8 ms·

When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. I was actually quite supportive of Adobe's initial SaaS strategy. It was well and truly a "

When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. I was actually quite supportive of Adobe's initial SaaS strategy. It was well and truly a "why would anyone ever pirate photoshop ever again?" type of product. Fast forward a decade and that $19.99/mo product has become $89.99/mo and the value prop has plummeted on top of it. The big difference today is that instead of people returning to the high seas and continuing to use adobe software, they are just moving to different ecosystems -- procreate, davinci, foxit, etc.

Eji1700 2y ago
> When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. I was actually quite supportive of Adobe's initial SaaS strategy. It was well and truly a "why would anyone ever pirate photoshop ever again?" type of product. This is the entire issue with these kinds of things. They always launch at a good value because they know they can capture the market. Yes if they were benevolent or whatever it'd be fine, but these things almost ALWAYS turn into cluster fucks. They couldn't launch at worse value than the current product line because they need full adoption before they can put the screws to you.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  agree but I would reverse the cause and effect.. launch great experience on the web+cloud to gain traction.. then Because it is so Easy to Do It, change the terms of service, the benefits, the longevity, the billing practices, the prices.. etc IMO pathetic to see a well-loved brand degenerate in the public.. especially while Apple counts that cash (and ways they ran rough over their former "friend" )
  - swores 2y ago
    Maybe I'm misreading somehow but you seem to be saying the exact same thing as the person you replied to, without reversing anything?
    - Matl 2y ago
      If I am reading the post you're replying to correctly they're saying that maybe it's not that they launched with a good value prop with a plan to screw you later, but rather that because the initial launch went so well and everyone says what a good value it is that maybe the SaaS vendor says to themselves, 'screw it, we're delivering so much value, let's raise prices'. But I agree that there's little difference between the two ultimately.
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      Adobe did not "capture" the old single license sales customers, they are just walking away from them.. any way they can, into the cloud.. the results look similar but thinking about the power dynamics that drive them, here... what I meant to say is.. that the driver to launch a great experience is first, then it is easy and tempting to change the cloud terms.. not compared to the deal you get with desktop purchase.. not because you captured the single license customers with better deals in the cloud.. but because the cloud is just so easy to change, the money so tempting.. maybe the anecdote.. when Apple stopped caring so much about the desktop, after the iPhone.. they did not "capture" the single sale customers.. they just walked away to focus completely on the new, more profitable model
- duped 2y ago
  Or you do what everyone else does, which is force everyone to adopt the SaaS model by revoking their licenses or otherwise bricking the software. That's why it's important to own your own data in a way that can be reused and adapted when they try and screw you later. You see this all the time with video games nowadays. Everyone wants their own launcher and subscription services.
  - exe34 2y ago
    I'll never again learn another proprietary tech unless I'm getting paid to do it. open source or nothing.
    - jandrese 2y ago
      100% agree. I would also add an explicit exception to the DMCA. Cracking copy protection on software you bought legally because the copy protection has failed in a way that prevents the software from working should be legal.
      - exe34 2y ago
        I don't buy ebooks with drm anymore, and when I buy movies on Amazon I treat them as a long term rental.
        boringg 2y ago
        Buying movies online is such a waste. Long term rental mentality indeed.
        exe34 2y ago
        I try to save it for obscure things that aren't easily available
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      That's sadly why I stick with Windows. I am perfectly comfortable in Linux, but I know my next place of work will inevitably throw Windows hardware at me. And some vital professional tools only have Linux support in the most superficial stance. But yeah, trying to make sure anything else I have control over.
- CrimsonCape 2y ago
  Every corporate leader has the opportunity to "bring value" to the company by upping the subscription fee a few dollars. Profits increase, shareholders are happy. Better than trying to solve twenty year old bugs or worse, refactor legacy code.
- shostack 2y ago
