10 ms·

Adobe Creative Suite now in subscription form

104 points by brianbreslin 16y ago

thushan 16y ago
Just some quick math about this... Adobe has released a Creative Suite package every ~20 months (Wikipedia). CS1 - 09/2003 CS2 - 04/2005 - 19 Months CS3 - 03/2007 - 23 Months CS4 - 10/2008 - 19 Months CS5 - 04/2010 - 18 Months ---- If we bought the first premium suite (based off current prices in the Adobe Store) it would have cost us around $1900. Add in upgrades at $400 each, and we get a total lifetime cost of $3500. If subscription pricing was around since day one and we went with the new subscription pricing monthly rate of $95 (with one year contract) we would end up paying ~ $8650 to date or about 2.5x of buying it over that period (91 Months). I don't find it surprising that they're going down this route. It surely is an interesting way to charge for downloaded software as we've really only seen this on the web front thus far. I'm a bit interested to see how many total subscriptions we'll sign up for in a couple years. Reoccurring billing is certainly a nice stream of cash - and a bit of a trojan horse for additional revenue ;)
- brianbreslin 16y ago
  what % of CS users do you think are using a pirated version?
  - statictype 16y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the number was close to 90% or higher.
  - splatcollision 16y ago
    Pirates will still pirate regardless of having a lower initial cost subscription option - they're mostly not folks who would be paying customers anyway.
    - iaskwhy 16y ago
      That might be very logical when we talk about things that cost less than $100 and kids but this is another thing, we are talking about people who actually work on it but find more than $2000 to be a lot, think small starting companies or freelancers. I remember when I was younger my dream was to one day be able to pay for it because they really deserve it. This new model surely helps.
      - dsulli 16y ago
        Yup - honestly, it's the truth. Most freelancers DON'T pay for Photoshop. They don't have to - because they don't work in a corporate office, where software piracy can easily be enforced by BSA. I know a lot of people 'want' to pay for the software, because they feel it's the right thing to do. A system like this will help them to do the right thing.
    - mattmanser 16y ago
      Have you seen the obscene prices adobe charges? For my rather light usage of image editing software there's no way I'm paying that. I know plenty of people who have hacked versions including businesses as they consider the price extreme. Yet they pay for other software. Personally I go open source as I don't want to pay that amount for an image editor. On principal I paid for software from the day I could afford it, given that I make money from software. I find it makes me wince slightly when friends and clients ask me where they can get office, photoshop and cs5 for free. Would they pirate my work if they could? So I don't use adobe on principal as I see their stuff as a total ripoff. Not very good either, I tried the trial version 6 months back, while better than GIMP/Paint.Net it's still got a pretty awful UI. The only annoying thing is that a lot of people send you PSD files, so I sometime have to fire up another trial just to export certain layers easily. There are some plugins available for this but they are a bit cumbersome last I checked.
      - splatcollision 16y ago
        Exactly - It's great that there are a growing list of viable alternatives to Photoshop. Their products are seen as the default requirements, but they're not at all.
- mashmac2 16y ago
  Right, but this is perfect for those of us who only need Adobe CS 1 or 2 months of the year--pay the monthly fee, add a little to our hourly rate to cover it, and voila! Instead of ~$3500, you're looking at < $400 / year, which sounds just about right for me and the web dev / basic design work I'm doing. I can use Gimp or Inkscape or Scribus for basic mockups, and than for the final client prints/work, I switch to the Adobe CS suite for standards compatibility, etc...
  - thushan 16y ago
    Ha! That's a great idea - add it in as a billable item on client invoices.
    - eps 16y ago
      Unless you are that customer. Imagine going to a carpenter and then receiving an invoice for him renting a hammer. Wouldn't that look a bit odd? In other words it is commonly expected that professionals come equipped with the tools of trade. Not that this is set in stone, but that's the state of affairs and trying to do it differently is an uphill battle.
      - absconditus 16y ago
        It is not unusual for contractors to rent more expensive equipment.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - JonnieCache 16y ago
        >In other words it is commonly expected that professionals come equipped with the tools of trade Not always. Construction firms hire a lot of what they need for each job, because it is not economical for them to store and maintain the enormous variety of tools/machines that they need over the course of a year. They'd need a huge warehouse and a whole team of people to manage and maintain all the equipment, and at that point you may as well start running a hire company. They don't invoice you for each rental fee in an itemised fashion, for the same reason they dont invoice you for each screw, each nail, the fuel for their vehicles etc: you don't give a shit.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  I don't believe this is intended as a replacement for one-time purchases (though I'm sure Adobe would love to have you switch), but rather as an option for businesses whose production needs fluctuate. I can easily see a company with a seasonal crunch time, such as an annual 300-page catalog, that hires on contractors for a couple of months, taking advantage of this.
