Adobe’s Creative Suite is dead, long live the Creative Cloud

It's the end of the line for boxed versions of Photoshop, InDesign, and the rest.

Read the whole story

 

[Aurich]

I've been using Photoshop for a couple decades now. Currently using CS6. This move disappoints me, I have no plans to support it any time soon. Never say never, but right now I'm just gonna stick with CS6 for as long as possible, a subscription system is highly unappealing to me.

 

[Shaizan]

They should also add microtranactions. Want to crop your photo - $.05. Upload website - $.25.

Think of all the $$$.

 

[kranchammer]

I really hope this business model bombs before Office goes this subscription-only route.

 

[Superman Pants]

I'm sticking with CS3. Expect no more money from me Adobe.

 

[undervillain]

Shoot. I have a copy of CS4 that I pop in every now-and-again for something, but I absolutely can't afford to use this software anymore now that it's migrated to a subscription. For incidental use, $30 for a month of access to an application is just way too much. Hopefully some open-source alternatives will get some renewed development with this announcement. (i.e. the Gimp makes for a decent alternative, except its UI is just so &#$@ after getting used to the Adobe suite).

 

[Gub]

Aurich[/url]":1wv5re22]I've been using Photoshop for a couple decades now. Currently using CS6. This move disappoints me, I have no plans to support it any time soon. Never say never, but right now I'm just gonna stick with CS6 for as long as possible, a subscription system is highly unappealing to me.

Do you buy your own software for your work on Ars or is it paid for by Ars/Conde Nast?

 

[Voix des Airs]

Absolutely not. I upgrade software when the developer provides me a compelling reason to do so. Features that make it worthwhile for me to upgrade. I positively do not want to pay a subscription for a stream of "upgrades" that might be of no value to me.

Screw you Adobe. This dude will not abide.

Edit: typo.

 

[du_sumboudy]

This is a good way to drive people to open source software. Nobody wants to buy into a system clearly designed to keep sucking money out of them.

 

[Legion6789]

parawizard[/url]":12e2xcj2]What are your guys arguments? Is it actually going to cost you more money on subscription? What is so bad about it. Seems like it would be easier to continue developing with money coming in on a service like this then having to out certain versions, boxes, retail, marketing per product, etc.

It's probably pretty good for a lot of people. But there's definitely use cases where it's not advantageous. Particularly for people who don't upgrade often or as stated in the article are infrequent users of the software. Personally I like choice and would prefer if they continued to offer both options.

 

[Korgoth]

parawizard[/url]":ne2sx2ky]

Korgoth[/url]":ne2sx2ky]I like the subscription model. Makes it easier for people without a couple grand to get all the tools. Not everyone has $2500 lying around, but most can manage $50 in a month.

Cost wise it might work out to be more in the long term, but it does offer some extras over the boxed version; and allows more people to afford it.

But isn't it less? Especially if you keep fairly up to date.

Well with the Master Collection you wouldn't be losing money until month 51, and only if you didn't choose to upgrade. But you might choose to not upgrade, and the cost of the upgrade vs the year commitment isn't as favorable.

 

[Azethoth666]

Mmm, I have been considering updating my CS4 because its Photoshop is retarded and destroys all use of the Esc key by other applications while it is running. No way am I subscribing at these prices though. I barely use Photoshop as it is and the rest of them never. My tolerance level is more like $20 a year, not $20 a month.

 

[Penforhire]

I only use Photoshop. In the past I managed to skip just about every other revision and buy my upgrades around $125 on average (on sale later in their life cycle).

Even $20 a month is too much perpetual cost to me. Guess I'll be seeing how far I can stretch CS6 until they decide the policy is a mistake or if it sticks. I want fewer subscriptions in my life (cable TV, sat radio, internet service, cell phone) not more.

 

[jimbles]

This will save us money? To have Adobe on ones computer with this move, it costs an infinite amount of dollars. That's not saving.

 

[Legion6789]

Since I've never tried Adobe's subscription service, can someone tell me if you can stop the software from upgrading while continuing to subscribe? I know in a lot of larger corporate networks they don't like to move to the latest version and prefer to wait until they consider a product mature/relatively bug free.

 

[NavyGothic]

Korgoth[/url]":sn9l2t57]I like the subscription model. Makes it easier for people without a couple grand to get all the tools. Not everyone has $2500 lying around, but most can manage $50 in a month.

Cost wise it might work out to be more in the long term, but it does offer some extras over the boxed version; and allows more people to afford it.