  Which is where they shift focus to lock in and growing the amount of your things that live in their walled cloud garden.
- doe_eyes 2y ago
  And we keep falling for it, too. Folks on HN and elsewhere are fawning over Fusion360, despite Autodesk having a long history of being worse than Adobe and pulling the rug on individual features more than once. People spend thousands of dollars on 3D printers or CNC mills, but the idea of spending several hundred bucks on "buy-to-own" software is so outmoded... The other reason you have all these subscription models is that they obscure the total cost of ownership. Spending $300 on photo editing software seems like a big commitment. Paying $20/mo for a decade is easier. But when you add up Creative Suite, Office365, Xbox Game Pass, Spotify, Netflix, Squarespace, and whatnot, it's all of sudden a big chunk of your disposable income.
- atoav 2y ago
  Just as if the goal of corporations isn't to provide value, but to extract value.
richbell 2y ago
> When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. Your wording reminds me of this infamous video where Adobe's CEO refuses to answer a question about them overcharging customers in Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc
- whycome 2y ago
  For the longest while, Adobe charged Canadians in USD despite having an entirely Canadian version of the site etc. It meant that the price of the software varied each month!
behringer 2y ago
I only pay 32/mo for creative cloud. Sign up for the free trial, then "cancel" you'll get a screen that says "offers" and you can choose a realistic price plan. Remember to "cancel" before your year is up or else you'll be automatically charged the full price the following month.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I've been on the $29.99 full Creative Cloud plan for over 2 years. I got it as a Thanksgiving offer in 2021. Just last month they told me the deal was over and I needed to pay full price. I went to faux-cancel and they gave me 2 free months, but I still need to find a way to get a reduced price again.
  - behringer 2y ago
    the 30 dollar/mo offer is still on the table for me, as of a few months ago. Just go to cancel you should get 3 offers including the 30/mo offer. it might be regional though (I'm US).
    - qingcharles 2y ago
      Yeah, I hoped to get it on the cancel screen but the only offer I got was 2 free months. I'll try again in 2 months :) [USA here too] Maybe I could also look at another location? My YouTube sub is from Venezuela.
londons_explore 2y ago
They should release a home-user version with some restrictions unpalatable for commercial use - eg. "Can only edit 5 files per month" or "All edited images get non-commercial use licenses attached". Or even "May only be used during evenings and weekends".
- alt227 2y ago
  I like this idea, Or even better it could run on credits. 100 credits per month, and then various things in the software cost a credit each. Load a file = 1 credit. Save a file = 1 credit, etc. You could even turn this into an ecosystem by itself, so instead of buying or 'renting' the software users are buying credits to actuallyt operate the software. Newer features like AI could cost more credits up front. There could be sales on credits etc. Somebody please show me a downside to this model?
  - swores 2y ago
    I think there's multiple downsides, but the biggest one is that it makes it a massive pain in the ass for any price-conscious users to decide whether it's worth paying for. Right now if I want to install some software to edit images on my PC, I can look at how much Photoshop costs, how much rival 1 costs, and look at Free Alternative 2, and decide what I'm willing to pay. But under your scenario, I have no clue how much more (or less) expensive Photoshop will be than the paid or free alternatives, unless I can first forecast all the individual steps that will be needed to do the editing I have in mind, and then spend time adding up each action's costs to get an idea of the total price. Not only would it be extremely hard to accurately list every action that would be needed before actually doing them, but even if I thought that were possible then the amount of hassle would be a big enough deal breaker that I just wouldn't be willing to bother with it.
    - whycome 2y ago
      > it makes it a massive pain in the ass for any price-conscious users to decide whether it's worth paying for. The goal would be to dissociate the software from the price/value. It happens when people are enticed to get loyalty points for things like grocery purchases. No one would move if the deal was "save 30cents" but they would for "and get 300 bonus points!" (See McDonald's or every other loyalty system). Entire ecosystems have been created around inflated point value too. Adobe should just call them "Adobe points" and make it essentially a digital currency that can also be used for stock photos, etc too. Or maybe even for cloud computing for fast render farms of your increasingly complex video/3Dworks. Heck, it could be blockchain based too (AdobeCoin?) They're already trying the kind of "buffet" model with their cloud subs. Maybe they can shift to a credit system to encourage other users.