- mariust 16y ago
  You can not upgrade only for the first version the second one is not available for upgrade like you can upgrade from CS1 to CS2 but you are not going to be able to upgrade to CS3 as far as I remember.
- mrcharles 16y ago
  I didn't run the numbers, but at that point it looks to me like it's cheaper to put it on a credit card and pay it off in small monthly increments, even including the interest.
- taylorlb 16y ago
  and then after you've been paying for a subscription for 3 years and you decide you are happy with version X for the time being, you won't be able to continue using it if you stop paying. From the Subscription FAQ: If I cancel my subscription, does that mean I can still use my software, and that I just won’t receive updates for the most current version? No. When you cancel your subscription you will no longer have access to any version of your Creative Suite subscription software.
  - nhangen 16y ago
    That's a bad move IMO. Would be better if they let people at least pay off a version of it, or issue benchmarks as an incentive.
- cpeterso 16y ago
  Adobe has two types of customers: individual designers and big companies. The individual designers might want a subscription so they can "rent" the applications only when they need and then bill their clients. Big companies' are often adverse to big cash outlays to buy expensive product licenses. They might prefer to subscribe month-to-month to expand or shrink their license pool and also avoid a big up front expense. Plus tax laws may induce "irrational" behavior because a company may be taxed differently for purchasing an product versus renting it.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mcav 16y ago
Fireworks isn't on the list... hopefully that means nothing.
joshfinnie 16y ago
I am continuely surprised that someone hasn't come to undercut this market (besides pirating which might be a huge factor here). But can Adobe's offerings be so far and above others that people think $95 a month is a great deal? Note: I obviously don't use this suite so I don't know the true benefits of the software.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  I think Adobe pirating is pretty rife, although they do also offer heavily discounted student editions for junior designers. My understanding is that the people that buy Adobe software at the commercial price are design studios, and this is one of the most essential tools to their profession. It's comparable to asking why .NET shops pay the similar prices for Visual Studio.
- kingofspain 16y ago
  Lots of people here think nothing of paying $10-30 per month for a whole variety of services. To have photo/print/vector editing, video & effects, flash etc etc doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. I'd wager than most people who used these tools professionally could cover the rental price with their first hour's work.
- joelhaasnoot 16y ago
  Adobe's suite is the standard for the creative industry: anything from publishing (Indesign) to ad agencies to web design shops to (landscape) architects uses it. Often they do seem to use older versions than the latest: there's a significant cost involved in continually upgrading for a few so/so features.
- splatcollision 16y ago
  raises hand I'm planning on undercutting them with a subscription web app for the niche of web design and web animation. Maybe not such a niche, but as has been discussed in the community, Photoshop is overkill for laying out web pages, and not ideal in terms of workflow integration with developers, the folks who actually do the coding for web sites.
leftnode 16y ago
This is great for someone like me. It's silly to spend the full amount for a programmer like me who wants to use Photoshop for touching up images and website graphics, but I'd gladly pay on a month to month basis.
- splatcollision 16y ago
  More likely you will soon be able to get a subscription web app that just does what you need for web layout and image touchups - you can already almost do all of it now, and don't have to fork over any $$ to Adobe.
  - blub 16y ago
    I've noticed that Aviary has recently started offering an embeddable editor which could be useful for having customers upload/do small edits. Other than that, webapps make zero sense in this space. I don't see why I would upload my images to a server and edit them in a browser with major overhead, when I can edit them locally in a 10x more powerful application.
kirvyteo 16y ago
It looks like a strategy against low-end disruption that companies like sumopaint are causing.
- brianbreslin 16y ago
  http://www.sumopaint.com/home/ http://www.sumopaint.com/home/ clickable
- absconditus 16y ago
  Is Sumo Paint really disrupting anything?
poppysan 16y ago
This is great. Some people may only need to use the products every now and then, so they cant justify the high price tag. This opens up the market to folks who may be casual users. Kudos Adobe...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
billpg 16y ago
