Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cloud Software

Adobe's Creative Cloud Illustrates How the Cloud Costs You More 403

Posted by Soulskill
from the every-cloud-is-lined-with-your-silver dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "As we discussed yesterday, Adobe plans on focusing the bulk of its software-development efforts on its Creative Cloud offering, with no plans to further update its 'boxed' Creative Suite products. The move isn't surprising, considering the tech industry's general movement toward the cloud over the past few years. Creative Cloud will cost $19.99 per month for a 'single app' version that features the full version of 'selected apps,' 20GB of cloud storage, and limited access to services. Those who opt for the 'complete' version will pay $49.99 per month for every Creative Cloud app, 20GB of cloud storage, and full access to services; it also requires an annual commitment. At that price, it would take a little over two years for a customer spending $49.99 per month to exceed the full retail cost of box-based Adobe Creative Suite 6, which currently retails for $1299.99 at Staples and $1100-1200 on Amazon. In a recent interview with Mashable, Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen insisted that the Creative Cloud's cost to customers is lower, especially since they won't have to pay for cloud storage and other services — never mind that 20GB doesn't carry anyone far when it comes to visual design. However much customers stand to benefit from the cloud, it's easy to see that, over a long enough timeline, and with the right financial model in place, the companies providing those services stand to benefit even more than they did with boxed software. That's liable to make just as many people angry as happy, no?" Update: 05/08 03:29 GMT by S :Changed prices involved to reflect standard versions of Creative Suite, rather than the discounted Student & Teacher editions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe's Creative Cloud Illustrates How the Cloud Costs You More

Comments Filter:
  • I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:17PM (#43659729)

    "Cloud" storage. And I'm not going to pay for it.

    • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

      by denelson83 (841254) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:38PM (#43659917)

      "Cloud" storage. And I'm not going to pay for it.

      Why would you? "Clouds" can easily disintegrate in a matter of minutes, leaving nothing but blue sky behind.

    • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:58PM (#43660115)

      This will be the divergence in Adobe customers. Large corporations, who see benefit in a 100% tax deductible monthly subscription expense as opposed to an asset purchase that depreciates over time, plus don't really give two hoots about software price, will happily upgrade. Smaller companies and most independent graphic artists will likely continue to use the final desktop version. When retail prices soar too high because of scarcity in legitimately licensed copies, these users will move to pirated versions of the software. Adobe will then change something in file formats to make the cloud files incompatible with desktop versions of the software.

      • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:01PM (#43660151) Journal

        By which time all the small shops will have been pouring money into competing products long enough that Adobe will no longer hold a viable monopoly on the industry, and at that point, you'll see the bigger shops having to maintain both the incompatible Adobe product and the competing product. Within a few years after that, the big companies will ask, "Why are we paying these clowns, again?" and Adobe will be dead and buried shortly thereafter.

        • Re: I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AvitarX (172628) <<gro.derdnuheniwydnarb> <ta> <em>> on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:27PM (#43660379) Journal

          That's sort of how InDesign got popular.

          • by samkass (174571)

            It's also how Photoshop got popular. Letraset ColorStudio was insanely powerful for the day but priced themselves too high and Photoshop came in as the low-end competitor with the friendly interface that could do most of the common stuff acceptably well. Now you've got Photoshop at the high-end and, at least on the Mac, competitors coming in like Pixelmator. We'll see where it leads...

        • By which time all the small shops will have been pouring money into competing products long enough that Adobe will no longer hold a viable monopoly on the industry...

          How did that work out for people who used Macromedia Dreamweaver and Jasc Trajectory Pro?

          (Your scenario is an attractive one, but I'm skeptical.)

          • Actually, Jasc had 2 products that Adobe wanted to bu(r)y, the other one being PaintShop Pro.

            But Trajectory was the first visual SVG authoring app that had any serious potential, and I have since then nursed a recurring desire to see Adobe's collective toes toasting in Hell for removing it from the market.

            • Toes? The entire Adobe body, hooves, tail and all should be placed in the beam line at the LHC and sent to some other, more deserving, universe.

      • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suso (153703) * on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @08:01PM (#43660617) Homepage Journal

        Actually, I imagine piracy is a major reason why Adobe would do this. Photoshop is probably the most pirated app of all time. Gimp will probably have a windfall of new users soon.