Trollmann 2y ago
Not for students. CS6 single product was up to $250, CS6 DS $350, CS6 MC $800 compared to CC 1st year $240 increasing to $360. If you only needed a single product you were off worse after one year. Even doing a bachelors which required all products would have been less expensive with the one time fee if you had the money.
- duped 2y ago
  Back in the day (a decade ago) you would go to the lab which had Autodesk/Solidworks/Matlab/Adobe/$expensive-software installed instead of buying it for your personal (and probably underpowered) device. It was one of the few things that your tuition actually paid for. And you'd have to learn time management to make sure you could get your project done on time instead of crunching at the last minute, because the lab would be filled with people who didn't. </grumble>
  - wlesieutre 2y ago
    Our lab used to let you remote desktop in for that stuff, but it was unreliable at best (especially during project crunch times) because anyone physically at the lab could kick you off your computer by unplugging it. Was still really nice to have if you were letting a rendering run overnight. On the Autodesk side, they give out free access to student accounts, so I had that stuff both in the lab and on my home computer.
wnevets 2y ago
[flagged]
- jonathankoren 2y ago
  It's not. The quality stayed the same, even improved. It's run of the mill monopoly pricing.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - crote 2y ago
    It is 100% enshittification. The definition is even in the linked article: > Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, (..) The core point here is "abuse the user", not "make features worse". Price gauging would be included in that definition.
    - roywiggins 2y ago
      Enshittification usually refers to companies that run two-sided markets ("platforms"), like rideshare and delivery apps. Adobe raising prices on everyone isn't really the same thing. Enshittification works by first subsidizing everything for everyone, then alternately squeezing the sellers and buyers on the platform by increasing their cut and raising prices. It's about playing a game where you alternately squeeze one side or another of a marketplace that you control. Adobe doesn't really run a platform, they're selling a product and finding ways to raise the price.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Ensnittification definitely applied to home appliances like washing machines. IMO inkjet printers where the front runner here before online platforms really took off.
frapaconi 2y ago
[dead]
wlesieutre 2y ago
For people who hate or simply can't justify the subscriptions, big shout out to Affinity suite v2. Currently 50% off at $83, permanent universal license for Mac/Windows/iPad https://affinity.serif.com/ https://affinity.serif.com/ That includes Photo/Designer/Publisher, which are competitors to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign respectively. It's not a drop-in replacement and if you're collaborating with other people who are in Adobe-land then you'll need to stick with Adobe too. But for people who occasionally need an image editor for solo work and have been priced out of all the Adobe products, it's a solid option. One caveat is they're now owned by Canva, things haven't gone to shit yet but they might in the future.
- sirn 2y ago
  Another caveat is that if your workflow requires dealing with complex text layout on a regular basis (e.g., Asian languages), Affinity suite support for it is pretty much non-existent. For example, lack of a working right-to-left support, no vertical text support for CJK, broken tone markers handling in Thai layout, lack of complex word-break for any languages that is not space-based, etc. Sadly, Adobe is still the only option in the market for this.
  - x0x0 2y ago
    It's really striking to see two things in this thread: (1) complaints about price, and (2) repeated (cjk, lightroom library management, a half dozen other things) that Adobe offers features that have no competition. Feels like Adobe is charging for being the sole provider for various features that people need.
    - wlesieutre 2y ago
      Photoshop has been around for 34 years, even if they jacked the price up to $500/month nobody would be able to show up with feature parity to compete for 100% of their customers right away. It's a heck of a moat.
      - x0x0 2y ago
atoav 2y ago
I was one of those who wasn't supportive back then, because it was pretty clear where things would go from there. They wouldn't switch for a subscription model to earn less money, that was sure. And being a quasi monopolist meant keeping working with that old CS6 version was less and less of an option. So what are you going to do? Complain? Suck it up? Even back then it was clear they are going for the slow-warming-the-water temperature-till-it-boils-strategy.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
