Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud

Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription-Only 658

Posted by samzenpus
from the pay-up dept.
First time accepted submitter JDG1980 writes "According to CNET and various other sources, CS6 will be the last version of Adobe's Creative Suite that will be sold in the traditional manner. All future versions will be available by subscription only, through Adobe's so-called 'Creative Cloud' service. This means that before too long, anyone who wants an up-to-date version of Photoshop won't be able to buy it – they will have to pay $50 per month (minimum subscription term: one year). Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Creative Suite Going Subscription-Only

Comments Filter:
  • I love it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by click2005 (921437) * on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:28PM (#43645895)

    For this to work Adobe will have to 'break' older versions with patches.

    Adobe beat Microsoft to it... Adobe Rent for $50 per month.

    Microsoft said they would be doing this years ago (after people found ways to avoid paying MS Tax).
    I wonder how much Microsoft Rent will be for Windows & Office.

    • Re:I love it... (Score:5, Informative)

      by cdrnet (1582149) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:40PM (#43646041)

      They are doing this already, e.g. Office 365 for $9.99 per month (includes licenses for up to 5 PCs)

    • Re:I love it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:46PM (#43646139) Homepage

      Adobe Rent for $50 per month.

      Where's the incentive to improve the software on a subscription model? Once they have your money they can just sit around without adding new features, or add features nobody really wants, or...basically whatever they feel like doing. There's no pressure at all to make new versions which are good enough to make people part with more many.

      • by hedwards (940851)

        And where's the money to develop new versions coming from? They have to find ways of forcing people to upgrade to pay for the development cost. This way they don't have to think as much about older versions as they can just render them obsolete knowing that everybody will be updating.

        For professional users a subscription makes a lot of sense, I'm just baffled as to why they aren't leaving the amateurs alone here. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily mind paying for a software subscription if I got to kee

        • Re:I love it... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:12PM (#43646477)

          For professional users a subscription makes a lot of sense

          Why?

          We're already seeing the usual rip-off pricing for non-US customers: Creative Cloud is currently just shy of £50/month in the UK, which works out at about two years to break even compared to the current advertised price for buying the key applications in CS6 outright (a little under £1,200).

          I don't want to have my UI move around arbitrarily. I hate it when browsers do that. I hate it when mobile apps do that. I use Creative Suite to earn a living, and I won't tolerate those kinds of tools doing it.

          I don't want to work more in the cloud. I have invested a considerable amount of money in building a high performance system here, with robust storage, networking, back-ups etc. And my system and devices don't trust anyone outside my company with access to material I'm working on for clients.

          And most of all, I don't trust Adobe not to screw me. When my boot drive failed, they were the only company whose DRM couldn't figure it out and reinstall cleanly after the replacement was installed. It took weeks (and their tech support people who could barely speak English or understand the problem calling me literally in the middle of the night and then wondering why I wasn't impressed, and ultimately the first step toward formal legal action) to get them to fix the problem. As far as I can tell, that problem turned out to be due to completely fictional records somehow magically becoming linked to the serial number of our legitimate, legal copy of the product in their database, which sounds a lot like either an admin screw-up or someone's key generator coincidentally hitting our number, but certainly no fault of ours either way.

          I predict with 100% confidence that none of my companies will be giving any more money to Adobe if they go ahead with this. They aren't trustworthy, their pricing model is predatory, and their track record of improvements/bug fixes -- or rather the unspectacular lack thereof -- doesn't speak well of how much value any of us are going to get out of renting our software. If we need more copies of CS for new people, we'll just source legal but second-hand permanent copies of the same version we've already got, as the courts in Europe seem happy that we are perfectly entitled to do.

          • Re:I love it... (Score:5, Informative)

            by MoGrapher (2658463) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:39PM (#43646913)

            It seems you don't understand how this model works. I have been operating with Creative Cloud for over a year now and it's nothing like you've described.

            I don't want to have my UI move around arbitrarily.

            Don't click the update button then... no one is forcing you to take the updates, you're just a luddite if you don't.

            I don't want to work more in the cloud. I have invested a considerable amount of money in building a high performance system here, with robust storage, networking, back-ups etc. And my system and devices don't trust anyone outside my company with access to material I'm working on for clients.