There's nothing wrong with a subscription model (we need to stay up-to-date to work with a number of different graphic design contractors, so it's an excellent model for us), but they already offer this service. The problem here is that they're removing the perpetual license.

Personally, I'm entirely fine with a subscription model for any regularly updated software. It's a good model which benefits both me (low up front cost, always up-to-date) and the seller (greater net revenue). However, I don't begrudge other people their disappointment if they believe the box model was a better fit for them.

 

[sgreco]

parawizard[/url]":30f855lh]What are your guys arguments? Is it actually going to cost you more money on subscription? What is so bad about it. Seems like it would be easier to continue developing with money coming in on a service like this then having to out certain versions, boxes, retail, marketing per product, etc.

I think its great as a choice, not as the ONLY choice.

As it stands, subscribing can make it very cost effective for some people / businesses who cannot afford the whopping price of the full boxed suite.

However...

While on the one hand it is unappealing to feel as though you really do not own anything; a palpable problem with cloud-based purchases, on the other it raises the question of unreliability due to connectivity. To utilize any cloud-based or subscription-based service, one must have an uninterrupted internet connection to perpetually stable and available servers. Even if you are playing a virtual video game on the cloud, you are still paying real money and, when your game becomes unavailable to play because of either of the aforementioned problems, consumers are well within their rights to be upset. But photoshop et al are more often used by professionals.

What will I do when their servers are down for some unforeseen and soon-to-be-apologized-for circumstance and I have a deadline? I know graphic artists are overflowing with liquid cash (cough) and so there would be no issues like being unable to pay for one month when times are lean and having to resubscribe with a hefty introductory fee.

As far as I am concerned, if they wanted to offer this as an *alternative* that would be fine. But since its this way or no way, personally, I find it distasteful.

 

[Dak7]

Any good suggestions for alternatives to Photoshop and Illustrator for UI/UX and web design? I've heard of Acorn and Sketch, but haven't looked into them too extensively.

 

[PermissionForAINotGiven]

Most of my clients are photographers. Many are part-time, or only work a few months out of the year. (The market for photographers here is supersaturated.) They can't afford this. They generally upgrade every 3 or 4 versions. Even the photo labs themselves usually only have one or two fully up-to-date copies of Photoshop, whereas they need often dozens of copies that will simply "open every known image format for viewing and tinker with the colour profile." Something old versions of Photoshop do fine, but which The Gimp can be finicky on.

If one of those photo labs had to move to subscription it would easily octuple their yearly software spend. It would be a significant impact on the larger photographers and might well halve what little profit exists for the part-time folks working only 3 months of the year at it.

It's easy to look at all these people and bandy about assinine statements like "well then, I guess these people shouldn't be in business." For a lot of these people, they do it because it is their passion, but they need to at least break even for their time and effort.

This is a not insignificant amount of money we're asking these individuals and companies to cough up. In many cases for software they simply don't need to keep current. I fear this spreading to Office, Windows and many other "required" software items. I fear what it will do to my friends and my clients who own small businesses.

This isn't the way.

Edit: and no, the 3-months-a-year folks can't simply "rent the software for those 3 months." They are asked for retakes, reprints, etc throughout the year. They need access to the software all year round, but only use it 1 or 2 hours per month outside of those three months of mainline shooting.

 

[jimbles]

parawizard[/url]":3ne6fpvk]What are your guys arguments? Is it actually going to cost you more money on subscription? What is so bad about it. Seems like it would be easier to continue developing with money coming in on a service like this then having to out certain versions, boxes, retail, marketing per product, etc.

The argument is, you pay for a service and get no net gain in the long term. Once you stop paying month to month, the entire service is taken away from you, no matter how many thousands you sunk in to it. So basically, you can end up paying tenfold what the cost is of an old license and have no software to show for it if you stop.

That's bunk. Plain and simple.

 

[DanNeely]

Someone really needs to create an alternate frontend for GIMP that meshes with the way artists think instead of the way geeks do.

 

[deet]

The people who the software-as-a-service phenomenon hurts are the those who use the software infrequently, would rather not upgrade to each new version as it rolls out, and are content to continue using old versions until they literally will not run on new hardware and operating systems. We're sure there are at least some of you out there running Dreamweaver CS3 or Photoshop 7.0 who are still perfectly happy with the software. For those users, Adobe will reportedly continue to sell boxed versions of CS6 for the time being, though users will only receive bug fixes and compatibility updates from this point forward.

I disagree completely.

The people who will hurt the most are those who use it /all the time/ and upgrade infrequently.

