Elements is not even remotely a substitute for Lightroom.
Sure they do: https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop-elements.html
And there are other good competing options that offer a similar amount of functionality.
It is just that the "hobby level" people want the "professional level" functionality.
Elements is not even remotely a substitute for Lightroom.
And there are other good competing options that offer a similar amount of functionality.
It is just that the "hobby level" people want the "professional level" functionality.
The Adobe monthly fee is a lot less than the amount I used to have to pay for (non-photographic) business software for my business when I needed that.
The referenced lawsuit makes sense - if it is indeed difficult to cancel the subscriptions which are intended to be cancellable at any time.
I note, however, that Adobe offers two ways of paying monthly. A higher amount, for people who want to cancel with no more than a month's notice, and another, lower monthly cost option, that requires a commitment to subscribe for a year at a time.
I wonder how many complaints originate from people who opted in for the lower payment option, and then are upset when they find that their choice requires them to pay for a whole year?
I fail to understand people's dislike of the subscription model. It is perfect to always be up-to-date for little $. Before, I had to purchase again every couple of years, which was more expensive and kept me out of date most of the time.
Nothing wrong with a corporation increasing its revenue, decreasing costs and thereby improving profit margin. That's kinda what business is all about - isn't it?
The subscription model improves revenue by eliminating piracy.
It reduces distribution costs and and eliminates warranty costs resulting in a concomitant reduction in the producer's cost.
The small monthly subscription fee changes the customers' burden from a large, upfront capital outlay to a small monthly expense while also greatly reducing the customer risk associated with purchase - both of which might increase the number of customers willing and able to buy/use the product - increasing sales.
Undoubtedly, there are/were also, external market factors that might also have increased the company's sales - for example, an increase in YouTube content creators during the period.
These factors would all tend to improve profit margin - would they not?
I don't understand the outrage. The company is providing a product at at price. Lots of folks apparently see it as a good value and are happy to subscribe and enjoy the quality and utility of the product.
If you don't think it is a good value, don't subscribe. Use something else, make your own software package, whatever but don't bitch about the company being successful...just vote with your wallet. The rest will take care of itself (the invisible hand of the market and all of that).
The features I actually use in Photoshop have been present since like CS1 (circa 2003).
I haven't ever found a need to use the new whiz-bang stuff like intelligent background detection or AI powered XYZ selection tools. Call me a luddite.
Not being able to use CS6 anymore after I had already paid for it, and being forced to pay a monthly subscription in return for "new features whenever they come out" feels very much like being sucked dry by a vampire in exchange for nothing I actually need or want. The impression I'm left with is, Adobe saturated the market, couldn't innovate enough to get people excited about buying newer versions of their products, and switched to a subscription model out of greed and nothing else.
I suspect I'm not in the minority here.
Generative fill, AI tools and many other features that have been invented since CS6 are game changers in the industry, full stop. It wouldn't matter if Adobe tools were based on subscription or not, people would absolutely buy them because innovating in this area and others is important and Adobe are at the head of the pack serving a population of creative professionals seeking competitive advantage.
You don't want the innovative features that Adobe has invested so heavily in during the twelve years since CS6 and that's cool because there are other products currently that work similarly to CS6, but to suggest Adobe can't innovate enough to get customers excited to purchase a new version is absurd.
It would be great if they offered both subscription and stand alone options, and maybe one day they will. there is no reason that a stand alone version of Photoshop has to be less profitable for Adobe than the subscription model after all.
There is no stand-alone product to compare the subscription model to so I'm not sure how you know it would be less profitable. My suggestion is to have two models (purchase or subscribe) that are equally profitable for Adobe, however they choose to define that, and let the customer choose.But stand-alone is less profitable for them. That's why they don't have it for most of their products. Their bottom line has gone up multifold after they went subscription.
This strikes me as remarkably tone deaf - much like how Adobe speaks to its customers.
Once upon a time, not long ago, it was possible for "hobby photographers"* to buy a one time license to Lightroom, and for those of us who do not make money using Adobe's products, it was an acceptable cost. But now, we are obligated top pay and pay and pay, indefinitely if we want to maintain access to our catalogs and tools.
The fact that Adobe doesn't see hobby level photographers as distinct from their "professional" users is one of the problems some of us have with Adobe. Another issue I have with Adobe is that it is not possible to subscribe to Lightroom alone - I have to buy Photoshop as well, a product I have no use for whatsoever. This "bundling" of products should be outlawed.
Tone deaf? Maybe. Here's what I hear....