            I still burden my "high performance system" every day, and even expanded my system to take advantage of the new RayTracing features in After Effects with great results. The software runs locally it's just licensed in the cloud.

            Oh theres another huge benefit... the license is platform agnostic. So for the artist who has Windows and Apple they don't have to get screwed by buying two completely different software packages that never stay in sync.

            If you can predict anything with 100% confidence it is that you don't know as much as you think you know.

            • Re:I love it... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Monday May 06, 2013 @06:06PM (#43647977)

              Don't click the update button then... no one is forcing you to take the updates, you're just a luddite if you don't.

              The Luddites were against improvements in technology that would save lots of effort, increase efficiency, and therefore potentially make them redundant. I see no evidence that any recent "upgrades" in Creative Suite have had that kind of effect. They do seem fond of redoing their entire UI theme every couple of years, but there haven't been any must-have new features that were of more than niche interest for quite a while.

              And that's the biggest problem with this whole scheme. We're talking about a pricing model where you basically have to pay the equivalent of full price every couple of years. Even on the old, one-off purchase model with a substantial up-front price, you only paid that once and you paid a much lower price if you wanted to upgrade to the next version. Something that is going to work out that much more expensive, not to mention having the risk of breaking at least once a month, has to have something serious in it for the market to make them want to shift, and I just don't see that happening given Adobe's track record lately. As the likes of Microsoft have found out recently, there is always at least one viable alternative for large, profitable customers who don't like your new offering: stick with the old one they already have.

            • by skegg (666571)

              Curious ... I notice that you say:

              The software runs locally it's just licensed in the cloud.

              which implies it's essentially the same software.
              However in my local newspaper [smh.com.au] the Managing Director of Adobe Australia and New Zealand says:

              We didn't want our research and development teams to be maintaining two different tech platforms – one in the cloud and the one purchased every two years.

              which implies Adobe would be burdened by having to maintain a cloud & off-line version of the software.

              I believe yo

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          Because amateurs don't buy CS. Amateurs don't drop the thousands of dollars that Adobe charges for CS on a photo editor. They use Elements, an alternative, or pirate it.

          I think Adobe is shooting themselves in the foot with this one. The professionals will keep using CS and the amateurs will use old versions until they stop working and then switch to something else. The something else will get better (there are already a LOT better alternatives than they were a few years ago). Eventually Adobe will have

        • by Millennium (2451)

          And where's the money to develop new versions coming from?

          From sales of those versions. Business is a risk. That's how it works.

          They have to find ways of forcing people to upgrade to pay for the development cost.

          They could do it the old-fashioned way: by developing compelling new features that people want to use. Or has that become too difficult over the years?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The incentive is to keep that flow of cash coming in. The pressure will be from other companies who feel they can offer a competing product at a more compelling price point, and take away Adobe's business.

        Or did you really think once you signed up for a subscription, you were committing to pay $50 a month in perpetuity?

      • by torkus (1133985)

        Actually I'd say the opposite. If I put down $500 once, I have that version. Patches and similar free updates don't sell me another copy or make the company any money. The only way to get more money out of me is to sell another major revision.

        In a SaaS model (i.e. subscription method) I can jump ship in 6 months to another product with better products/features/updates and not lose my whole investment. Instead, if I'm paying the company monthly they have a very strong motivation to continue improvement.

    • At work we use some accounting software called business vision.

      The software is not cheap. For our 10 users it was north of 15K, but worth it as it had some tools we needed.

      One of those tools was payroll, for which they supplied updates for a couple hundred bucks a year.

      So i went to buy the payroll tax update a couple of years later and they said that payroll is not supported by the version we are using.

      Now here's the kicker.

      They said we had to update to the most recent version of the software. Fi

  • by sinij (911942) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:30PM (#43645913) Journal
    Corporate suicide Microsoft style, only they are not nearly as entrenched.
    • by mikael_j (106439)

      I'd say a lot of Adobe CS users are just as locked to Adobe's software as Windows users many times are.

      However, this could change quickly if someone decided to put a lot of effort (and money) into developing a viable alternative to Adobe's software (especially Photoshop, while there are currently alternatives on the market Photoshop is definitely the baseline that other software is compared to).

      I really wouldn't mind if say, Apple and Autodesk both decided to take a stab at creating their own Photoshop comp

      • Already there (Score:2, Interesting)

        by SuperKendall (25149)

        There are already a lot of smaller competitors to Photoshop, at least for photographic work.

