ADOBE sued, finally

[retina_restoration]

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.

 

[MattKing]

Elements is not even remotely a substitute for Lightroom.

I know.
Which means you either have to pay more in order to use/continue to use Lightroom, accept a substantial compromise within the Adobe line, or seek a competitive alternative like Corel Aftershot Pro.
.

 

[brbo]

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.

This.

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.

I bought a "perpetual" license software for a high(er) end scanner, I'm a bit embarrassed to say how much it was because. I was quickly reminded that even the good guys have very little incentive to fix even obvious bugs let alone add features once they get your money.

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?

It might be that, but if Adobe is indeed...

"During enrollment, Adobe hides material terms of its APM plan in fine print and behind optional textboxes and hyperlinks, providing disclosures that are designed to go unnoticed and that most consumers never see," the suit reads, referring to Adobe's "annual, paid monthly" plan. "As part of this convoluted process, Adobe ambushes subscribers with the previously obscured ETF when they attempt to cancel," the suit reads, referring to the early termination fee. "Through these practices, Adobe has violated federal laws designed to protect consumers."


then even if user is paying lower "yearly/paid monthly" subscription, he/she should clearly be made aware of all the gotchas that come with lower price.

 

[MFstooges]

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.

I fail to understand why people like the subscription model as much as I fail to understand non business people who leases their car. I grew on DOS and Windows 3.1, if I don't like the product then I will not buy. With subscription I have to keep my mouth open when the manufacturer shoves the unnecessary features right down your throat. And then 2 years later I have to "upgrade" my hardware. It's a planned obsolescence scam.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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).

My point is in response to people who claim subscription is cheaper. It isn't. Not for most people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Most products reach maturity after a few years. Updates add marginal incremental value. So they're hard to sell. Subscription models overcome new purchase resistance. It allows companies to multiply their profits with little development and few meaningful features. You're locked in paying "forever".

It's nothing new. In the 1950s, AT&T used to charge a monthly price to "rent" your home telephone, a few dollars a month. Seems cheap. However, people were still paying for them 20-25 years in their monthly service bills at a total cost of maybe 20 times their real purchase value. Comcast was charging me $10 a month plus sales tax for their modem-router. I bought my own for $200 and now make a "profit" of $10 a month. Had I continued to pay Comcast after living here ten years using their service, that $200 modem would have cost me $1200 in total monthly rental fees. And I'd still be paying. So it is with Adobe software.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[warden]

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.

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.

 

[BradS]

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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 $$?

 

[brbo]

If only there was a way not to use Adobe products…

 

[BradS]

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.

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.

You don't think we have reason to complain about their decision to milk us for more $$?

I guess it's kinda like smokers complaining when, many years ago, the price of cigarettes went above $10.00 a pack. If you don't think it worth it, just quit.
(but clearly, you think it is worth it so...)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Adobe bean counters figured out that stand alone products were less profitable. That's why they went to subscription. I believe them.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

So, you're suggesting that the 0.2% of Adobe's customers who bought the standalone version of Lightroom were critical to Adobe's survival? Because I have a hard time believing that Adobe's decision to cut off the "standalone" customers had a significant impact on their revenue. That was a tiny portion of their customer base. TINY. So as far as I can see, it was a greed issue. Adobe simply wants to squeeze even the hobbyists for as much as they can.

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?

 

[brbo]

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?

Switch from Lightroom to Capture One. In one minute.

Or ON1.

You should switch NOW, since all the Lightroom competition will probably try to lure users away from Adobe with special deals while they are still under impression that Adobe Terms of Use changed. For example ON1 has a summer deal with a price of 59 EUR (down from 242).

 

[BradS]

So ... Adobe simply wants to squeeze even the hobbyists for as much as they can.

Yes, of course. Why would you expect them to do otherwise?

It sounds to me like you work for Adobe....

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.

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?

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.
Are you quite certain that nothing exists to migrate "stuff" from LightRoom to ... something else?

 

[warden]

Adobe bean counters figured out that stand alone products were less profitable. That's why they went to subscription. I believe them.

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.

 

[MattKing]

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".

 

[Tom Kershaw]

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.

- and as you've mentioned previously, there are a good range of alternatives to the Adobe applications that are suitably fully-featured for many users.

 

[Hassasin]

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.

 

[warden]

. 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.

Huh? I guess we’ve been reading two different threads.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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".

I agree monthly service charges are a great method for the company. But it costs customers more in the long run. My company used to service electronic equipment in office buildings. I never offered Time and Material service where I would get called in and paid only when a repair was needed. I only offered service contracts where the monthly fee was a set price. I would increase the cost regularly based on CPI. I had some customers for twenty years paying the monthly fee. I could charge more and the cash flow was consistent, really important for running a business.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Worse than just one company, there is an incestuous relation between many companies where updates of one force updates from the others as all gain in soaking the customers. When operating systems are updated, whether on desktops, cellphone, or other systems, the apps from the other companies get to charge for updates to their programs. In many cases, customers have to replace hardware. For example, when Chase Bank updated their banking app, it wouldn't work on my older Samsung cellphone until I replaced the phone at $1000.. How well is your old scanner working on the newer operating software systems? Each update or change affects the others and every company gains from the changes except the paying consumer.

 

[Chan Tran]

They will settle. Pay some money. Change the wording on their subscription to make it clearer. But they will go on making lot of money with the subscription model. Why? The subscription model is overwhelmingly supported by their customers. They couldn't make it without the customers support.

 

[retina_restoration]

Let's just keep in mind we are talking about a company that is being sued by the FTC for deceptive and unscrupulous business practices aimed at manipulating and misleading their customers, and making it as difficult as possible to quit the service.

I think at this stage it is worth asking yourself "Am I being unfairly manipulated by Adobe via their questionable practices?" It's not about whether or not I am "getting value for my money". I resent being told "No, you may not have those tools anymore, you must pay continuously, forever, to have access to the new tools". I was perfectly comfortable with upgrading every 24 months or so to "modernize" my work environment, but when that was no longer possible thanks to Adobe's business model changing, I was obligated to submit to a "pay and pay and pay some more" model or lose access to the tools (and my work). If some people can't understand why I feel resentful for being held hostage in this manner, so be it. But I have difficulty understanding how some here - in an analog photography community - want to defend what Adobe does to its customers.