$20/mo. was not a good value. I probably would only have used Photoshop and in two months of my subscription money I could have instead bought/owned Affinity Photo. I might use Photoshop for a week and then not use it again for 6 months. Did I just pay $120 for that one week? Renting software will always suck.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- FrozenSynapse 2y ago
  maybe you're not the target audience then. photographers make that subscription fee in 10 minutes?
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    Agree, but I'm surprised Adobe rushed headlong into cutting off their "long tail" without an alternate solution. It made Affinity happy, I imagine.
JohnTHaller 2y ago
And that cost per month is for a 12 month contract that if you try to cancel early will require you to pay 1/2 of the remaining contract to get out of it. You cancel on day 32... that'll be 5.5 x your monthly payment to cancel. Adobe makes all of this insanely hard to understand and fully grasp as a consumer. It's also almost completely unique in software licensing. I tried to find out when my current 'contract' was up a couple months ago and it was nowhere in their website account section nor in the Adobe Creative Cloud app on my PC that I could find. I had to call them and wait something like 30 minutes on hold to find out. I wound up getting an extremely discounted rate for a year, but I now know the date it will end and have set reminders to cancel before and have begun transitioning to DaVinci Resolve now and will start transitioning to Affinity soon.
- maronato 2y ago
  Adobe should explain it as “it’s exactly like your rent contract”. Because that’s what it is. Rent seeking. Software rent seeking. Not even the greatest dystopian sci-fi writers could come up with this one.
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Yep. It reminds me of the shenanigans that Sirius radio does, esp here in Canada where there is less protections against it.
inferiorhuman 2y ago
It was well and truly a "why would anyone ever pirate photoshop ever again?" type of product. Nah. Lightroom is/was the primary Adobe product I used. Pretty much the only new features they've ever introduced that meant anything to me revolved around supporting new cameras. At $80 for a perpetual license it was great because I rarely upgrade my camera bodies. Aside from supporting new cameras the only other worthwhile to me feature Adobe's introduced was a 64-bit installer. Yeah, LR 4.4 was a 64-bit app, but the installer remained 32-bit because Adobe is that lazy or greedy. None of that justifies renting the newer versions from Adobe. Were I using LR professionally I'd just have buy something capable of running Windows 7 and keep it air gapped instead of upgrading. Sadly, as bad as Adobe is, they still way ahead of the competition. Some come close with photo editing capabilities, but nothing touches Lightroom for library management. DxO comes with a rootkit (and has for years). DarkTable and Raw Therapee suffer the open source curse of mediocre (yet strongly opinionated) user experience.
mbesto 2y ago
> Fast forward a decade and that $19.99/mo product has become $89.99/mo and the value prop has plummeted on top of it. Counterpoint - most management teams undersell their sales relative to what the market is willing to pay them. Adobe is figuring out where that local maxima is (still). > they are just moving to different ecosystems -- procreate, davinci, foxit, etc. Are they though? Source? These figures would suggest otherwise: Year Active Subscribers 2013 1.4 million 2017 12.0 million 2020 19.5 million 2021 22.0 million 2022 24.5 million 2024 29.5 million https://photutorial.com/adobe-statistics/ https://photutorial.com/adobe-statistics/
- iamthirsty 2y ago
  It's crazy to think that $29.5m x $19.99 (old smallest price) is $589m. That's just a starting point for revenue. Wild.
zuppy 2y ago
honestly, i found a solution for this. it is a little unethical, but is as unethical as them forcing me to never be able to unsubscribe (there's only a short time where you can unsubscribe once per year). i have a card that i use only for recurring subscriptions, when one of the recurring subscriptions gets problematic, i first block the card (this is important!) and then delete it and create a new one. this way they can not continue to charge me. if you don't block it, they may be able to use the associated card payment token to charge you even after the card has been deleted. on one of my banks i can even see the associated tokens and delete them individually. they can sue me, sure, but nobody will do that for 10€/month.
halyconWays 2y ago
>Fast forward a decade and that $19.99/mo product has become $89.99/mo and the value prop has plummeted on top of it. Photoshop is $35/mo. If you sign up for a year, it's $23/mo.

