3 ms·

I find Adobe's current model strongly distasteful as both a consumer and producer of software. As a consumer, the cost of ownership is now slightly to signific

I find Adobe's current model strongly distasteful as both a consumer and producer of software. As a consumer, the cost of ownership is now slightly to significantly higher over the total lifetime of the software, depending on how often you upgrade. Cost aside, for me it simply doesn't "feel" right to rent software. As a producer I've put my money where my mouth is. My companies software used to be purchase only (https://www.rackforms.com https://www.rackforms.com), though we did add a subscription model around the same time Adobe made the switch. However, I did not, nor will I ever, remove the customers ability to purchase outright. Just because recurring revenue is good for me doesn't mean it's right for my users. In fact, my "purchase outright" option remains more popular. I believe if Adobe actually gave users a choice they're data wold reflect mine. They've certainly lost me as a customer until they change course.

yuhong 11y ago
It reminds me of this article: http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300072551/microsofts-enterprise-software-price-hikes-paying-off-as-sql-server-business-hits-5-billion-mark.htm http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300072551/microsofts-enterpris...
nemothekid 11y ago
>I believe if Adobe actually gave users a choice they're data wold reflect mine I checked out your site, and not sure if I agree with this. With your pricing a consumer using your product would only have to use it for 5 months before the self-hosted option becomes economically attractive. To buy Photoshop CS6, alone, would cost $700. Adobe CC prices it at $9.99/mo - meaning you could use their CC option for 6 years before breaking even. In those 6 years, with CC you would get upgrades as well - OTOH even if you were to upgrade every 3 years, you wouldn't break even. IIRC, Master Collection was $3,000, and is now $600/yr. Meaning if you bought Master Collection you would break even with CC if you only upgraded 5 times a year. To make your analogy more apt, you should price your non-cloud offering at $600, and then compare how many people prefer it to cloud. Personally, I think their decision to end their standalone offering had more to do with simplifying DRM than anything.
- rackforms 11y ago
  A great point. I'm actually running a holiday promotion right now, the standard price of our self-hosted package is indeed $599. Oddly enough, even with that pricing the ratio remains consistent. At least half of my users consistently choose the purchase outright option. No doubt in my particular space other factors figure: For example, to run the self-hosted package requires a web server, a higher barrier of entry, perhaps, than just a machine capable of running Photoshop. It may also be that the cloud service provides a full hosting package complete with cPanel, phpMyAdmin, etc, negating the need to have a standard web hosting service. I suppose my point is I try and make both packages a great value proposition from a price/feature standpoint. Believe me when I say my life would be easier if I only offered one, but in the end customer choice trumps all.
colinbartlett 11y ago
The most frustrating part of Adobe's new paradigm is they now have zero incentive to continue innovating and adding new features as customers must keep paying to use it, regardless of new versions.

yuhong 11y ago

It reminds me of this article: http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300072551/microsofts-enterprise-software-price-hikes-paying-off-as-sql-server-business-hits-5-billion-mark.htm http://www.crn.com/news/cloud/300072551/microsofts-enterpris...

nemothekid 11y ago

>I believe if Adobe actually gave users a choice they're data wold reflect mine I checked out your site, and not sure if I agree with this. With your pricing a consumer using your product would only have to use it for 5 months before the self-hosted option becomes economically attractive. To buy Photoshop CS6, alone, would cost $700. Adobe CC prices it at $9.99/mo - meaning you could use their CC option for 6 years before breaking even. In those 6 years, with CC you would get upgrades as well - OTOH even if you were to upgrade every 3 years, you wouldn't break even. IIRC, Master Collection was $3,000, and is now $600/yr. Meaning if you bought Master Collection you would break even with CC if you only upgraded 5 times a year. To make your analogy more apt, you should price your non-cloud offering at $600, and then compare how many people prefer it to cloud. Personally, I think their decision to end their standalone offering had more to do with simplifying DRM than anything.

rackforms 11y ago
A great point. I'm actually running a holiday promotion right now, the standard price of our self-hosted package is indeed $599. Oddly enough, even with that pricing the ratio remains consistent. At least half of my users consistently choose the purchase outright option. No doubt in my particular space other factors figure: For example, to run the self-hosted package requires a web server, a higher barrier of entry, perhaps, than just a machine capable of running Photoshop. It may also be that the cloud service provides a full hosting package complete with cPanel, phpMyAdmin, etc, negating the need to have a standard web hosting service. I suppose my point is I try and make both packages a great value proposition from a price/feature standpoint. Believe me when I say my life would be easier if I only offered one, but in the end customer choice trumps all.

colinbartlett 11y ago

The most frustrating part of Adobe's new paradigm is they now have zero incentive to continue innovating and adding new features as customers must keep paying to use it, regardless of new versions.