        • Re:I don't want (Score:4, Informative)

          by asmkm22 (1902712) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @08:48PM (#43660943)

          I doubt GIMP will benefit much. Anyone who wants to pirate CS5 or 6 will still be able to. The only way GIMP will get more traction is if the program is actually improved at a more reasonable pace, which I don't see happening any time soon. And since there aren't any other good alternatives to Photoshop right now, people will just continue pirating Adobe products.

        • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

          by morcego (260031) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @09:06PM (#43661063)

          Actually, I imagine piracy is a major reason why Adobe would do this. Photoshop is probably the most pirated app of all time. Gimp will probably have a windfall of new users soon.

          Which is a very stupid logic.

          Eliminating a pirate doesn't mean you are transforming him into a customer. It almost never happen.

          My guess is Adobe is targeting those legitimate customers who buy their software and use the same version, without paying for upgrades, for 4+ years. With the Cloud model, you are forcing them to (re)pay full price every year.

          • by MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @07:18AM (#43663803) Homepage

            My guess is Adobe is targeting those legitimate customers who buy their software and use the same version, without paying for upgrades, for 4+ years. With the Cloud model, you are forcing them to (re)pay full price every year.

            BINGO! It's my understanding that most Photoshop users surveyed a few years ago said they skip 1 or 2 upgrades. Their upgrade income is dictated by the addition of new features. The cloud removes that pressure.

            Notice Adobe compares the cost of the cloud with full retail price. But in the real world, skipping 1 or 2 upgrades save a lot of money. Based on $699 initial price, and $199 upgrades, a 12-year cost is:

            $3087 - Upgrade every year
            $1893 - Upgrade every 2 years
            $1495 - Upgrade every 3 years
            $2879 - Cloud @$19.99/month

            So the Cloud looks OK if you already upgrade every year. But if a new version is bad, you don't have the previous disks to downgrade. But for those of us who skip upgrades, it can double our cost. And anytime Adobe needs a boost in income, they just raise the price. If we don't pay, we have no software to use.

            This is an opening for Adobe competitors. This makes Microsoft look like really nice people - quite a feat!

        • Re:I don't want (Score:4, Insightful)

          by gagol (583737) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @09:21PM (#43661193)
          And just like Microsoft Office, piracy is the main reason it is so popular. Poor people can train themselves on the pirate version, when they start working is a serious place that actually earns money with the software, they know their tools.
        • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @09:33PM (#43661295)

          Except that GIMP is a mess that makes creative types want to claw their own eyeballs out to escape. It has all the mass market appeal of a poo on a stick. I know, every time someone points out that it's a train wreck, a couple people come out and say that they use GIMP all the time (usually meaning, a couple times a week) and are really happy with it. In most cases it turns out that these are people who enjoy the Linux user experience, or who enjoy DOM manipulation via JavaScript, or have built the most epic thing ever out of [PIC microcontroller and LEDs | Minecraft | LEGOs]. What they are not, however, is a professional graphic designer who sits being paid to use Photoshop for at least half his/her day every day of the week.

          I am glad there are people who like GIMP and I'm sure they will continue to use it. Unfortunately it's pretty much a nonstarter for most of the people whose livelihoods depend on image editing, and there are few indications this will change anytime soon.

          I also doubt that most casual image editors who are not already infatuated with Linux are going to take two glances at GIMP, especially if they've previously experienced Photoshop. It just too weird, in the miserable way not the quirky hip way, even if it's not quite as bad as it was several years ago.

          Still topical. [slashdot.org]

    • Re:I don't want (Score:4, Informative)

      by D1G1T (1136467) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:59PM (#43660137)
      20GB is about 20 minutes of HD footage. Even for stills that's only a few hundred images if you are working in RAW. Can't imagine Adobe exects anyone to use it other than as a demo.
      • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Baton Rogue (1353707) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:24PM (#43660361)

        20GB is about 20 minutes of HD footage. Even for stills that's only a few hundred images if you are working in RAW. Can't imagine Adobe exects anyone to use it other than as a demo.

        Not to mention the time it would take to upload/download 20GB of data to the cloud. This will also wreak havoc on people with ISPs that have monthly bandwidth caps.