        The main one From Apple itself is Aperture. It's not really a photoshop competitor exactly, but where it does become one is the range of plugins that support it now - pretty much most of the powerful image editing tools have Aperture plugins, so I can do fairly advanced editing in Aperture without ever touching Photoshop.

        I always bought Photoshop before because it was still useful in some cases, but don't see any ne

        • Re:Already there (Score:5, Informative)

          by JDG1980 (2438906) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:50PM (#43646181)

          The main one From Apple itself is Aperture. It's not really a photoshop competitor exactly, but where it does become one is the range of plugins that support it now - pretty much most of the powerful image editing tools have Aperture plugins, so I can do fairly advanced editing in Aperture without ever touching Photoshop.

          Aperture is competitive with Adobe's Lightroom, not Photoshop. Neither program supports even basic features like layers, which are necessary for many types of graphical manipulation work. Instead, they're meant as the first step of the workflow for raw image files that have just been taken off the camera.

      • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:46PM (#43646131)

        Considering AutoCAD's licensing, if Autodesk created a Photoshop competitor you'd wish they'd let you have it for $50/month!

  • Oh fuckoff. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I have never known a release of creative cloud subscription CS apps to stay working 100% for *anybody* for several months at a time, let alone a whole year. From Internet outages, adobe's abysmal registration and support, to paying but finding day or week long delays until the apps actually detect registration is valid. I gave up after less than a year and bought cs6 in February this year.

    And I'm a total adobe fan otherwise.

    What the hell are adobe thinking? Of ways to make sure their apps are pirated even h

  • by captbob2002 (411323) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:33PM (#43645941)

    Guess I need not worry about having the software available in the labs

  • I guess the good news is that I have a real impetus to get a lot better at Gimp now...
  • That stinks. It's just another way to suck money out of people's wallets.
    • They've already been doing that for a few years - ever since they moved to a faster release cycle.

      And people defended that move.

      So Adobe already knows its users will bend over however far they tell them to.

  • Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:38PM (#43646013) Journal

    Adobe underestimates how much it benefits from piracy. If poor college students can't cut their teeth on the full Adobe suite, they're likely to learn how to use something else. When those students go out and get jobs, they're more likely to use what they're used to than drop a bundle on Adobe software they've never used before.

    • by supersat (639745)
      Why do you think they've left those CS2 download links up, despite tons of people believing Adobe is giving it away? If they cared, they could implement minimal serial number validation.
    • Re:Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)

      by idontgno (624372) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:12PM (#43646481) Journal

      I wouldn't be surprised if those poor college students get their Adobe suite indoctrination as part of their tuition and fees. Maybe at an educational discount, but nowadays, who knows and why would it matter? Just add another $5k to your undergrad student loan debt!

      As to jobs... again, if a workplace needs CS, they'll pay the monthly license (per-seat, probably) as part of their operating cost. It's going to work out a lot like leasing computer hardware instead of buying it and then disposing of it when it needs to be upgraded.

      As much as I really prefer the model of "one up-front payment, perpetual license" (as close to "buying" as you can get with proprietary software), the idea of software lease MUST be irresistable to SW vendors. Steady cashflow, inherent anti-piracy (if a cloud-based online-heavy implementation), separation of feature developent and marketing plans...well, maybe not so much that one. Time will tell.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      There *is* educational prices. Currently 19.99 for students/teachers.
    • Re:Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:26PM (#43646723)

      Adobe underestimates how much it benefits from piracy. If poor college students can't cut their teeth on the full Adobe suite, they're likely to learn how to use something else. When those students go out and get jobs, they're more likely to use what they're used to than drop a bundle on Adobe software they've never used before.

      Guess what? They'll give it college students for free, or real cheap and then when they pull the plug after 4 years they have a new paying user. Piracy, who needs it when you can hook them and then withdraw the drug until they pay?

    • Re:Piracy (Score:4, Informative)

      by westlake (615356) on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:10PM (#43647279)

      Adobe underestimates how much it benefits from piracy. If poor college students can't cut their teeth on the full Adobe suite, they're likely to learn how to use something else.

      Adobe Creative Cloud: Student and Teacher Edition [adobe.com]

      $20/mo for access to every pro grade tool and service Adobe has to offer.