Several years ago, I bought the cut-down version of Sony Vegasfor about £50, having briefly considered buying the £300 version instead. A few years later, I buy a new video camera that saves files in H264 and my older version of Vegas won't load the files. I had to upgrade it. I'm glad I didn't spend £300 getting the more expensive version, but if there was a reasonable subscription plan, I could have just switched to the new version that supported H264 without a new big payment.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
radley 16y ago
A big factor is expense vs. purchase for companies. Purchase requires a timely permission process that can takes weeks. With subscriptions, they can now get the software quickly and move on, expensing when it's convenient.
jaysonelliot 16y ago
Software suites like this cost huge amounts of money for bundles of tools that generally follow the 80/20 rule for any given user. The problem is, any given user might need a different 20% than the next person. It makes it difficult for lighter versions of the software to compete, because there's always that one thing that they need, and is only in the high-cost package. This is a prime example of why a model like the Canon Cat or Apple's abandoned OpenDoc approach should be reconsidered, in my opinion. In those models (I think it's called a component model?), users buy interoperable tools instead of complete applications. Rather than opening a program, you open a document, and select which tools you want to use on it. The operating system contains the ability to open file formats, rather than individual programs. Programs are replaced by tools which can manipulate data once the file format has been read by the OS. For example, you might open a photo, and decide to use a magic wand selector by Adobe, but apply a filter from SumoPaint, a resize tool from Panic Software, and manipulate the text with a Microsoft tool. All of your tools would be in a "toolbox" that you could customize on the fly, much like you'd deal with a toolbox on a workbench. You don't go into your kitchen and turn on every appliance in the room when you just want a piece of toast - why should your computer act that way? Of course, the operating system itself would have to be built with that in mind in the first place - but is that such a crazy idea?
- splatcollision 16y ago
  We've got a great interoperable format already, that's being used by billions of people throughout the world, it's called HTML. The future of creative tools will be those that can both read and write HTML + whatever additional standards work with it.
  - jaysonelliot 16y ago
    It's an intriguing idea, but it's hard to see HTML as a real competitor to C++ anytime soon. I'm not a programmer, I'm a UX guy, so please tell me if I'm missing something here.
rglover 16y ago
After comparing the subscription price to the full price for Photoshop (~$200 discount off full price), it seems like the service may be viable for one-off users. The occasional photographer, designer, etc. should jump on this. Of course, there's no replacement for a one-time purchase if these tools are for daily/frequent use. In response to the price, though, for a subscription service, it does seem a bit high. Sure the suite packs in a lot of features, but I'm not sure if $35/month is justifiable (let alone $49); especially for one-off users. It really depends on how much value the software contributes to your business.
drawkbox 16y ago
A bit high but the future, I really hope Autodesk will do this as I need 3dsmax and maya about 3 months out of the year. Pricing is too high but this is a good direction to fight piracy.
mambodog 16y ago
I'm interested to see how the international pricing will look for this. Here in Australia the CS5 Master Collection costs $4,344.00 compared to $2,599.00 in the US. Given that the AUD is now worth more than the USD it's rather a slap in the face.
- bonaldi 16y ago
  Surprise, the international pricing's a total rip-off. Illustrator, month-to-month: $45. UK: $65 pre-tax, $77 after tax.
stephth 16y ago
If this was their main business model, maybe Adobe would focus on quality vs quantity? this urgency to add new features and force users to purchase more sluggish versions after each OS upgrade is not doing it for me. Fireworks used to be an amazing piece of software. Now it's ridiculously sluggish, with no visible benefits. I would gladly pay adobe to own a fast version of Fireworks on my current OS, I don't care if the feature set is from 2005.
gbissett 16y ago
Sign up if you like people remotely switching off your tools at random. This has been running as a trial here in Australia for a few years. I've been using it because it's cashflow-friendly and I like the "free" upgrades. This thing has been a frickin' nightmare. The subscription management BS is a risk to your work. If you use this, your subscription will be cancelled at random, and the adobe apps will not launch. It's difficult to convey here just how frustrating this can be. When (not if) this happens, you're left helpless, with the only option being to call adobe. If you've ever called Adobe you'll understand that this experience can bring grown men to tears. The longest this has taken me to resolve was 3 days of full-time effort on the phone. That's unusual though, and the shortest time to fix was about 6 hours. Good pricing, but not fit for client service businesses or anything involving deadlines.