      • Re:I don't want (Score:4, Insightful)

        by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @08:45PM (#43660935) Journal

        20GB is about 20 minutes of HD footage. Even for stills that's only a few hundred images if you are working in RAW. Can't imagine Adobe exects anyone to use it other than as a demo.

        The first hit is free, kid, and since this 'cloud storage' only interacts with Adobe CS applications, and Adobe CS applications only interact with Adobe cloud storage or cloud storage that emulates a local filesystem, you'll have to buy expansion hits from us!

    • Re:I don't want (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @08:39PM (#43660879) Journal

      "Cloud" storage. And I'm not going to pay for it.

      Even if you do want 'cloud' storage(it certainly has its uses), the trend of getting little tiny bits of it bundled under a zillion different credentials and EULAs and TOSes, from a bunch of different outfits that you are just trying to buy some other product from(and, excitingly, often hooked to specific applications, rather than some reasonably normal network file transfer mechanism) is totally fucked.

      Yeah, I really want 5GB over here on dropbox, with one set of credentials, security issues, and iDevice applications that can sorta-kinda treat that 5GB as their filesystem; then another few GB over here on Skydrive, so that they work properly with MS' hotmail file attachment features, and then 20GB over here with Adobe that only 'Creative Cloud' applications can see...

      It's a loss is basically every important respect: the credential soup is a pain in the ass and a likely security hazard, the fragmentation means that you need to manually shuffle around and/or duplicate files to support workflows that attempt to cross the ghastly little vendor silos, and the fact that the first-hit-is-free size limits are generally low creates an incentive for the vendor to gouge you on upgrades(If 'Creative cloud' only works with magic Adobe cloud storage, do you think that their per-GB overage prices will necessarily adhere to market norms for commodity cloud storage?).

      It's as though a substantial fraction of your applications refused to use the OS's filesystem APIs and instead demanded their own partitions that they could format in their own weird way and store data in a way accessible only to themselves. Only better, because you have to remember a bunch of passwords, the files can go *poof* at any time, and the EULAs and TOSes are likely to be abusive!

  • by aleator (869538) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:22PM (#43659763) Homepage
    creativity is to be shared but also protected because usually the artist wants credit for it. now if you are keeping things in "the cloud" (independend who is providing it to you, be it apple, google, adobe, ...) and you intend do work on them, you have to ultimately trust the owner of the clouds servers on your data staying your data. making a small website with holidays pictures is one thing but working with real data for high payed contracts i would never just put the data anywhere in a cloud... after all winds can carry clouds anywhere.
    • by Misagon (1135) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:28PM (#43659813)

      Also, if I store my work in the cloud and the subscription expires, will Adobe "just" hold my work ransom until I pay again ... or will they even delete my data?

      • by aleator (869538)
        they might sell your data and give you access again from the earnings they do :)
        • they might sell your data and give you access again from the earnings they do :)

          What liability do they have in the event of a security breach?

          As product announcements can involve millions and leaks to a competitor can cost ten fold that if the competitor can stomp on your event.

          I can see a run on the current shrink wrap version and then a total melt down in sales shortly after this program is in effect.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:23PM (#43659765)

    I don't know where they got those numbers from. Photoshop CS6 alone is $627 on Amazon and Design Standard is $1127.98. That makes the $49.99 take more than 2 years to be more than the cost of outright purchasing it.

    If they are using Student/Teacher editions or something to make an unfair price comparison, how could you trust anything else in the article?

    • by future assassin (639396) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:42PM (#43659961) Homepage

      CS6 will run pretty much for ever unless an OS change makes it not compatible. You stop paying after two years and you got NOTHING. Wanna resumer after a year or two, dig out the Cs6 install and off you go for free.

    • by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:58PM (#43660129) Journal

      Yeah, those numbers are crap. That said, the conclusion isn't wrong, only the numbers. A typical non-corporate user:

      • Bought Photoshop a decade ago or more.
      • Buys an upgrade about every 6 years (3 major versions) at $250–300, or to $42–50 per year.

      A Creative Cloud user:

      • Gets almost no discount for those years of buying upgrades—a $360 discount to rent the whole suite versus historically about $1500 off retail price when buying an upgrade.
      • Pays $240 minimum per year just for Photoshop.

