creative cloud subscription a ripoff

PrintIT

Well-known member
Certainly does. There was comfort in that little line, knowing that if I wanted to stop I would have a somewhat updated version of CC that I paid for over the year. The further in with Adobe the worse it feels knowing if I ever stop I have zero to show for it software wise. Sure I made money using their software, but without it I am left with a lot of useless files... years and years of them. So really I am stuck with Adobe, they have gun to my head unless I want to rework thousands of files and switch to Quark.

Exactly. The "Software for Rent" business model is horrible for the consumer.
I have no problem paying for software - as pointed out earlier in the thread it's a necessary expense for this business.
It's the way they're "renting" it to me that I can't stand. Someone compared it to electricity and water, but it's not a utility - It's a tool. I can't walk down to the electric company and buy a box of electricity. But I can walk into a store and buy software (well, except for Adobe products).

Any other tool in our shop we can buy. Even our digital presses which we lease, we have the option to buy out at the end of the lease, or we could buy one outright if we really wanted to. I have no option to do this with Adobe products - If something bigger and better takes over the market in 5 years, we'll still be locked into paying Adobe if we need to use any old files.

It's not the cost of the software that bugs me, it's the slimy business model.
 

dabob

Well-known member
Exactly. The "Software for Rent" business model is horrible for the consumer.
I have no problem paying for software - as pointed out earlier in the thread it's a necessary expense for this business.
It's the way they're "renting" it to me that I can't stand. Someone compared it to electricity and water, but it's not a utility - It's a tool. I can't walk down to the electric company and buy a box of electricity. But I can walk into a store and buy software (well, except for Adobe products).

Any other tool in our shop we can buy. Even our digital presses which we lease, we have the option to buy out at the end of the lease, or we could buy one outright if we really wanted to. I have no option to do this with Adobe products - If something bigger and better takes over the market in 5 years, we'll still be locked into paying Adobe if we need to use any old files.

It's not the cost of the software that bugs me, it's the slimy business model.



Just to point out . . . you actually can go down to the store and buy a box of eletriciity . . . its called a battery you could also choose to go with solar which would effectively do away with your "leasing" of electricity, you would own it.

But, you could compare the "rental" as a payment plan since you are in fact paying about the same thing per year that you were paying when buying the "kits" that had Photoshop, InDesign, and Illustrator in the on the average of once every year . . .that is if your higher ups would let you keep up with the upgrade path.

I find it more acceptable to keep up without going hat in hand to the guy that writes the checks for a 600.00 (as I recall) check for the upgrade. Instead, you apparently want to wait until one of your big customers walk in the door one afternoon with their files from the latest version and want to get the job done and pick it up in the morning. So now you are running around with your hair on fire since, 1. You have to find the software, 2. You have to go and purchase the software, 3. You have to come back to your shop (by now it's Miller time), 4 You have to install the software (now its dinner time), 5. You have to set up the software (installing printer drivers, preferences, etc) and finally, 6. You get to open the file and lo and behold it needs to be fixed . . . your customer is home in bed and the job is not going to be done by the time they desired it. And yes it has happened to me more than once in my life in printing. Once I had to download a trial version of Xpress and relearn the #%**$## software (I was about 3 versions out of date - never got jobs in it) . . .

But I want to point out that Markzware has a product that will let you convert Indesign files to Xpress:

http://markzware.com/products/id2q/

But then you would spend 849 bucks for a new version of Xpress (I put in the full price because if you already had it we wouldn't be having this discussion) and then pop for 199 buck for the conversion files . . . and honestly how accurate do you think that is? Even at 95% accuracy I would hate to get a 250 page book in ID then convert it to Xpress and look for differences between the printed copy in your hand or the lo rez pdf they supplied to the new quark file . . . not my idea of a good time.

But wait even if you only upgraded every year and a half you are now spending $1049 for the quark and conversion = 58.27 cents a month . . . wheres the difference? Oh I know you feel better and can go to sleep at night . . . (not really you will still be doing all those converisions late into the night)

End of rant . . just my 47 cents . . . .
 

Glenn McDowall

Well-known member
Subscription Model is better for Pro users.
At Work they subscribe, I appreciate always having the up-to-date version, I no longer have major issues trying to match Application Versions, OS and Fonts (except for Typekit !), 95% of the time it just works.
The Cost is about the same as upgrading 4 Adobe Apps used to be, and I no longer have to justify the purchase to Management.
As dabob posted above: the scenario would play out every year that the boss would refuse to upgrade until you receive a file from a big client you could not open and then they’d pay and you’d have to get it running asap.