Eji1700 2y ago

> When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. I was actually quite supportive of Adobe's initial SaaS strategy. It was well and truly a "why would anyone ever pirate photoshop ever again?" type of product. This is the entire issue with these kinds of things. They always launch at a good value because they know they can capture the market. Yes if they were benevolent or whatever it'd be fine, but these things almost ALWAYS turn into cluster fucks. They couldn't launch at worse value than the current product line because they need full adoption before they can put the screws to you.

mistrial9 2y ago
agree but I would reverse the cause and effect.. launch great experience on the web+cloud to gain traction.. then Because it is so Easy to Do It, change the terms of service, the benefits, the longevity, the billing practices, the prices.. etc IMO pathetic to see a well-loved brand degenerate in the public.. especially while Apple counts that cash (and ways they ran rough over their former "friend" )
- swores 2y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading somehow but you seem to be saying the exact same thing as the person you replied to, without reversing anything?
  - Matl 2y ago
    If I am reading the post you're replying to correctly they're saying that maybe it's not that they launched with a good value prop with a plan to screw you later, but rather that because the initial launch went so well and everyone says what a good value it is that maybe the SaaS vendor says to themselves, 'screw it, we're delivering so much value, let's raise prices'. But I agree that there's little difference between the two ultimately.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    Adobe did not "capture" the old single license sales customers, they are just walking away from them.. any way they can, into the cloud.. the results look similar but thinking about the power dynamics that drive them, here... what I meant to say is.. that the driver to launch a great experience is first, then it is easy and tempting to change the cloud terms.. not compared to the deal you get with desktop purchase.. not because you captured the single license customers with better deals in the cloud.. but because the cloud is just so easy to change, the money so tempting.. maybe the anecdote.. when Apple stopped caring so much about the desktop, after the iPhone.. they did not "capture" the single sale customers.. they just walked away to focus completely on the new, more profitable model
duped 2y ago
Or you do what everyone else does, which is force everyone to adopt the SaaS model by revoking their licenses or otherwise bricking the software. That's why it's important to own your own data in a way that can be reused and adapted when they try and screw you later. You see this all the time with video games nowadays. Everyone wants their own launcher and subscription services.
- exe34 2y ago
  I'll never again learn another proprietary tech unless I'm getting paid to do it. open source or nothing.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    100% agree. I would also add an explicit exception to the DMCA. Cracking copy protection on software you bought legally because the copy protection has failed in a way that prevents the software from working should be legal.
    - exe34 2y ago
      I don't buy ebooks with drm anymore, and when I buy movies on Amazon I treat them as a long term rental.
      - boringg 2y ago
        Buying movies online is such a waste. Long term rental mentality indeed.
        exe34 2y ago
        I try to save it for obscure things that aren't easily available
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    That's sadly why I stick with Windows. I am perfectly comfortable in Linux, but I know my next place of work will inevitably throw Windows hardware at me. And some vital professional tools only have Linux support in the most superficial stance. But yeah, trying to make sure anything else I have control over.
CrimsonCape 2y ago
Every corporate leader has the opportunity to "bring value" to the company by upping the subscription fee a few dollars. Profits increase, shareholders are happy. Better than trying to solve twenty year old bugs or worse, refactor legacy code.
shostack 2y ago
Which is where they shift focus to lock in and growing the amount of your things that live in their walled cloud garden.
doe_eyes 2y ago
And we keep falling for it, too. Folks on HN and elsewhere are fawning over Fusion360, despite Autodesk having a long history of being worse than Adobe and pulling the rug on individual features more than once. People spend thousands of dollars on 3D printers or CNC mills, but the idea of spending several hundred bucks on "buy-to-own" software is so outmoded... The other reason you have all these subscription models is that they obscure the total cost of ownership. Spending $300 on photo editing software seems like a big commitment. Paying $20/mo for a decade is easier. But when you add up Creative Suite, Office365, Xbox Game Pass, Spotify, Netflix, Squarespace, and whatnot, it's all of sudden a big chunk of your disposable income.
atoav 2y ago
Just as if the goal of corporations isn't to provide value, but to extract value.