      So it's on the order of 6 times as expensive for your typical Photoshop-only user. For a multi-app user, it's $600 per year, so for new users, it is cheaper initially, but unless you are the sort of person who buys an upgrade at least every two years, it ends up being more expensive. Existing users are badly screwed.

      But the biggest problem I have with this arrangement is that it leaves me completely dependent upon Adobe's good graces. At any time, they can decide to crank the price to $100 per month, and I can either pay it or I lose access to all my files. They can decide to drop Mac support, and I either buy a Windows box or I lose access to all my files. They can lose so many customers over this idiotic rental plan that they file for Chapter 7, and thirty days later, my files are no longer readable. And so on. It's a lack of permanence that I would have a very hard time swallowing, even as a corporate user, much less as a home user.

      In other words, this has all of the problems of a free Google App, only I'd be paying a quarter of a grand per year for the privilege of putting my faith in Adobe. And yet, this is a company whose management has so consistently proven themselves incompetent beyond measure that I have no faith that they will still be around in ten years.

      My prediction is that a sizable percentage of users will treat the Creative Cloud a stopgap measure, to allow them to get by until they can fully migrate away from Adobe products to a competing solution. Now would be an excellent time to short Adobe's stock. I fully expect it to go down to somewhere around $15 (just above their book value per share) in short order.

    • by emt377 (610337)

      I don't know where they got those numbers from. Photoshop CS6 alone is $627 on Amazon and Design Standard is $1127.98. That makes the $49.99 take more than 2 years to be more than the cost of outright purchasing it.

      Most buyers of the big suite packages are without doubt businesses where people use the tools for work. And from a business perspective a one-time purchase is an investment which in the U.S. is paid for with taxed money (at a 40-50% rate depending on state), and then depreciated over a number of years as determined by the IRS. A monthly recurring fee however is an expense. It's the same reason airlines sell their plane engines to financing groups, which then lease them back to the airline - a pure paper

  • I say fuck the cloud.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:28PM (#43659815)

    This is what cloud computing is all about. It's not about providing a service to customers that's better than what they can get at their own desktops. It's about returning us to the mainframe days when computing was a service and time on the machine was rented out to users. By refusing to publish popular consumer software and moving it onto the cloud where it can be accessed for a fee, software makers can collect rents from their users forever without even having to improve their software. They can also strictly control what users do with the program, what kinds of files they make and how often, and even monitor what they do, all such activities having their own business case.

    The push toward cloud computing, more accurately called centralized computing, is about taking as much control away from the user as possible and selling their computing experience back to them piecemeal at a greatly elevated price. Very few enterprises will actually benefit from this model and most of them are the ones selling, not buying, the software.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:43PM (#43659977)

      This is what cloud computing is all about. It's not about providing a service to customers that's better than what they can get at their own desktops.

      Indeed. Especially because, in this case, the software isn't even running on Adobe's infrastructure, it's still installed locally. The "Cloud" here consists exactly of a subscription pricing model and a more annoying DRM, which will probably be cracked anyway. From Adobe's website (http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html):

      Do I need ongoing Internet access to use my Creative Cloud desktop applications?

      No. Your Creative Cloud desktop applications (such as Photoshop and Illustrator) are installed directly on your computer, so you won't need an ongoing Internet connection to use them on a daily basis.

      You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you'll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you'll be able to use products for 180 days even if you're offline.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by e r (2847683)
      I agree with you completely. To everyone who sees the truth in this and doesn't like what Adobe is doing: 1. Are you using Linux right now? 2. If you're not using Linux, why not? It respects your freedom. The abuse of, and disregard for, your freedom is what angers you about what Adobe is doing right? 3. If you don't care about the stars-and-stripes freedom thing then do you care about technological progress? It seems to me that open source software-- at least open source infrastructure like operating sys
      • You neglected to mention that it's also an end-run around software licensing issues.

        And yes, a long-time Linux user here. I *like* having control of my own machine, thanks very much.

    • by Sir Holo (531007)
      Spot-on, parent poster. It's all about control and squeezing the customers for more money.

      If Adobe, or any other software companies, go to this model, I will simply refuse to "upgrade" as long as I can stand it. And, I suspect, by the time that I do need to "upgrade" (based not on new features but on OS compatibility), someone else will have entered the same market-space with a "boxed" product. I will switch over to that.