104 points by brianbreslin 16y ago

Just some quick math about this... Adobe has released a Creative Suite package every ~20 months (Wikipedia). CS1 - 09/2003 CS2 - 04/2005 - 19 Months CS3 - 03/2007 - 23 Months CS4 - 10/2008 - 19 Months CS5 - 04/2010 - 18 Months ---- If we bought the first premium suite (based off current prices in the Adobe Store) it would have cost us around $1900. Add in upgrades at $400 each, and we get a total lifetime cost of $3500. If subscription pricing was around since day one and we went with the new subscription pricing monthly rate of $95 (with one year contract) we would end up paying ~ $8650 to date or about 2.5x of buying it over that period (91 Months). I don't find it surprising that they're going down this route. It surely is an interesting way to charge for downloaded software as we've really only seen this on the web front thus far. I'm a bit interested to see how many total subscriptions we'll sign up for in a couple years. Reoccurring billing is certainly a nice stream of cash - and a bit of a trojan horse for additional revenue ;)

brianbreslin 16y ago
what % of CS users do you think are using a pirated version?
- statictype 16y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if the number was close to 90% or higher.
- splatcollision 16y ago
  Pirates will still pirate regardless of having a lower initial cost subscription option - they're mostly not folks who would be paying customers anyway.
  - iaskwhy 16y ago
    That might be very logical when we talk about things that cost less than $100 and kids but this is another thing, we are talking about people who actually work on it but find more than $2000 to be a lot, think small starting companies or freelancers. I remember when I was younger my dream was to one day be able to pay for it because they really deserve it. This new model surely helps.
    - dsulli 16y ago
      Yup - honestly, it's the truth. Most freelancers DON'T pay for Photoshop. They don't have to - because they don't work in a corporate office, where software piracy can easily be enforced by BSA. I know a lot of people 'want' to pay for the software, because they feel it's the right thing to do. A system like this will help them to do the right thing.
  - mattmanser 16y ago
    Have you seen the obscene prices adobe charges? For my rather light usage of image editing software there's no way I'm paying that. I know plenty of people who have hacked versions including businesses as they consider the price extreme. Yet they pay for other software. Personally I go open source as I don't want to pay that amount for an image editor. On principal I paid for software from the day I could afford it, given that I make money from software. I find it makes me wince slightly when friends and clients ask me where they can get office, photoshop and cs5 for free. Would they pirate my work if they could? So I don't use adobe on principal as I see their stuff as a total ripoff. Not very good either, I tried the trial version 6 months back, while better than GIMP/Paint.Net it's still got a pretty awful UI. The only annoying thing is that a lot of people send you PSD files, so I sometime have to fire up another trial just to export certain layers easily. There are some plugins available for this but they are a bit cumbersome last I checked.
    - splatcollision 16y ago
      Exactly - It's great that there are a growing list of viable alternatives to Photoshop. Their products are seen as the default requirements, but they're not at all.
mashmac2 16y ago
Right, but this is perfect for those of us who only need Adobe CS 1 or 2 months of the year--pay the monthly fee, add a little to our hourly rate to cover it, and voila! Instead of ~$3500, you're looking at < $400 / year, which sounds just about right for me and the web dev / basic design work I'm doing. I can use Gimp or Inkscape or Scribus for basic mockups, and than for the final client prints/work, I switch to the Adobe CS suite for standards compatibility, etc...
- thushan 16y ago
  Ha! That's a great idea - add it in as a billable item on client invoices.
  - eps 16y ago
    Unless you are that customer. Imagine going to a carpenter and then receiving an invoice for him renting a hammer. Wouldn't that look a bit odd? In other words it is commonly expected that professionals come equipped with the tools of trade. Not that this is set in stone, but that's the state of affairs and trying to do it differently is an uphill battle.
    - absconditus 16y ago
      It is not unusual for contractors to rent more expensive equipment.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - JonnieCache 16y ago
      >In other words it is commonly expected that professionals come equipped with the tools of trade Not always. Construction firms hire a lot of what they need for each job, because it is not economical for them to store and maintain the enormous variety of tools/machines that they need over the course of a year. They'd need a huge warehouse and a whole team of people to manage and maintain all the equipment, and at that point you may as well start running a hire company. They don't invoice you for each rental fee in an itemised fashion, for the same reason they dont invoice you for each screw, each nail, the fuel for their vehicles etc: you don't give a shit.
mortenjorck 16y ago
I don't believe this is intended as a replacement for one-time purchases (though I'm sure Adobe would love to have you switch), but rather as an option for businesses whose production needs fluctuate. I can easily see a company with a seasonal crunch time, such as an annual 300-page catalog, that hires on contractors for a couple of months, taking advantage of this.
mariust 16y ago
You can not upgrade only for the first version the second one is not available for upgrade like you can upgrade from CS1 to CS2 but you are not going to be able to upgrade to CS3 as far as I remember.
mrcharles 16y ago
I didn't run the numbers, but at that point it looks to me like it's cheaper to put it on a credit card and pay it off in small monthly increments, even including the interest.
taylorlb 16y ago
and then after you've been paying for a subscription for 3 years and you decide you are happy with version X for the time being, you won't be able to continue using it if you stop paying. From the Subscription FAQ: If I cancel my subscription, does that mean I can still use my software, and that I just won’t receive updates for the most current version? No. When you cancel your subscription you will no longer have access to any version of your Creative Suite subscription software.
- nhangen 16y ago
  That's a bad move IMO. Would be better if they let people at least pay off a version of it, or issue benchmarks as an incentive.
cpeterso 16y ago
Adobe has two types of customers: individual designers and big companies. The individual designers might want a subscription so they can "rent" the applications only when they need and then bill their clients. Big companies' are often adverse to big cash outlays to buy expensive product licenses. They might prefer to subscribe month-to-month to expand or shrink their license pool and also avoid a big up front expense. Plus tax laws may induce "irrational" behavior because a company may be taxed differently for purchasing an product versus renting it.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mcav 16y ago

