4 ms·

There are plenty of textbook cases of enshittification that are covered by price increases—just look at Adobe and AutoCAD selling credits that are used just to

There are plenty of textbook cases of enshittification that are covered by price increases—just look at Adobe and AutoCAD selling credits that are used just to launch the program. As long as it fits with the "claw back value from your customers and partners to feed your investors" pattern, ∂shit > 0.

scarface_74 1y ago
I looked up adobe credits. Aren’t they just used to buy licensed assets like pictures and videos. But not for the core app?
- rhet0rica 1y ago
  You're right; unfortunately I can't edit my comment to remove Adobe from it. Though they are plenty guilty of 'adding value' in the worst possible ways.
mschuster91 1y ago
I 'member Adobe's Creative Suite costing hundreds of dollars. Photoshop alone clocked in at 699$, the full CS6 was 2599$ [1]. Either you were a professional and paid dearly every odd year or you were a student and used a cracked/keygen'd CS6. Today? The full CC license is 70$ a month for individuals (30$ for students) and 100$ a month for businesses. Despite inflation, assuming a two year upgrade cycle you still get the same price for the full Adobe package when comparing CS vs CC. One may complain a lot about Adobe (RIP Flash, and anything Gen AI can go to hell for all I care), but "enshittification" is one thing that can't reasonably be thrown at them. As for Adobe Credits, AFAIK that's credits for fonts and assets - and again, I vastly prefer dealing with one storefront (Adobe) than having to buy and license individual font files or stock photos. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968192/adobe-cs6-pricing-availability-creative-cloud-announcement https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968192/adobe-cs6-pricing...
- dhruvrrp 1y ago
  It's enshittification because most people don't need the 2 year upgrade cycle. For most individuals and small businesses, it was more like buy once and use forever.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    A majority or at least large minority of Adobe users were/are on Macs. The Mac version has lived through 68K MacOS pre and post System 7, PPC Mac pre and post OS X, x86 Macs pre and post Carbon support and now ARM Macs. After each transition , there was a limited amount of time that you could use the same version and even a smaller amount of time that you would have wanted to. But the same argument applies that applies to Figma. It’s a professional tool that should help you generate income far greater than the cost
    - rhet0rica 1y ago
      True, but depressing. Definitely something to add to the FLOSS casus belli...
- cmonbuddy 1y ago
  You just successfully rationalized the exact tactic that Adobe sales team pitched to their leadership: That most users will pay the monthly subscription because the math “evens out.” Very very very few people have a legitimate need to upgrade Adobe product versions every 2 years.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    > Very very very few people have a legitimate need to upgrade Adobe product versions every 2 years. I suspect that most, even a lot of professional users, could get along just fine with CS1 or CS2. The core functionality hasn’t changed all that much and in a lot of ways, CS/CC apps have gotten worse. The only reason these individuals aren't still using those old versions is because they aren’t well suited for modern machines. I’d personally be elated if Adobe started selling a lightly modernized single-purchase Photoshop CS1, even if it cost what single purchase PS licenses used to. The lack of cruft and UI churn alone would be worth it before even getting into the savings compared to a subscription.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    The existence proof that people are paying the subscription price when there are other tools out there. Do people must think there is a need for it
    - p_ing 1y ago
      There are other tools out there; I use Affinity Photo myself. There are no other workflows that 100% match Adobe Photoshop. Until you like-for-like replicate the workflow, professionals will continue to use PS.
- wlesieutre 1y ago
  As a hobbyist, I owned CS4 (purchased on sale) and kept using it for ages. Turning it into a subscription might be fine for bleeding edge professionals who care about whatever new bells and whistles every year to finish a job 2% faster, but the ongoing costs cut out anybody who isn’t making money with it. Thankfully there are better competitors like Affinity in that space now. RIP Macromedia Fireworks though.
dmix 1y ago
Adobe has always been targetted at profressionals price wise. Making it SaaS made pirating harder and the high monthly price (and annoying dark patterns) excluded and alienated the general public which upset people who decided to pay for it for the first time in their life. The problem there is mostly the lack of good competition in spaces like Lightroom but that's starting to change. The everyone-pirates-photoshop so don't bother trying to compete idea is now over.
- benrbray 1y ago
  > upset people who decided to pay for it for the first time in their life It also upset paying customers. It's no longer possible to _own_ Adobe software, and so I don't anymore. Up until just a couple years ago I was still using the copy of Photoshop CS4 I paid for (as part of the Master Collection CS4, Student Edition) in 2008. A monthly subscription is a complete non-starter for me.
  - p_ing 1y ago
    You never owned any Adobe product, you licensed it. And that license could be revoked at any time; while it is unlikely Adobe would go after an individual, the license that you agree to allows them to do so.
    - egg1 1y ago
      Adobe can say whatever they want in their EULA; whether it's legally enforceable in court is another matter. Imagine how these you-own-a-license-not-the-thing-itself shenanigans would play out for any other product we purchase. "No, you didn't buy that $40k car in cash upfront! You only bought Toyota's permission to operate the car, and we reserve the right to repossess it at any time."
      - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
        reminds me of the teslas that got downgraded because the new owners only paid for the cheaper subscription
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
From a financial point of view I think Adobe’s enshittification is working pretty well.