      The root of this SAS and cloud-based nonsense is that many software applications
    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:19PM (#43660325)

      This is what cloud computing is all about. It's not about providing a service to customers that's better than what they can get at their own desktops.

      No, it is not. Cloud computing is things like Amazon's EC2 cloud; Which provides people who host content on the internet the valuable service of being able to add extra capacity on demand. It eliminates the slashdot effect on websites. It's also useful for a variety of other functions, like video encoding/decoding, load balancing, etc. Cloud computing is a Good Thing.

      You've confused cloud computing with profiteering asshat corporations who are using it to effectively create a new kind of DRM. And like all forms of DRM, it isn't wanted, causes a wide range of problems, and screws over the paying customers. Which, from the article summary, is pretty much what everyone's predicting will happen.

  • by neile (139369) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:32PM (#43659847)
    The comparison should be made to Adobe CS6 Master Collection which is going for $2,100 on Amazon right now, not the smaller package of CS6 goes for $403.99. Adobe also announced the monthly cost for a single app will be $10/mo. for the first year, not the current $19.99/mo. Similarly, if you are an existing CS3 or higher owner, you can get the first year of everything for $39.99/mo. for the first year. Now I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad change, just pointing out that the summary's numbers aren't accurate.
    • The comparison should be made to Adobe CS6 Master Collection

      Only if you actually use most/all of the applications. I expect that many customers go for something less comprehensive like Design Standard instead, for a little over half the price you mentioned depending on the choice of package.

      With the prices actually being charged where I am and right now, not any hypothetical future ones they've said they'll do later or anything that is restricted to a short period of time or in another country, it works out cheaper to buy the entire package if you use more than two

    • by girlintraining (1395911) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:24PM (#43660363)

      The comparison should be made to Adobe CS6 Master Collection which is going for $2,100 on Amazon right now, not the smaller package of CS6 goes for $403.99. Adobe also announced the monthly cost for a single app will be $10/mo. for the first year, not the current $19.99/mo. Similarly, if you are an existing CS3 or higher owner, you can get the first year of everything for $39.99/mo. for the first year. Now I'm not saying whether this is a good or bad change, just pointing out that the summary's numbers aren't accurate.

      Yes, and it omits an important number: People who are going to run away screaming from the idea of paying a monthly subscription fee and will turn to software piracy instead. Adobe is basically walling off the consumer market and then pouring concrete over it to kill it off, while telling it's corporate buyers that subscriptions are the way to go. Well, businesses don't care... it's just another line item to them. Of course they'll sign on.

      And so it goes that Adobe becomes the enemy of self-employed graphic designers everywhere, attempting to destroy the artist who's barely scraping by.

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:33PM (#43659859)

    We have our full time employees and thus we know we need X seats of Microsoft Office split between Windows & Mac users. Well we're coming up on summer where we will have 3 - 5 interns working for us and bringing their own computers. Office365 gives us the ability to add an extra 3 seats for 4 months costing ~ $150 vs. $1500 to go buy extra seats. Actually one of the interns is a graphics arts major and instead of spending nearly $2k for software to be used by one person for a couple months it's going to cost us around $200 for Adobe Cloud. Usually we sub the graphics design stuff out, but we have a project the students will be working on over the summer. So for us, it gives us great flexibility being able to price things per project as opposed to having to sink large sums of money into software that we may only need for one project.

    Now to those like the graphics artist we hire to do most of our graphics work, yeah I can see where they'd be pissed. Many of them I know generally spend $2k and get about 4 years out of the software before upgrading. I still know a lot of professionals still using CS2 because it does all they need and see no reason to upgrade until they absolutely have to.

    • by SScorpio (595836)

      Spending $2k and getting four years of usage isn't a very good deal compared to this new offer.

      CS6 Master Collection retails for $2,600, though it's on sale for $2,100 on Amazon. $50/month x 48 = $2,400 so $300 more over those four years. Spreading out the cost of the purchase and getting all updated versions seems like the better deal.

      • by epyT-R (613989)

        Having control of access to your tools is worth as much as their capabilities..