Fireworks isn't on the list... hopefully that means nothing.

joshfinnie 16y ago

I am continuely surprised that someone hasn't come to undercut this market (besides pirating which might be a huge factor here). But can Adobe's offerings be so far and above others that people think $95 a month is a great deal? Note: I obviously don't use this suite so I don't know the true benefits of the software.

nopassrecover 16y ago
I think Adobe pirating is pretty rife, although they do also offer heavily discounted student editions for junior designers. My understanding is that the people that buy Adobe software at the commercial price are design studios, and this is one of the most essential tools to their profession. It's comparable to asking why .NET shops pay the similar prices for Visual Studio.
kingofspain 16y ago
Lots of people here think nothing of paying $10-30 per month for a whole variety of services. To have photo/print/vector editing, video & effects, flash etc etc doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch. I'd wager than most people who used these tools professionally could cover the rental price with their first hour's work.
joelhaasnoot 16y ago
Adobe's suite is the standard for the creative industry: anything from publishing (Indesign) to ad agencies to web design shops to (landscape) architects uses it. Often they do seem to use older versions than the latest: there's a significant cost involved in continually upgrading for a few so/so features.
splatcollision 16y ago
raises hand I'm planning on undercutting them with a subscription web app for the niche of web design and web animation. Maybe not such a niche, but as has been discussed in the community, Photoshop is overkill for laying out web pages, and not ideal in terms of workflow integration with developers, the folks who actually do the coding for web sites.

leftnode 16y ago

This is great for someone like me. It's silly to spend the full amount for a programmer like me who wants to use Photoshop for touching up images and website graphics, but I'd gladly pay on a month to month basis.

splatcollision 16y ago
More likely you will soon be able to get a subscription web app that just does what you need for web layout and image touchups - you can already almost do all of it now, and don't have to fork over any $$ to Adobe.
- blub 16y ago
  I've noticed that Aviary has recently started offering an embeddable editor which could be useful for having customers upload/do small edits. Other than that, webapps make zero sense in this space. I don't see why I would upload my images to a server and edit them in a browser with major overhead, when I can edit them locally in a 10x more powerful application.

kirvyteo 16y ago

It looks like a strategy against low-end disruption that companies like sumopaint are causing.

brianbreslin 16y ago
http://www.sumopaint.com/home/ http://www.sumopaint.com/home/ clickable
absconditus 16y ago
Is Sumo Paint really disrupting anything?