scarface_74 1y ago

I looked up adobe credits. Aren’t they just used to buy licensed assets like pictures and videos. But not for the core app?

rhet0rica 1y ago
You're right; unfortunately I can't edit my comment to remove Adobe from it. Though they are plenty guilty of 'adding value' in the worst possible ways.

mschuster91 1y ago

I 'member Adobe's Creative Suite costing hundreds of dollars. Photoshop alone clocked in at 699$, the full CS6 was 2599$ [1]. Either you were a professional and paid dearly every odd year or you were a student and used a cracked/keygen'd CS6. Today? The full CC license is 70$ a month for individuals (30$ for students) and 100$ a month for businesses. Despite inflation, assuming a two year upgrade cycle you still get the same price for the full Adobe package when comparing CS vs CC. One may complain a lot about Adobe (RIP Flash, and anything Gen AI can go to hell for all I care), but "enshittification" is one thing that can't reasonably be thrown at them. As for Adobe Credits, AFAIK that's credits for fonts and assets - and again, I vastly prefer dealing with one storefront (Adobe) than having to buy and license individual font files or stock photos. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968192/adobe-cs6-pricing-availability-creative-cloud-announcement https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968192/adobe-cs6-pricing...

dhruvrrp 1y ago
It's enshittification because most people don't need the 2 year upgrade cycle. For most individuals and small businesses, it was more like buy once and use forever.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  A majority or at least large minority of Adobe users were/are on Macs. The Mac version has lived through 68K MacOS pre and post System 7, PPC Mac pre and post OS X, x86 Macs pre and post Carbon support and now ARM Macs. After each transition , there was a limited amount of time that you could use the same version and even a smaller amount of time that you would have wanted to. But the same argument applies that applies to Figma. It’s a professional tool that should help you generate income far greater than the cost
  - rhet0rica 1y ago
    True, but depressing. Definitely something to add to the FLOSS casus belli...
cmonbuddy 1y ago
You just successfully rationalized the exact tactic that Adobe sales team pitched to their leadership: That most users will pay the monthly subscription because the math “evens out.” Very very very few people have a legitimate need to upgrade Adobe product versions every 2 years.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  > Very very very few people have a legitimate need to upgrade Adobe product versions every 2 years. I suspect that most, even a lot of professional users, could get along just fine with CS1 or CS2. The core functionality hasn’t changed all that much and in a lot of ways, CS/CC apps have gotten worse. The only reason these individuals aren't still using those old versions is because they aren’t well suited for modern machines. I’d personally be elated if Adobe started selling a lightly modernized single-purchase Photoshop CS1, even if it cost what single purchase PS licenses used to. The lack of cruft and UI churn alone would be worth it before even getting into the savings compared to a subscription.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  The existence proof that people are paying the subscription price when there are other tools out there. Do people must think there is a need for it
  - p_ing 1y ago
    There are other tools out there; I use Affinity Photo myself. There are no other workflows that 100% match Adobe Photoshop. Until you like-for-like replicate the workflow, professionals will continue to use PS.
wlesieutre 1y ago
As a hobbyist, I owned CS4 (purchased on sale) and kept using it for ages. Turning it into a subscription might be fine for bleeding edge professionals who care about whatever new bells and whistles every year to finish a job 2% faster, but the ongoing costs cut out anybody who isn’t making money with it. Thankfully there are better competitors like Affinity in that space now. RIP Macromedia Fireworks though.

dmix 1y ago

Adobe has always been targetted at profressionals price wise. Making it SaaS made pirating harder and the high monthly price (and annoying dark patterns) excluded and alienated the general public which upset people who decided to pay for it for the first time in their life. The problem there is mostly the lack of good competition in spaces like Lightroom but that's starting to change. The everyone-pirates-photoshop so don't bother trying to compete idea is now over.

benrbray 1y ago
> upset people who decided to pay for it for the first time in their life It also upset paying customers. It's no longer possible to _own_ Adobe software, and so I don't anymore. Up until just a couple years ago I was still using the copy of Photoshop CS4 I paid for (as part of the Master Collection CS4, Student Edition) in 2008. A monthly subscription is a complete non-starter for me.
- p_ing 1y ago
  You never owned any Adobe product, you licensed it. And that license could be revoked at any time; while it is unlikely Adobe would go after an individual, the license that you agree to allows them to do so.
  - egg1 1y ago
    Adobe can say whatever they want in their EULA; whether it's legally enforceable in court is another matter. Imagine how these you-own-a-license-not-the-thing-itself shenanigans would play out for any other product we purchase. "No, you didn't buy that $40k car in cash upfront! You only bought Toyota's permission to operate the car, and we reserve the right to repossess it at any time."
    - s1mplicissimus 1y ago
      reminds me of the teslas that got downgraded because the new owners only paid for the cheaper subscription

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

From a financial point of view I think Adobe’s enshittification is working pretty well.