  • by bbasgen (165297) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:40PM (#43646037) Homepage
    It is a challenging proposition: force customers to rent and provide no option to own. This is a natural fit for services, but becomes rather odd for a commodity. It is hard to understand how, in the consumer market, a company can successfully force a customer to pay for a service that they don't use: if I only use Photoshop in March and June, why on earth should I pay for April and May? Subscription models work very well in business, particularly in large organizations, but this will be interesting to watch unfold in the consumer market.
    • They didn't have a true purchase option before though. They restricted you from selling your software. They also did things to encourage people to upgrade. This is a more honest and transparent.
  • by i_ate_god (899684) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:40PM (#43646039) Homepage

    I doubt it'll spur competition, because everyone will just stick with CS6.

    I'm not a multi media production expert, but CS6 seems to be pretty feature complete, and if you ever wanted to go further than that, there is always Processing or max/msp, and third party plugins for After Effects, Premeire, and Photoshop.

  • I've used Paint Shop Pro any time I needed to do anything that Paint couldn't handle. I'm just curious what advanced users are getting out of Photoshop that seems to make it the go-to editor for power users.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178)

      Paint Shop Pro and about a dozen other Windows-based graphics applications have been offering 90% of Photoshop's features for well over a decade now.
      The remaining 10% is mostly color and print management, which most people neither need nor know even exists.

      Sadly, the common answer to Photoshop around these parts is "Gimp".
      Anybody who's ever used Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Painter, Canvas, Photo Draw will be thoroughly disappointed by Gimp's lack of features and especially it's utter lack of usability.

      Perhap

  • Piracy (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dancindan84 (1056246) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:42PM (#43646075)

    My guess is this is a move to combat widespread piracy among home users. The benefit to home user's pirating your software is that people get to know your product, and then want to use it at work. That's one of the big reasons why MS has turned a blind eye to small time home piracy. Those home users aren't going to pay a $200+ license (or a $50/month subscription) so allowing them to pirate doesn't equate to a lost sale, it encourages companies to stick with a product their workforce is familiar with, and it ultimately get the vendor sales through those companies.

    Basically I think they may be shooting themselves in the foot, but not in the way the summary implies. The companies who buy adobe products probably aren't going to baulk at the switch (and in fact a subscription makes things easier on start-ups since they don't have the overhead of a much more expensive license). It's going to hurt them because there will likely be less people familiar with their product in/entering the workforce. They can offset that somewhat by giving it away/giving heavy discounts to education sectors, but at the end of the day if the person can't fire it up on their home computer free/cheap it's going to make a difference.

  • I know two people that use photoshop and *always* eventually upgrade to the latest version within a year or two (stupid fanatics; no offense). I can tell you right now that neither of them is going to stand for this and one of them is definitely going to send Adobe one or more very scathing emails to tell them that he will never buy anything of theirs again and to explain to them how they are a bunch of idiots making a very stupid mistake (and is highly likely to call them up in person and yell at them to

  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:43PM (#43646091) Homepage
    The really interesting part of this seems to be that Adobe gets to keep all the money from the licensing. Previously, if you wanted a license, you'd go to some reseller, and they'd get part of the money, as would a distributor, and maybe ever a couple other companies along the way. This is basically a game changer. Adobe believes (and it's probably true) that it's popular enough that they don't need resellers and other people pushing their products, and that they can do good enough business just selling direct to the end user. As much as I like the idea of subscription software, I do like the idea of the middle man being cut out, since most of the time they offer very little value to the end customer, and can only really make prices higher, or at the very best, bleed out money from the process would have been better served going back to the people creating the product. It's the equivalent of music labels selling directly to end users without going through the music stores (be they online or physical stores/records)
    • by Triv (181010)
      I've seen boxed copies of Adobe software subscriptions on sale at Staples. Maybe eventually they'll only sell them through an application marketplace or online, but that doesn't seem to be the plan for the near future.
  • Yes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom (715771) <slashdotNO@SPAMuberm00.net> on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:43PM (#43646095) Homepage Journal

    Can Adobe complete the switch to subscription-only, or will the backlash be too great? Will this finally spur the creation of a real competitor to Photoshop?

    Yes.

  • I've had a full PS license for years, currently on CS6. But my need for it is very much less than my preference for maintaining my own software and update schedules, and avoiding recurring costs. It will therefore be the last.