poppysan 16y ago

This is great. Some people may only need to use the products every now and then, so they cant justify the high price tag. This opens up the market to folks who may be casual users. Kudos Adobe...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

billpg 16y ago

Several years ago, I bought the cut-down version of Sony Vegasfor about £50, having briefly considered buying the £300 version instead. A few years later, I buy a new video camera that saves files in H264 and my older version of Vegas won't load the files. I had to upgrade it. I'm glad I didn't spend £300 getting the more expensive version, but if there was a reasonable subscription plan, I could have just switched to the new version that supported H264 without a new big payment.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

radley 16y ago

A big factor is expense vs. purchase for companies. Purchase requires a timely permission process that can takes weeks. With subscriptions, they can now get the software quickly and move on, expensing when it's convenient.

jaysonelliot 16y ago

Software suites like this cost huge amounts of money for bundles of tools that generally follow the 80/20 rule for any given user. The problem is, any given user might need a different 20% than the next person. It makes it difficult for lighter versions of the software to compete, because there's always that one thing that they need, and is only in the high-cost package. This is a prime example of why a model like the Canon Cat or Apple's abandoned OpenDoc approach should be reconsidered, in my opinion. In those models (I think it's called a component model?), users buy interoperable tools instead of complete applications. Rather than opening a program, you open a document, and select which tools you want to use on it. The operating system contains the ability to open file formats, rather than individual programs. Programs are replaced by tools which can manipulate data once the file format has been read by the OS. For example, you might open a photo, and decide to use a magic wand selector by Adobe, but apply a filter from SumoPaint, a resize tool from Panic Software, and manipulate the text with a Microsoft tool. All of your tools would be in a "toolbox" that you could customize on the fly, much like you'd deal with a toolbox on a workbench. You don't go into your kitchen and turn on every appliance in the room when you just want a piece of toast - why should your computer act that way? Of course, the operating system itself would have to be built with that in mind in the first place - but is that such a crazy idea?

splatcollision 16y ago
We've got a great interoperable format already, that's being used by billions of people throughout the world, it's called HTML. The future of creative tools will be those that can both read and write HTML + whatever additional standards work with it.
- jaysonelliot 16y ago
  It's an intriguing idea, but it's hard to see HTML as a real competitor to C++ anytime soon. I'm not a programmer, I'm a UX guy, so please tell me if I'm missing something here.

rglover 16y ago

After comparing the subscription price to the full price for Photoshop (~$200 discount off full price), it seems like the service may be viable for one-off users. The occasional photographer, designer, etc. should jump on this. Of course, there's no replacement for a one-time purchase if these tools are for daily/frequent use. In response to the price, though, for a subscription service, it does seem a bit high. Sure the suite packs in a lot of features, but I'm not sure if $35/month is justifiable (let alone $49); especially for one-off users. It really depends on how much value the software contributes to your business.

drawkbox 16y ago

A bit high but the future, I really hope Autodesk will do this as I need 3dsmax and maya about 3 months out of the year. Pricing is too high but this is a good direction to fight piracy.

mambodog 16y ago

I'm interested to see how the international pricing will look for this. Here in Australia the CS5 Master Collection costs $4,344.00 compared to $2,599.00 in the US. Given that the AUD is now worth more than the USD it's rather a slap in the face.

bonaldi 16y ago
Surprise, the international pricing's a total rip-off. Illustrator, month-to-month: $45. UK: $65 pre-tax, $77 after tax.

stephth 16y ago

If this was their main business model, maybe Adobe would focus on quality vs quantity? this urgency to add new features and force users to purchase more sluggish versions after each OS upgrade is not doing it for me. Fireworks used to be an amazing piece of software. Now it's ridiculously sluggish, with no visible benefits. I would gladly pay adobe to own a fast version of Fireworks on my current OS, I don't care if the feature set is from 2005.

gbissett 16y ago

Sign up if you like people remotely switching off your tools at random. This has been running as a trial here in Australia for a few years. I've been using it because it's cashflow-friendly and I like the "free" upgrades. This thing has been a frickin' nightmare. The subscription management BS is a risk to your work. If you use this, your subscription will be cancelled at random, and the adobe apps will not launch. It's difficult to convey here just how frustrating this can be. When (not if) this happens, you're left helpless, with the only option being to call adobe. If you've ever called Adobe you'll understand that this experience can bring grown men to tears. The longest this has taken me to resolve was 3 days of full-time effort on the phone. That's unusual though, and the shortest time to fix was about 6 hours. Good pricing, but not fit for client service businesses or anything involving deadlines.