    • by andydread (758754)
      The graphics artists would simply just extract that difference in the increase in their cost from you the customer. So look for your costs to go up.
  • by Todd Knarr (15451) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:34PM (#43659875) Homepage

    Worst is the potential for disruption of work. With the non-cloud model, users can upgrade on their schedule. If they're in the middle of a big project, they can postpone upgrading until they've got a few weeks of slack time. With the Cloud version it'll be very easy for Adobe to force upgrades when Adobe, not the user, wants. You can imagine the headaches that could create.

    • by Grashnak (1003791)

      Um, no. The adobe application updater works just like most updaters - it tells you there is an update and asks if you want to install it. You're quite free to say no, as I do all the time because I'm busy. On the other hand, they push out lots of of updates now that otherwise might have had to wait 2 years for the next version of the software. I'm quite happy with it, I don't mind the cost which is considerably less than I spend on coffee every month, but ymmv.

  • CS6 != Photoshop CS6 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Score Whore (32328) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:35PM (#43659879)

    Adobe Photoshop CS6 retails for $599 all by itself.

    Creative Cloud @ $50/mo includes:

    What's included in your
    Creative Cloud membership?

                    Photoshop® CS6 Extended
                    Photoshop Lightroom® 4
                    Illustrator® CS6
                    InDesign® CS6
                    Adobe Muse
                    Acrobat® XI Pro
                    Flash® Professional CS6
                    Flash Builder® 4.6 Premium Edition
                    Dreamweaver® CS6
                    Edge Tools & Services
                    Fireworks® CS6
                    Adobe Premiere® Pro CS6
                    After Effects® CS6
                    Adobe Audition® CS6
                    SpeedGrade CS6
                    Prelude CS6
                    Encore® CS6
                    Bridge CS6
                    Story CS6
                    Media Encoder CS6
                    Business Catalyst
                    Typekit
                    Device and PC sync
                    Cloud storage

    I begin to suspect that Nerval's Lobster and the slashdot editor Soulskill lack appropriate knowledge to be commenting on this subject.

    • by future assassin (639396) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:44PM (#43659995) Homepage

      And if you stop paying the cloud stops working....

    • Right in the summary, it is stated that a single app version will cost $19.99 a month. So if you just need Photoshop, you'll pay $19.99 each month instead of a one time fee of $599. This means you break even at the 30 month mark (a few months more if you pay for 25GB of Google Drive cloud storage to replicate Adobe's offering). This doesn't look too bad at first if you usually upgrade every 3 years, except that upgrading usually meant you'd get a discount on the new version. Instead of paying $599 every

  • Complete Rip-off (Score:5, Informative)

    by MatthiasF (1853064) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:36PM (#43659897)
    Everyone is comparing the costs to a NEW full license of the suites or programs, but that's only a small half of the story. Those of us that have already made the investment of a full copy and can upgrade, these changes are a complete RIP OFF.

    The cost of upgrading CS5.5 Premium Design suite to CS6 is $375. Cost of Creative Cloud? $50 a month, $600 a year.

    We use to only upgrade Adobe suites every 2-3 years, at $375 a pop. Now for the same thing, we must pay $1200-1800 over those two to three years?

    That's an increase of 200-250% depending on your suite.

    Why is no one bringing this up?
  • by goodmanj (234846) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:38PM (#43659913)

    I want cloud storage! My boss says it's going to be the next big thing to contextualize our value process, so I have to have it! Hmm, let's see:

    13 months of Creative Cloud with 20 GB of cloud storage: $650
    Infinity months of Creative Suite 6 plus 13 months of 25 GB Google Drive storage: $635
    Being able to put non-Adobe files in my cloud storage: priceless.

    • Being able to put non-Adobe files in my cloud storage: priceless.

      Creative Cloud let's you put non-Adobe files in your cloud drive. It's just a file store, like Google Drive. I keep Apple Motion and bitmap files in mine just fine, and it'll sync them.

      There are a lot of issues in Creative Cloud, but that's not one of them. Not to mention, Creative Suite Master Collection (which is what Creative Cloud is) is $2000, so even ignoring the cloud storage entirely, Creative Cloud is the better deal.