    Bye guys!

  • Biggest concern (Score:5, Insightful)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768@@@comcast...net> on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:47PM (#43646147) Journal
    We need to have version control for some plugins we use. If there are no controls to prevent new versions from being loaded then it will be imposible to version control
  • Pricing (Score:5, Informative)

    by proxima (165692) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:50PM (#43646191)

    This means that before too long, anyone who wants an up-to-date version of Photoshop won't be able to buy it – they will have to pay $50 per month (minimum subscription term: one year).

    This pricing seemed off. Sure enough, TFA:

    For those who don't want the entire suite, Adobe offers subscriptions to individual programs. And now they're cheaper, down from $20 a month to $10 a month, Morris said.

    So if you want Photoshop, Illustrator, etc. etc., the suite will be $50/mo. If you only want Photoshop, it's $10/mo. Furthermore, if you really only need software for a month, you can rent the suite for $75.

    I can't say I'm a big fan of subscription only (even MS is keeping some purchase options for Office), but pricing like this does create some winners (besides Adobe). Short term projects, for example, may benefit from being able to purchase what was a $2500 package for only a month or two at $75/month. The losers, of course, are those that purchase upgrades infrequently and use their software for years.

    Frankly, I'm tempted by $10/mo for Illustrator. The retail box of CS6 is $540, and I have no product from which to upgrade. So for the cost of the boxed version (with its potential resale or upgrade value factored in), I get 4 1/2 years of use of the latest version. One key difference is I can easily drop it after 1 year (and $120), if I don't need it any more. Still, I understand how abandoning box sales will make some people unhappy.

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday May 06, 2013 @03:50PM (#43646193)

    My wife is a budding professional photographer, and my son is highly creative and in middle school. Both get a lot of use out of Photoshop, but we can barely afford one permanent license. It's a purchase I'm willing to make only because it opens up future opportunities for both of them.

    But if Adobe's going to want about that same amount of money every year, I just don't see how we can justify the cost. We might have to suck it up and hope we can get the same functionality with a collection of much cheaper / free tools.

  • by dbhost (1129727) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:03PM (#43646375)
    I think this is a great opportunity for the Open Source Community to showcase what really can be done with apps like The GIMP. There is admittedly work to be done for vector apps, but they are coming along.... Other than using Photoshop specific filters, there really isn't anything Photoshop can do that I can't do in GIMP... Why pay Adobe for their overpriced bloatware?
  • by neminem (561346) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .menimen.> on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:15PM (#43646545) Homepage

    One: how many people actually purchase Photoshop *now*? Aren't like 99.999% of all photoshop installs pirated?

    Two: to those rare people who do actually purchase Photoshop, how many of them would have any need for whatever would be in hypothetical new versions, as opposed to just using the one they already have a copy of?

  • by FellowConspirator (882908) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:21PM (#43646663)

    When I purchase software, it counts as a capital expense against my cost center. If, however, I enter into a rental agreement of this sort, it counts as an expense against my cost center. This will more or less mean that departments will no longer be able to obtain Adobe software since we're constant under pressure to keep operating expenses down. The software is no longer an amortizable asset, but instead gets counted as overhead (not to mention, this sort of licensing scheme incurs overhead in its own right to manage).

    The practical upshot is that this makes Adobe products far more expensive for a company, and far less desirable overall.

  • by Twinbee (767046) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:25PM (#43646715) Homepage
    How KIND of Adobe for this wonderful offer. I will be amongst those people falling over themselves to pay for a product which gives them less than 2 years use when before it would've lasted a lifetime. Thanks also go to Microsoft for leading the way into this sparkling new future with their newly branded Office 360 software.

    New frontiers are being explored here. I dream of a world where we can play with cute 'apps' like Photoshop brimming with DRM goodness in the 'Creative Cloud' on a single-screen metro GUI using the laggy touchscreens of our tablets. Glory!
  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:27PM (#43646739)

    The good is the additional options (not explained in the summary). $75 per month to rent the software is nice if you just need it for a quick project but don't want the buy the whole thing. $10 a month is reasonable for one of the programs assuming you usually buy the latest version. In fact, the $50 a month is probably a great deal if you usually buy the latest version anyway.