richbell 2y ago

> When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. Your wording reminds me of this infamous video where Adobe's CEO refuses to answer a question about them overcharging customers in Australia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnrMhbWG0Pc

whycome 2y ago
For the longest while, Adobe charged Canadians in USD despite having an entirely Canadian version of the site etc. It meant that the price of the software varied each month!

behringer 2y ago

I only pay 32/mo for creative cloud. Sign up for the free trial, then "cancel" you'll get a screen that says "offers" and you can choose a realistic price plan. Remember to "cancel" before your year is up or else you'll be automatically charged the full price the following month.

qingcharles 2y ago
I've been on the $29.99 full Creative Cloud plan for over 2 years. I got it as a Thanksgiving offer in 2021. Just last month they told me the deal was over and I needed to pay full price. I went to faux-cancel and they gave me 2 free months, but I still need to find a way to get a reduced price again.
- behringer 2y ago
  the 30 dollar/mo offer is still on the table for me, as of a few months ago. Just go to cancel you should get 3 offers including the 30/mo offer. it might be regional though (I'm US).
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    Yeah, I hoped to get it on the cancel screen but the only offer I got was 2 free months. I'll try again in 2 months :) [USA here too] Maybe I could also look at another location? My YouTube sub is from Venezuela.

londons_explore 2y ago

They should release a home-user version with some restrictions unpalatable for commercial use - eg. "Can only edit 5 files per month" or "All edited images get non-commercial use licenses attached". Or even "May only be used during evenings and weekends".

alt227 2y ago
I like this idea, Or even better it could run on credits. 100 credits per month, and then various things in the software cost a credit each. Load a file = 1 credit. Save a file = 1 credit, etc. You could even turn this into an ecosystem by itself, so instead of buying or 'renting' the software users are buying credits to actuallyt operate the software. Newer features like AI could cost more credits up front. There could be sales on credits etc. Somebody please show me a downside to this model?
- swores 2y ago
  I think there's multiple downsides, but the biggest one is that it makes it a massive pain in the ass for any price-conscious users to decide whether it's worth paying for. Right now if I want to install some software to edit images on my PC, I can look at how much Photoshop costs, how much rival 1 costs, and look at Free Alternative 2, and decide what I'm willing to pay. But under your scenario, I have no clue how much more (or less) expensive Photoshop will be than the paid or free alternatives, unless I can first forecast all the individual steps that will be needed to do the editing I have in mind, and then spend time adding up each action's costs to get an idea of the total price. Not only would it be extremely hard to accurately list every action that would be needed before actually doing them, but even if I thought that were possible then the amount of hassle would be a big enough deal breaker that I just wouldn't be willing to bother with it.
  - whycome 2y ago
    > it makes it a massive pain in the ass for any price-conscious users to decide whether it's worth paying for. The goal would be to dissociate the software from the price/value. It happens when people are enticed to get loyalty points for things like grocery purchases. No one would move if the deal was "save 30cents" but they would for "and get 300 bonus points!" (See McDonald's or every other loyalty system). Entire ecosystems have been created around inflated point value too. Adobe should just call them "Adobe points" and make it essentially a digital currency that can also be used for stock photos, etc too. Or maybe even for cloud computing for fast render farms of your increasingly complex video/3Dworks. Heck, it could be blockchain based too (AdobeCoin?) They're already trying the kind of "buffet" model with their cloud subs. Maybe they can shift to a credit system to encourage other users.