Purchase and ad-hoc Upgrade is better value for casual users.
At Home I bought CS6, an old version of Pitstop, Quark and rely on Apple Photos to organise my photos,
I only use InDesign a few times a year and Illy even less, Photoshop I’ll use quite a bit at home.
The subscription model sucks at home, I’d have to pay £10 a month, to use Lightroom + Photoshop, (if I’m running a photography business this is a bargain) I’d have to invest a load of time to use Lightroom and if I ever stopped paying all that time is wasted because I can’t open the program!.
I’d pay to get the dehaze feature, but I’d want it permanently! At the moment I’m more likely to move to Affinity despite over 20 years using Photoshop.


The big downside for me is the lack of new killer features with each upgrade they’re harder to pick out., apart from this document was built with a newer version :( . Or not being compatible with the latest OS.

dabobs cost comparison is I feel a little skewed, the cost of ownership of Quark historically has been less than Adobe’s single products, upgrades have cost more but been less frequent, the next Quark will be v13 compare that to Illy at v21 over a similar time period, (both companies have been guilty for charging for dot releases v5,5 Adobe and 3.3Power_PC compatible for Quark being obvious examples of corporate greed). You have the option of skipping versions too, or buying close to an upgrade cycle and getting the next version free (you have about a month at the moment). You also can often upgrade from a much older version (though to be fair not always), I’d guess you could get away with about $200 every other year rather than dabobs $1000+. —— now having said all that I couldn’t recommend trying to replace InDesign with Quark + conversion software, there are numerous features that simply won’t convert correctly. Quark is quite capable of producing high quality pdfs, but its still not cast iron robust with reproducing, all the objects you can place into it, to final pdf.
 

dabob

Well-known member
Subscription Model is better for Pro users.


dabobs cost comparison is I feel a little skewed, the cost of ownership of Quark historically has been less than Adobe’s single products, upgrades have cost more but been less frequent, the next Quark will be v13 compare that to Illy at v21 over a similar time period, (both companies have been guilty for charging for dot releases v5,5 Adobe and 3.3Power_PC compatible for Quark being obvious examples of corporate greed). You have the option of skipping versions too, or buying close to an upgrade cycle and getting the next version free (you have about a month at the moment). You also can often upgrade from a much older version (though to be fair not always), I’d guess you could get away with about $200 every other year rather than dabobs $1000+. —— now having said all that I couldn’t recommend trying to replace InDesign with Quark + conversion software, there are numerous features that simply won’t convert correctly. Quark is quite capable of producing high quality pdfs, but its still not cast iron robust with reproducing, all the objects you can place into it, to final pdf.


I will kinda disagree with the skewed comparison, I was referring to BigSi's using 5.5 currently, if he was using a more or less current version of Xpress, of course his upgrade path would be cheaper than I quoted but I was saying that if he truly wanted to be "subscription free" this is where he pretty much would have to go today. Also if I understand BigSi's current shops workload (which I estimate to be on the light side) he could expand his horizons into web work, animation and many other areas that I haven't even looked into. I have branched into light web work myself with Muse. Don't want to get into HTML coding (I retire in 1.5 years) but with 25 different apps in the subscription you could certainly find some additional revenue streams that would more than makeup for the "rental fee"

but like I said . . .it's just my 47 cents worth . .. and it's worth what you paid for it . . . :)
 

agmfan3

Well-known member
I work with CS6, snapped it up from Adobe when the cloud arrived. Does all I want, have no plans on upgrading. Of course, I do all my typesetting and graphics, if someone sends something in and it's in the Cloud version, I just ask that they save it down. Simple.
 

Glenn McDowall

Well-known member
I'm actually astonished that Adobe still let you backsave down to idml. Would be interested to hear what happened to the archival version idea that Leonard R mentioned.
 
Last edited:

michaelejahn

Well-known member
we ONLY offer a monthly subscription. We are CONSTANTLY adding features, adjusting APIs and connections to third party systems that we do not control and ( of course ) fixing bugs. Sorry, but now that we are "connected" to the internet, we can update FAR MORE EASIER than we software developers could, and THAT is the MISSION - fixing that thing BEFORE you even notice it is broken is what we all want.
 
I am a professional Photoshop retoucher, and have been using the product for over 20 years.

I shared the horror of renting software, but I agree that actually it is part of the cost of running a business. You have to appreciate the enormous power that these applications give us.

I remember the days when you had to calculate how much text would fit into the space allocated, what size, what spacing, what type style, them send it off to a typesetter to be set… and the photographs had to be sent off to a scanning house, who would send you a set of separated films, all at extra cost, and if you wanted anything extra done like something removing an object from the image you could pay £500 an hour for a quantum paintbox retouch.

We do these things and much more these days in our own space at a tiny fraction of the cost.

If the cost of renting is too much then I too would recommend the Affinity software option, it is very affordable and has much of the options of Photoshop and Illustrator.
 