The people who use it infrequently will now always have the latest version and can pay per-project. Hell, the cost of the software can now be expensed as part of the deal.

Instead of designers having to pay the cost of the software out of pocket up front, which is hard to manage on limited cash flows, designers can now work the cost of the subscription into the bid. If it's a three-month project, I add $75*3 to the bid. Or mark it up, even. Now I don't have to come up with two grand every few years all at once. I can even turn it into a profit center.

Meanwhile, it's the people who spend all day in it every day, who otherwise never upgrade until they have good reason to, like staff artists, photographers, or photodesk editors. Now, instead of one capital expenditure every few years, their work is an operating expense running monthly. For that user, subscription software seems much more awkward than for the infrequent one-off user.

 

[Drizzt321]

Leaving aside Photoshop, what about Lightroom? The last upgrade was $80-90, I forget which, with full price being something like $150. If I were to just do Lightroom with Creative Cloud, that amounts to $240 PER YEAR. Does NOT make financial sense. Plus I lock up everything in Lightroom with no way to be assured access to all of my edits unless I keep paying Adobe IN PERPETUITY!

 

[ronm88]

parawizard[/url]":14girfpz]What are your guys arguments? Is it actually going to cost you more money on subscription? What is so bad about it. Seems like it would be easier to continue developing with money coming in on a service like this then having to out certain versions, boxes, retail, marketing per product, etc.

For some people, it will save money (particularly people who use most of the tools). It also makes the initial cost a lot less. I can definitely see how some people are happy with it.

However, I have been using Photoshop for many years, and usually upgrade every 4 years (skipping one release) or so at a cost of around $200 (i.e. about $4 a month). For people like me, it is a 5x increase in cost.

There is also no guarantee that the price won't go up. When you own the software, if the price goes up you can skip that version. With the cloud model, you pay or the software stops working.

I also have to admit that I just don't like the idea of leasing software. If I was a business, it would make sense. As an individual, I prefer to keep my monthly bills down.

So ... no thanks Adobe ... if you stick with this model, you have likely received your last dollar from me.

I'm hoping for a Netflix like explosion in unhappy customers. Probably more likely is total # of customers goes down a bit and total dollars for Adobe goes up a bit. Some customers get screwed, but Adobe makes more money and doesn't care.

 

[KenG_CA]

They will lose the casual and infrequent users, who will migrate to other programs. And when some of those people become frequent users, they will not go back to Adobe. This is a greed play, they must believe people cannot live without it.

If you're somebody who upgrades to every version, this is probably good for you, but for everyone else, it is a message to go find another supplier. It's a good opportunity for an Adobe competitor.

 

[cogwheel]

Korgoth[/url]":szcvc4aa]

parawizard[/url]":szcvc4aa]

Korgoth[/url]":szcvc4aa]I like the subscription model. Makes it easier for people without a couple grand to get all the tools. Not everyone has $2500 lying around, but most can manage $50 in a month.

Cost wise it might work out to be more in the long term, but it does offer some extras over the boxed version; and allows more people to afford it.

But isn't it less? Especially if you keep fairly up to date.

Well with the Master Collection you wouldn't be losing money until month 51, and only if you didn't choose to upgrade. But you might choose to not upgrade, and the cost of the upgrade vs the year commitment isn't as favorable.

A significant point you're neglecting is the lack of a middle ground. Sure, $20/mo for Photoshop isn't too bad compared to $700, and $50/mo for the Master Collection isn't bad compared to $2600, but what if all you needed was the Design Standard version (PS, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat)? That's only $1300, and now $50/mo looks relatively shitty.

Drizzt321[/url]":szcvc4aa]Leaving aside Photoshop, what about Lightroom? The last upgrade was $80-90, I forget which, with full price being something like $150. If I were to just do Lightroom with Creative Cloud, that amounts to $240 PER YEAR. Does NOT make financial sense. Plus I lock up everything in Lightroom with no way to be assured access to all of my edits unless I keep paying Adobe IN PERPETUITY!

Lightroom isn't part of CS6 (though it is part of CC). Photoshop as standalone is gone from Adobe's website, but Lightroom is still there, so I imagine Lightroom will survive for a while. Adobe probably can't get more than $5/mo for Lightroom anyway.

 

[plchabot]

If you make money using the creative suite and want to keep up to date with the last version like me (because I teach it) the subscription model is actually cheaper.

But I can understand people getting angry about the lost of perpetual licensing.

They will try this for a year or two (or ten), but they'll be back because the competition will eventually offer competing products without subscription.