Trollmann 2y ago

Not for students. CS6 single product was up to $250, CS6 DS $350, CS6 MC $800 compared to CC 1st year $240 increasing to $360. If you only needed a single product you were off worse after one year. Even doing a bachelors which required all products would have been less expensive with the one time fee if you had the money.

duped 2y ago
Back in the day (a decade ago) you would go to the lab which had Autodesk/Solidworks/Matlab/Adobe/$expensive-software installed instead of buying it for your personal (and probably underpowered) device. It was one of the few things that your tuition actually paid for. And you'd have to learn time management to make sure you could get your project done on time instead of crunching at the last minute, because the lab would be filled with people who didn't. </grumble>
- wlesieutre 2y ago
  Our lab used to let you remote desktop in for that stuff, but it was unreliable at best (especially during project crunch times) because anyone physically at the lab could kick you off your computer by unplugging it. Was still really nice to have if you were letting a rendering run overnight. On the Autodesk side, they give out free access to student accounts, so I had that stuff both in the lab and on my home computer.

wnevets 2y ago

[flagged]

jonathankoren 2y ago
It's not. The quality stayed the same, even improved. It's run of the mill monopoly pricing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- crote 2y ago
  It is 100% enshittification. The definition is even in the linked article: > Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, (..) The core point here is "abuse the user", not "make features worse". Price gauging would be included in that definition.
  - roywiggins 2y ago
    Enshittification usually refers to companies that run two-sided markets ("platforms"), like rideshare and delivery apps. Adobe raising prices on everyone isn't really the same thing. Enshittification works by first subsidizing everything for everyone, then alternately squeezing the sellers and buyers on the platform by increasing their cut and raising prices. It's about playing a game where you alternately squeeze one side or another of a marketplace that you control. Adobe doesn't really run a platform, they're selling a product and finding ways to raise the price.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Ensnittification definitely applied to home appliances like washing machines. IMO inkjet printers where the front runner here before online platforms really took off.

frapaconi 2y ago

[dead]

wlesieutre 2y ago

For people who hate or simply can't justify the subscriptions, big shout out to Affinity suite v2. Currently 50% off at $83, permanent universal license for Mac/Windows/iPad https://affinity.serif.com/ https://affinity.serif.com/ That includes Photo/Designer/Publisher, which are competitors to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign respectively. It's not a drop-in replacement and if you're collaborating with other people who are in Adobe-land then you'll need to stick with Adobe too. But for people who occasionally need an image editor for solo work and have been priced out of all the Adobe products, it's a solid option. One caveat is they're now owned by Canva, things haven't gone to shit yet but they might in the future.

sirn 2y ago
Another caveat is that if your workflow requires dealing with complex text layout on a regular basis (e.g., Asian languages), Affinity suite support for it is pretty much non-existent. For example, lack of a working right-to-left support, no vertical text support for CJK, broken tone markers handling in Thai layout, lack of complex word-break for any languages that is not space-based, etc. Sadly, Adobe is still the only option in the market for this.
- x0x0 2y ago
  It's really striking to see two things in this thread: (1) complaints about price, and (2) repeated (cjk, lightroom library management, a half dozen other things) that Adobe offers features that have no competition. Feels like Adobe is charging for being the sole provider for various features that people need.
  - wlesieutre 2y ago
    Photoshop has been around for 34 years, even if they jacked the price up to $500/month nobody would be able to show up with feature parity to compete for 100% of their customers right away. It's a heck of a moat.
    - x0x0 2y ago

atoav 2y ago

I was one of those who wasn't supportive back then, because it was pretty clear where things would go from there. They wouldn't switch for a subscription model to earn less money, that was sure. And being a quasi monopolist meant keeping working with that old CS6 version was less and less of an option. So what are you going to do? Complain? Suck it up? Even back then it was clear they are going for the slow-warming-the-water temperature-till-it-boils-strategy.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

$20/mo. was not a good value. I probably would only have used Photoshop and in two months of my subscription money I could have instead bought/owned Affinity Photo. I might use Photoshop for a week and then not use it again for 6 months. Did I just pay $120 for that one week? Renting software will always suck.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
FrozenSynapse 2y ago
maybe you're not the target audience then. photographers make that subscription fee in 10 minutes?
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Agree, but I'm surprised Adobe rushed headlong into cutting off their "long tail" without an alternate solution. It made Affinity happy, I imagine.