Puch

Well-known member
There are a couple of giant slurs in the communication of Adobe.

First, I remember, too, when they stated that the copy will "freeze" updating when you stop renting, but will stay usable forever. As they changed their minds down the road, I consider this as an outright violation of having the consumer a "business partner". No, we're the underdogs, really.

Second, we already paid for the development of the code base. I use Photoshop from since version 1.0.7, and I bought a lot of versions on EU prices (a bit higher than in the US). The cumulated cost would be somewhere around 30-40 thousand bucks, and we're a small company. My bad feelings started to creep in at CS4, when they started to degrade PS (IMHO), so we still use CS3 for retouching. I see no progress in PS since version CS3 (regarding our activity, which is heavyweight color correction). That said, why pay for "development", when we get a gradually bloated app which lacks the core functionality present in Photoshop CS3?

There is no progress in InDesign, either. CS4 was the last version to introduce something meaningful for print production. After that, I consider all versions as "maintenance releases". We have to use them to be able to accept partner data, but that's all. I would be happy forever with ID CS4.

Acrobat is actually degrading. Version 9 was the last *practical* version, X was unusable with its broken color management. XI is stable but bloated and very uncomfortable to use. And version DC is a threat – we have a complete file sharing workflow and don't need the solution Adobe offers. OK, I know that we're prepress people are a niche market now, and Adobe develops Acrobat for... who??? Secretaries don't need the power of Acrobat Pro, they will use the free version forever, or something else.
 

Joe

Well-known member
OK, I know that we're prepress people are a niche market now, and Adobe develops Acrobat for... who??? Secretaries don't need the power of Acrobat Pro, they will use the free version forever, or something else.

Adobe has went on record that the main target for Acrobat pro are "Knowledge Workers".

knowl·edge work·er
noun
COMPUTING
plural noun: knowledge workers
  1. a person whose job involves handling or using information.
 

wonderings

Well-known member
There are a couple of giant slurs in the communication of Adobe.

First, I remember, too, when they stated that the copy will "freeze" updating when you stop renting, but will stay usable forever. As they changed their minds down the road, I consider this as an outright violation of having the consumer a "business partner". No, we're the underdogs, really.

Second, we already paid for the development of the code base. I use Photoshop from since version 1.0.7, and I bought a lot of versions on EU prices (a bit higher than in the US). The cumulated cost would be somewhere around 30-40 thousand bucks, and we're a small company. My bad feelings started to creep in at CS4, when they started to degrade PS (IMHO), so we still use CS3 for retouching. I see no progress in PS since version CS3 (regarding our activity, which is heavyweight color correction). That said, why pay for "development", when we get a gradually bloated app which lacks the core functionality present in Photoshop CS3?

There is no progress in InDesign, either. CS4 was the last version to introduce something meaningful for print production. After that, I consider all versions as "maintenance releases". We have to use them to be able to accept partner data, but that's all. I would be happy forever with ID CS4.

Acrobat is actually degrading. Version 9 was the last *practical* version, X was unusable with its broken color management. XI is stable but bloated and very uncomfortable to use. And version DC is a threat – we have a complete file sharing workflow and don't need the solution Adobe offers. OK, I know that we're prepress people are a niche market now, and Adobe develops Acrobat for... who??? Secretaries don't need the power of Acrobat Pro, they will use the free version forever, or something else.

I am not a heavy user of photoshop, but I do light touch ups now and then. Photoshop did add an amazing feature, content aware. Super easy and handy tool for removing things without cloning anything else, just use the tool and you are done. Most times does it perfect and I am moving on. I agree that there has not been a lot done to Indesign feature wise, but with Adobe CC they did make it a 64 bit app which made things a lot speedier for me now that Indesign can use way more RAM then it could with CS6 and down. The subscription model might make sense for some people and others like myself prefer to own outright and not have another monthly bill. It is not that we cannot afford it, it is just nice to pay once and be done with it and let us choose when we want to upgrade. There used to be choice, now there is no choice and it would take a lot of time, effort and money to get out of the Adobe eco system.
 

PricelineNegotiator

Well-known member
Acrobat is actually degrading. Version 9 was the last *practical* version, X was unusable with its broken color management. XI is stable but bloated and very uncomfortable to use. And version DC is a threat – we have a complete file sharing workflow and don't need the solution Adobe offers. OK, I know that we're prepress people are a niche market now, and Adobe develops Acrobat for... who??? Secretaries don't need the power of Acrobat Pro, they will use the free version forever, or something else.

The UI upgrades of Acrobat DC alone are worth every penny I've spent on CC in terms of production and ease of use. I give Adobe 10/10 for their complete overhaul, but I feel like some extensions were broken in the process, but you can't blame Adobe for not making sure every piece of their software is 100% backwards compatible with every wack-o extension from X company.