I hear a few people expressing frustration and outrage, saying things like, "obligated to pay" and it suggests to me that people place a very high value on the products and services but don't want to pay the price at which those products and services are offered. I hear people expressing outrage that Adobe have chosen a business model that allows them to stay in business, to continue to offer highly valuable products and services and to continuously improve and evolve those products and services.
What do you say to a customer who wants you overhaul the film advance mechanism and leave everything else alone? Why?
What do you say to a customer who wants a full and complete overhaul (on a rusty basket case) but only wants to pay $50? Why?
Do you allow your customers to dictate what products and services you offer?
Do you allow them to dictate your pricing?
No, you offer specific services at specific prices.
I hope that we do not demand others to produce according to their ability and give according to need - it ends badly.
The bottom line is that Adobe offered - for YEARS - an excellent product that you could buy ONCE and use for years, and it was a use case that ideally suited "non-professionals". And then, they took that option away and demanded more money in a continuous stream of payments.
You don't think we have reason to complain about their decision to milk us for more $$?
There is no stand-alone product to compare the subscription model to so I'm not sure how you know it would be less profitable. My suggestion is to have two models (purchase or subscribe) that are equally profitable for Adobe, however they choose to define that, and let the customer choose.
It is quite possible that Adobe realized that the old way of doing business was not sustainable. They seem to have discovered a business model that allows the company survive and thrive. I'm sure the employees and the vast majority of users prefer the latter.
In regards to quitting: I have ten years worth of my photography catalogued in Lightroom. Quitting means abandoning any hope of ever using that material in a meaningful way, ever again. Not such an easy choice, is it?
Yes, of course. Why would you expect them to do otherwise?So ... Adobe simply wants to squeeze even the hobbyists for as much as they can.
Nope. I'm am a retired software engineer and I did live and work in the Silicon Valley for more than twenty years but my area of specialization was far more valuable to the companies where I worked than it would have been to Adobe. Naturally, I chose to extract as much value for my skills and talent as possible.It sounds to me like you work for Adobe....
Therein lies the value. That you continue to pay implies that you understand the value. I get it...they gave you the hook...now you're resentful.In regards to quitting: I have ten years worth of my photography catalogued in Lightroom. Quitting means abandoning any hope of ever using that material in a meaningful way, ever again. Not such an easy choice, is it?
Alan you are determined to talk about the past when I am addressing the future. There are no decisions that Adobe has ever made that are set in stone. The business world is in a constant state of change and Adobe changes every day, just like every other company. The subscription model as we know it may not exist in five years time.Adobe bean counters figured out that stand alone products were less profitable. That's why they went to subscription. I believe them.
A subscription model forces customers to keep up to date, which in turn makes it much easier to support a business' customers, which lowers costs and, as a result, improves profits.
If it also improves consistency of cash flow, than that is good too.
Huh? I guess we’ve been reading two different threads.. Thread gravitated to how we all, hobbyists and pros alike, should be supportive of corporate greed, no complaints, just suck it up and be grateful.
I've no doubt that the cost to Adobe of supporting non-professional users was far higher for non-subscription products than for subscription products.
Having to deal with supporting lots of customers with non-standard or semi-obsolete operating systems, as well as customers of widely varying skills, experience and knowledge whose update purchase frequency is inconsistent and often extremely delayed, makes for very high costs and the need to have all sorts of resources devoted to legacy system/user support.
Photoshop is not designed for users of widely varying skills, experience and knowledge - it is designed for users who make their living with it, plus a relatively small number of people whose use is based on wanting to use a graphics program with capacities far greater than the users need.
A subscription model forces customers to keep up to date, which in turn makes it much easier to support a business' customers, which lowers costs and, as a result, improves profits.
If it also improves consistency of cash flow, than that is good too.
So in that way, I expect the "bean counter" reference is at least partially correct. But it isn't because of "increased prices".
Sounds like a lot of posters now feel there is nothing wrong with how Adobe has been treated its subscription customers. It's in fact the fault of those who chose not to accept what happened. Thread gravitated to how we all, hobbyists and pros alike, should be supportive of corporate greed, no complaints, just suck it up and be grateful.
This has never been about what others have to offer in the field, not about alternative solutions. These have been doing well on their own, some possibly due to Adobe going awol on stand alone.
How many customers has Adobe lost due to moving away from once a standard? Impossible to tell, but more importantly Adobe couldn't care less. No corporate business cares these days about low key crowd. It's only about how much more can be squeezed out of an offering.
And when current model structure reaches its profit limit, there will be a switch to another, that will render current obsolete, of course with a cute explanation how critical it is to take the new route. And the play will continue. There is no going back from this.
More of these kind of law suits may prolong hopes things will indeed change. At the same time markets are being taken over by new generation that's been raised to accept the latest and greatest as the only way, without a challenge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?