  • Company gets greedy, company raises prices, opportunities become more enticing for competitors. Sure it will take the market a little while to react, but if the vacuum at the reasonable end of the price spectrum creates more competition from paid or FOSS alternatives, I'm cool with that.
  • Can someone enlighten me why you'd want to store or access potentially giant images on their happy shiny 'creative cloud' considering it could take minutes or even hours to load or save a picture/project? It's not like we live in the future where everyone gets a consistent 1GB/second upload/download.
    • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

      Can someone enlighten me why you'd want to store or access potentially giant images on their happy shiny 'creative cloud' considering it could take minutes or even hours to load or save a picture/project?

      Because it's the cloud, man, the cloud! Jesus Christ, how many times do we have to tell people that?

      Seriously though, did anyone ever think that software as a service was going to at all be geared toward the consumers? Just wait until you se what those prices will end up being from Adobe, Microsoft, and whoever decides you are going to rent their software. And no more choices either. If Adobe wants to have a Metro interface? Enjoy that! You will get your software updated when they want you to, and you wil

    • by JDG1980 (2438906)

      Can someone enlighten me why you'd want to store or access potentially giant images on their happy shiny 'creative cloud' considering it could take minutes or even hours to load or save a picture/project?

      They don't. "Cloud" is just a marketing buzzword. This is rental software that is required to phone home once a month or it stops working. Other than that it runs the same as before.

  • by Solandri (704621) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:46PM (#43660003)
    Creative Suite 6 comes in all sorts of different versions. Based on the comparison chart [googleusercontent.com] (which Adobe replaced with a link forwarder to Creative Cloud), it looks like the equivalent CS6 version is Master Collection, which is $2100 on Amazon retail, $900 upgrade. So at $50/mo that'd be equivalent to 3.5 years for the initial purchase, and 1.5 years between upgrades (granted $50/mo is their introductory pricing).

    Don't get me wrong, I think this is a terrible idea, and am thanking my lucky stars the only Adobe software I use extensively anymore is Lightroom, which for the time being can still be purchased as a standalone version. But for people/companies who actively use the different CS products and upgrade them with each release, it doesn't sound like that bad a deal. It will suck for casual users though. I keep an old copy of Photoshop CS2 around for the stuff I can't do in Lightroom. I feel sorry for the kids graduating now - if they need to touch up one photo in PS, they'll have to pay $20/mo for a year = $240 for that casual use.
    • There's also a $75 one-month-access fee that you can pay if you need the software every so often. So it looks like the people who upgrade constantly will win out, the people who only use it once every year will win out (not needing to lay out hundreds of dollars for a few uses), but the people who buy one version and use it for years won't.

    • by westlake (615356)

      I feel sorry for the kids graduating now - if they need to touch up one photo in PS, they'll have to pay $20/mo for a year = $240 for that casual use.

      Photoshop isn't a tool for the casual user --- and never has been.

      If it's crunch time and you need the pro's $2700 tool kit for a month or three months then rent it for a month or three months,

  • Pirate proposal (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Okian Warrior (537106) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:52PM (#43660065) Homepage Journal

    Assuming that the software exists on the vendor's server, suppose the following:

    1) I purchase a subscription to Creative Suite

    2) I setup my computer to allow others [that I choose] to remotely use the internet as if from my computer

    3) I sell time on my computer to allow others to use Creative Suite from my computer when I'm not using it

    4) Profit!

    This will clearly be a violation of their terms of service, but isn't it protected under the first sale doctrine? Is there any way that they can enforce a ban on this activity?

    A website similar to Craigslist could let people register their computers, the software they have registrations for, and the hours when it will be available. The website would manage time, passwords, and payment. Sounds like a potential business opportunity.

    Note that Windows already has most of the features you need for this (keeping the remote user out of your personal files, for example).

  • by knarf (34928) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @06:58PM (#43660113) Homepage

    While the concept of freedom which lies at the base of the term 'free software' still continues to be misunderstood by many, these nebulous moves by all those entrenched purveyors of proprietary software should make it clear to even the most bone-headed sub-species of manager. Free software means you get to run it the way you want, when you want, however often you want, without any risk of the software suddenly disappearing because you missed a payment or the vendor went out of business or or or...

    In short, if the cloud gets so nebulous you can't even see your wallet in your hands any more, just follow the beacon to dot.org which has been shining for years now without you even noticing.