64-bit InDesign is a big deal as well, but it was 2-3 years overdue. They might have been working on that for 5 years, rewriting the entire code base to make it 64-bit compatible, I know it can be a very lengthy process for people to make certain programs 64-bit ready.

I guess if you aren't currently satisfied with InDesign, what new features do you need? I like the current UI, and don't really see any features I am missing.
 

Puch

Well-known member
The UI upgrades of Acrobat DC alone are worth every penny I've spent on CC in terms of production and ease of use. I give Adobe 10/10 for their complete overhaul, but I feel like some extensions were broken in the process, but you can't blame Adobe for not making sure every piece of their software is 100% backwards compatible with every wack-o extension from X company.

64-bit InDesign is a big deal as well, but it was 2-3 years overdue. They might have been working on that for 5 years, rewriting the entire code base to make it 64-bit compatible, I know it can be a very lengthy process for people to make certain programs 64-bit ready.

I guess if you aren't currently satisfied with InDesign, what new features do you need? I like the current UI, and don't really see any features I am missing.

Yeah, I agree that somebody might feel better with the new UI – my frustration is about the missing choice: they change the way the software works, and you have to obey. Or leave. Use an old version (which we do) or another product.

As of InDesign, I don't need any new features. I need the features which was present in CS3 to work properly. Hyphenation, anybody? (OK, I agree that developing such a code can be a nightmare). Flattening combined with color management – why we have to struggle with over-inked graphic when we set a target profile with a 300% ink limit? I'm talking about RGB images where ID have full control about the black separation and the overall color conversion process.

Photoshop and the amazing new features: IMHO most of them are eye candy. Try to use these practices in a glamour magazine on a celebrity's close-up face which is examined by professionals on softproof and hardcopy proofs around 10 times before print... You will loose the contract next day. I agree that these features have a place under the sun (IMHO in Lightroom), but not in a supposedly 'pro' product.
 

dabob

Well-known member
Well . . . imho, the most important feature of the Creative Cloud is the ability to take files from high end/high profit customers that want to be able to tout that they are using the besteus most advanced layout programs in the world . . . never mind that they are using less than 10% of the features and that they would get in trouble with any version of page layout software that has ever been available . . . but if you want that profit margin you need to be able to serve their every need.

So it boils down to customer service, being able to deal with and solve their problems and also being able to answer their questions when they call asking for help . . . for that you need to be current with the version that they have whatever that is . . . or say goodbye to the customer . . . :)
 

prepressdork

Well-known member
Well . . . imho, the most important feature of the Creative Cloud is the ability to take files from high end/high profit customers that want to be able to tout that they are using the besteus most advanced layout programs in the world . . . never mind that they are using less than 10% of the features and that they would get in trouble with any version of page layout software that has ever been available . . . but if you want that profit margin you need to be able to serve their every need.

So it boils down to customer service, being able to deal with and solve their problems and also being able to answer their questions when they call asking for help . . . for that you need to be current with the version that they have whatever that is . . . or say goodbye to the customer . . . :)

Exactly! I must support what my customers use. If I don't, they go somewhere else. End of story!

pd
 

pnamajck

Well-known member
and don't forget about inherent issues with regard to backward compatibles … certain features may be omitted/disemboweled going from cc back to, say, cs6 version. do you really want to proof-read a 300pg manuscript … word for word … letter for letter? adobe didn't intend on backwards regression … until customers began with their screaming tirades.

our shop is no better … my co-workers constantly belly-ache about file incompatibility … engineering department saves the file down, and … all of a sudden … bam! something left off or flow isn't exactly true … or font issues … etc. i, for one, was elated once i worked with the subscription modal for six months … for reasons which have already been addressed in previous replies.

in my own space (at home) i am happy camper with my cs4 … however, in business environment … adobe signs each of our paychecks … like it or not. so, hush the tantrums and deal with it … or someone else will.

if necessary … get part-time weekend job delivering pizza or waiting on tables … just to pay for adobe's damned capitalistic modal.
 
Last edited:

maas

Well-known member
Adobe had little choice but to go with a subscription model, their main competitor ended up being torrent sites where everyone was ripping off their software, i believe Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 was the most downloaded (illegally) product of all time
 

prepressdork

Well-known member
Adobe...could...have re-engineered their software to require an Adobe ID login that checks for a purchased license associated with the login ID thus eliminating the need for a serial number (which they've done)...without going to a subscription model.

pd
 

PrintIT

Well-known member
Not really sure how that was supposed to stop the pirated versions anyways. A quick search still turns up torrents of the current version.
As long as the anti-piracy solution is software based, then somebody will come up with other software to get around it.
 

What About Profitability?

Canon
What about Profitability?
Offset yields new advantages

Read All About It

   
Top