Also, I wonder how schools will deal with this, it's going to be a pain to manage computers connected to cloud accounts. I suppose they thought about that...

 

[jimbles]

From Adobe's Creative Cloud FAQ:

What happens if I decide to stop my membership?

You will no longer have access to the Creative Cloud desktop applications or most of the services that are components of a Creative Cloud membership.

This really should have been included as part of the article, sad to see that it wasn't.

 

[OptimusP83]

What "upgrades" has Adobe implemented since CS4 that make CS5 or CS6 more better, I posit?

In my opinion: none. I use CS5 at work, because its what my company has. I use CS4 at home because it was the last version released before my student discount ran out. I then gave my CS3 discs to my sister.

There are ZERO improvements for me between CS4 and CS5, minor UI tweaks aside. This begs the question, is it just too hard for adobe to make money on their applications when they DON'T DEVELOP THEM AT ALL, that they need to move to a subscription service in order to start the money presses again?

I mean there have been some niche updates and features here and there but nothing ground-breaking since CS3 or before.

One awesom featuer I've grown to loathe is in Photoshop CS4. On my older Macbook Pro (1st generation that had the switchable graphics) theres a known bug that causes PS to outright crash with any trackpad scrolling. Adobe's "solution" is to upgrade to CS5. Their "workaround" is to turn off graphics switching. Its utter bullshit. Its an application breaking bug, and adobe are using it to incentivize users to shell out $1500+ for the next version, that offers no actual improvements, just fewer bugs.

FU Adobe. You can pry my perpetual license CSx out of my cold dead hands. Bunch of money grubbers.

This move will be mighty interesting with InDesign cross-compatibility (or lack thereof). I'm sure printhouses are SUPER excited for this one...

 

[mdporter]

I am wondering what this does to the Adobe Corporate License Program (CLP). Earlier this year an Adobe rep tried to sell us on going to the cloud model, but they couldn't offer it worldwide and there was no tiering for the people who only need photoshop or illustrator.

 

[Flashbackvideoman]

I've been using Creative Suite since CS3, but CS6 will be it.
THIS IS A STUPID MOVE
Other companies have backed down. It would be a good move for Adobe to do the same.

 

[ronm88]

Korgoth[/url]":fh1zq4jz]

parawizard[/url]":fh1zq4jz]

Korgoth[/url]":fh1zq4jz]I like the subscription model. Makes it easier for people without a couple grand to get all the tools. Not everyone has $2500 lying around, but most can manage $50 in a month.

Cost wise it might work out to be more in the long term, but it does offer some extras over the boxed version; and allows more people to afford it.

But isn't it less? Especially if you keep fairly up to date.

Well with the Master Collection you wouldn't be losing money until month 51, and only if you didn't choose to upgrade. But you might choose to not upgrade, and the cost of the upgrade vs the year commitment isn't as favorable.

I believe the cost equation changes for people who already own the software (i.e. most of Adobe's target market). For these people, they have already paid that large initial expense, and the only additional expense is the upgrades. For example, owners of Photoshop have been paying $200 to keep their version up to date about every two years. They can pay even less if they wait a bit for a price drop or skip a version that doesn't really have any features they need. This is FAR less than the CC model which charges $20 per month for just Photoshop. Compared with paying $200 every two years, you would start losing money after month 10 with the new model.

 

[trevnorris]

Lightroom better remain available in a box. It costs $100, while they want to charge me $20/mo for single service access? WTF Adobe!?

 

[Aurich]

plchabot[/url]":3vyv4p3b]If you make money using the creative suite and want to keep up to date with the last version like me (because I teach it) the subscription model is actually cheaper.

In my opinion "must have" upgrading to Photoshop went out the window once they switched to the CS system. Prior to that you were a fool to not instantly upgrade, 7 was so far superior to 6, etc. Now that's just simply not the case. The software has matured to the point where the updates tend to be only great for a certain subset of users. "This one is really for Photographers" etc. I skipped CS4 and CS5. Now that kind of thinking is certainly part of Adobe's motivation here, I don't deny it, but that doesn't mean I like the model their forcing on me.

 

[thomsirveaux]

jimbles[/url]":7oxfowpy]From Adobe's Creative Cloud FAQ:

What happens if I decide to stop my membership?

You will no longer have access to the Creative Cloud desktop applications or most of the services that are components of a Creative Cloud membership.

This really should have been included as part of the article, sad to see that it wasn't.

That's implied by the software-as-a-service model. You get the software for as long as you pay for it. Cancel your membership and you lose it.