  • Cloud vs. App Store (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bostonidealist (2009964) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:01PM (#43660161) Journal

    Cloud/Software-As-A-Service/Web Apps are obvious wins for the Googles/Microsofts/Adobes of the world. They

    1. 1. eliminate piracy
    2. 2. guarantee a steady revenue stream
    3. 3. allow vendors to data-mine user behavior
    4. 4. avoid App store sales fees

    Adobe's move is not just about locking-in customers, it's about ensuring that they don't have to give Apple and Microsoft a cut of all their sales. Gatekeeper on the Mac and Windows RT are harbingers of Apple's and Microsoft's long-term strategies: force everything through the App store and skim off the top. All the major software vendors are fighting a war and the consumers caught in the crossfire.

  • by luminate (318382) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:06PM (#43660187)
    Huh? $403.99 is for the Design and Web Premium Student and Teacher Edition while the $49.99/month cloud service gets you the Master Collection for commercial use (currently ~$2100). While it certainly isn't a better deal for everyone (students, those that rarely upgrade or only want a few of the apps), it looks like a great deal for current non-academic master collection users. That said, it seems backwards to substantially lower the price for the customers that can most afford it (commercial master collection users) and jack up the price on students and casual users. I don't blame them for trying the cell phone model though. It's amazing how much people will throw away if the cost is amortized over a long period.
  • by BoRegardless (721219) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:13PM (#43660259)

    As Bill Gates was just quoted, 90% of MS software in use in the Chinese government offices and in large companies (mostly government owned) is pirated.

    If Adobe is doing this to stop piracy in foreign countries that is their choice. That doesn't mean Adobe will be my choice.

    I think I will do my light duty image editing in other applications from now on. No way am I going to store images of patent pending proprietary products on Adobe's servers or my own equipment that Adobe can deny me access to whenever I don't come up with their monthly fee, for whatever reason (ever heard of credit card theft and a card is cancelled: been there already).

  • Software subscriptions have been the Holy Grail for decades now. Consumers have generally - so far - been wise enough to reject it in general, but like IP legislation the potential gains are so enormous that corporations will never stop trying to reinvent it in a palatable fashion. Here we go again....

  • by Jason Levine (196982) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:26PM (#43660369)

    So they claim that their cloud offering will save money because you won't need to spend money on a separate cloud storage service? Ok, let's suppose you were going to pay for a cloud storage service. I'll pick the one I use: Google Drive. (I'm guessing other providers will be competitive in pricing.) I use their free offering, but let's say I wanted 20GB. 25GB of Google Drive storage costs $2.49 a month. (Source. [google.com]) Their $49.99 monthly fee could buy you 20 months of 25GB Google Drive.

    Suppose you had an extra $49.99 that you were going to spend anyway. How much Google Drive could you get (instead of renting Adobe's software+20GB)? 1TB.

    So, depending on how you look at it, Adobe's offering is either 20 times more expensive or 50 times more expensive than Google Drive. How is this saving the customer money again, Adobe??!!!

  • Adobe will lose (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pubwvj (1045960) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @07:40PM (#43660469)

    "it's easy to see that, over a long enough timeline, and with the right financial model in place, the companies providing those services stand to benefit even more than they did with boxed software."

    Not really. Adobe stands to lose a lot of customers. There are alternatives to all of their software. Adobe's move just makes look more closely to the competition.

  • Time for a comeback (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tezbobobo (879983) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @08:09PM (#43660671) Homepage Journal
    Quark, Corel, anyone else?
  • by MarkvW (1037596) on Tuesday May 07, 2013 @08:17PM (#43660719)

    I've spent a lot of money, and a lot of time learning Adobe products--and this is how that corporation treats me.

    I've got to run the numbers, but I think that I am done with Adobe. Microsoft is Jesus compared to them.

  • by VeryVito (807017) on Wednesday May 08, 2013 @01:17AM (#43662543) Homepage

    With a guaranteed income from locked-in design professionals, Adobe can finally stop worrying about innovating with each new release. They can continue to sell the same version for years to come, month by month, with no expectation of adding new features, capabilities, etc.

    Sadly, Adobe also owns a boatload of patents when it comes to computer-based graphic design, so the threat of serious competition from new upstarts is almost nil, too.

    Don't speak ill of your new owners.

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...