JohnTHaller 2y ago

And that cost per month is for a 12 month contract that if you try to cancel early will require you to pay 1/2 of the remaining contract to get out of it. You cancel on day 32... that'll be 5.5 x your monthly payment to cancel. Adobe makes all of this insanely hard to understand and fully grasp as a consumer. It's also almost completely unique in software licensing. I tried to find out when my current 'contract' was up a couple months ago and it was nowhere in their website account section nor in the Adobe Creative Cloud app on my PC that I could find. I had to call them and wait something like 30 minutes on hold to find out. I wound up getting an extremely discounted rate for a year, but I now know the date it will end and have set reminders to cancel before and have begun transitioning to DaVinci Resolve now and will start transitioning to Affinity soon.

maronato 2y ago
Adobe should explain it as “it’s exactly like your rent contract”. Because that’s what it is. Rent seeking. Software rent seeking. Not even the greatest dystopian sci-fi writers could come up with this one.
cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Yep. It reminds me of the shenanigans that Sirius radio does, esp here in Canada where there is less protections against it.

inferiorhuman 2y ago

It was well and truly a "why would anyone ever pirate photoshop ever again?" type of product. Nah. Lightroom is/was the primary Adobe product I used. Pretty much the only new features they've ever introduced that meant anything to me revolved around supporting new cameras. At $80 for a perpetual license it was great because I rarely upgrade my camera bodies. Aside from supporting new cameras the only other worthwhile to me feature Adobe's introduced was a 64-bit installer. Yeah, LR 4.4 was a 64-bit app, but the installer remained 32-bit because Adobe is that lazy or greedy. None of that justifies renting the newer versions from Adobe. Were I using LR professionally I'd just have buy something capable of running Windows 7 and keep it air gapped instead of upgrading. Sadly, as bad as Adobe is, they still way ahead of the competition. Some come close with photo editing capabilities, but nothing touches Lightroom for library management. DxO comes with a rootkit (and has for years). DarkTable and Raw Therapee suffer the open source curse of mediocre (yet strongly opinionated) user experience.

mbesto 2y ago

> Fast forward a decade and that $19.99/mo product has become $89.99/mo and the value prop has plummeted on top of it. Counterpoint - most management teams undersell their sales relative to what the market is willing to pay them. Adobe is figuring out where that local maxima is (still). > they are just moving to different ecosystems -- procreate, davinci, foxit, etc. Are they though? Source? These figures would suggest otherwise: Year Active Subscribers 2013 1.4 million 2017 12.0 million 2020 19.5 million 2021 22.0 million 2022 24.5 million 2024 29.5 million https://photutorial.com/adobe-statistics/ https://photutorial.com/adobe-statistics/

iamthirsty 2y ago
It's crazy to think that $29.5m x $19.99 (old smallest price) is $589m. That's just a starting point for revenue. Wild.

zuppy 2y ago

honestly, i found a solution for this. it is a little unethical, but is as unethical as them forcing me to never be able to unsubscribe (there's only a short time where you can unsubscribe once per year). i have a card that i use only for recurring subscriptions, when one of the recurring subscriptions gets problematic, i first block the card (this is important!) and then delete it and create a new one. this way they can not continue to charge me. if you don't block it, they may be able to use the associated card payment token to charge you even after the card has been deleted. on one of my banks i can even see the associated tokens and delete them individually. they can sue me, sure, but nobody will do that for 10€/month.

halyconWays 2y ago

>Fast forward a decade and that $19.99/mo product has become $89.99/mo and the value prop has plummeted on top of it. Photoshop is $35/mo. If you sign up for a year, it's $23/mo.