow!!!!! They're making you make a commitment? Wow! Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

Wow! Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. Did you make it through grade school? $10.00 per month is $120.00 per year which is $600.00 in 5 years, etc. I don't think Adobe is guilty if you can't do that math.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

And again you have no answer for my question -- all you can do is throw whining insults.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I believe the subscription saves me money. When I first purchased a license for Lightroom it was a few hundred dollars. It got updated every couple years for 70-90 dollars. Photoshop cost about $600 and needed updates every couple years (another cost but I don't remember how much).

I now get both of them for $119.88/year (plus sales tax). Updates included, and they happen probably monthly instead of yearly. It takes about 7-8 years before I spend as much as I spent to get the first copies. That doesn't include cost of updates for the initial copies.

If I spend a pile of money all at once for something and compare it to leasing it with small payments over time, inflation makes the all at once payment more significant.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Back when the one-time license was available folks had a couple options. If you bought every upgrade as released and we run it out over say a decade to absorb the initial purchase cost then the subscription is cheaper. Most folks however would skip an upgrade here and there -- some folks would skip every other upgrade etc. and in that case the subscription is about the same cost as the one-time license used to be with some upgrade skipping stretched out over a decade.

When Adobe went subscription and put the photographer's bundle together surely they did that same math and I think decided to create an option for photographers where they wound up paying much the same as they had been. Adobe benefits from a more stable cash inflow.

Since they went subscription (around 2012/13) and created the photo bundle for $10 month they've added LR CC to the package and kept the price constant. Compared to the top tier competition Adobe's photo bundle of LR classic, LR CC and PS is price competitive.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I can't speak to the software Jerry is referring to, but with regards to subscriptions, the elephant in the room is the $10 per month Adobe LR and PS subscription plan. Keep in mind that the original cost of the standalone version of PS 6 was $700 USD, and the cost of Lightroom 6.14, the last standalone version, was around $150 USD. The combined initial cost of the two standalone versions was equal to seven years of the current subscription plan, but unlike the subscription plan there would be no updates for those seven years and the periodic upgrades were quite pricey as well! The subscription plan has allowed countless current users of the Adobe suite to have access to both PhotoShop and Lightroom who previously were locked out because of the very high combined initial cost of both titles. Please understand that I am not a Adobe fanboy and don't use the Adobe suite myself, but, when you look at the historic initial coat and upgrade pricing for those products the subscription plan is an absolute bargain. I'm sure Adobe does quite well with the subscription plan but its a win-win for users as well.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sorry, no way in Hades I would pay $700 for ANY software package.
Not being a professional, I cannot write it off.
My newest editor is Elements 2019, my oldest, which still works just fine, is 10 years old. None are subscription based.
However, I do occasionally update DPP, which is free for me.