    However, this destroys is the ability to invest in a product for a one-time fee and then get as much use out of that project as you can. For example, suppose you purchased Photoshop CS4 for $700 when it was released (October 2008) and found that it suited your needs just fine. As the upgrades came, you evaluated them and didn't think you needed any of the new features. So you kept using your Photoshop CS4 license as CS5 and 6 came out.

    For 4 1/2 years, you haven't needed to budget money every month for an upgrade to the software. With the subscription-only model, though, it would rapidly need to become a line item on anyone's budget. If too many software products did this, it would limit how many programs people would buy. Spending $$$ for software once every few years is something people can manage. (Use the older version longer if times are lean, upgrade if money is flowing nicely.) Spending $50 a month for each piece of software you use would quickly become a huge financial burden on most people.

  • by mrsnak (1818464) on Monday May 06, 2013 @04:36PM (#43646871)
    My last Adobe upgrade (CS5) cost me $650 and has served me well for 3 years. CS6 at $50 a month will cost me $3600. I do get a discounted initial rate, but this is only guaranteed for a year. I only hope they get the backlash they deserve, at least from the larger prepress companies. The older pros I know don't like this, but the younger designers don't really know anything else and it allows them to come into the program with less money upfront. I see CS5 being viable for a long time.
  • by rayharris (1571543) on Monday May 06, 2013 @05:32PM (#43647515)

    It seems there's a lot of confusion as to what the Adobe Creative Cloud is. I currently subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud at the $50 per month rate. Here's what I get...

    Adobe CS6 Master Collection
    -- Everything, not just Photoshop
    -- Usually around $2600 when purchased as a standalone program
          -- At $50 per month, I could only upgrade every 4 1/3 years
          -- But I get continuous updates
    -- I can install ACC on two computers
          -- One can be OSX and the other Windows
          -- You can't do this with purchased apps
    -- Apps are installed locally
          -- Don't have to be online to use apps
          -- Unless you're past the current expiration of your subscription
    -- Data files are stored locally
          -- Don't have to use cloud storage

    Subscription options:
    -- $20/month - One Application, No Commitment
    -- $20/month - All Applications, Annual Commitment, Students and Teachers (K-12 and College)
    -- $50/month - All Applications, Annual Commitment (What I have)
    -- $75/month - All Applications, No Commitment

    So, while you may still have some qualms about a subscription model, remember not to spread FUD or inaccurate information.

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Monday May 06, 2013 @06:12PM (#43648049)

    I've been in the design industry going back to Photoshop 5. This well before there was such a thing as Creative Suite, before Adobe bought Macromedia and before Quark made such a mess of their desktop publishing application that everyone switched to InDesign.

    Adobe has a complete monopoly on the design industry. In the US I've never come across a designer that doesn't use Adobe products. Using anything else is a surefire way to be ostracized and struggle to find a job. Overseas, where Adobe software tends to be more expensive, and design culture isn't as entrenched in a particular mindset as it is in the US, you sometimes saw other software used. But it was rare and most who couldn't afford Creative Suite just pirated it. Often, the best case was that they'd get a single license and then crack it for use on multiple machines.

    In the US, the design industry has screwed itself. They've collectively deemed that Adobe software is The One Way (tm) to do design. You're not a real designer if you work any other way. Making things worse is that like a pack of suckers, they'd rush out to upgrade the instant the next version was released. Adobe's model of preventing backwards compatibility meant that if you resisted upgrading within a few months you'd find yourself receiving design files you can't open. Flash, for example, went from plenty of options when saving in the Macromedia days to allowing you to save back a single version. Whether or not your files feature new functionality is irrelevant.

    So the end result is that you're dragged along on the upgrade cycle whether you like it or not. But the most frustrating bit here is that the vast majority of designers never touch what new functionality Adobe has introduced. But then most of that functionality has very limited utility for most people. And while there have been some valuable updates through the years there have been core issues that have yet to be addressed. One is how the UI amongst the various apps is inconsistent despite Creative Suite now having been around for at least 10 years. One of the more ridiculous issues is how most apps in the package, including Acrobat, lack support for retina display.

    Knock Microsoft and Office all you want, but they've always been good about updates, their UI is consistent across all apps, and they supported retina early on. On top of that, you can still work effectively with an old version of Office. And most important of all, they don't have a monopoly on any industry.

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton

Working...