ADOBE sued, finally

[Alan Edward Klein]

It is a question of semantics, I know, but rentals are licenses and vice versa.
How one pays for what one rents/licenses, and what the terms of that rental/license can vary immensely.
As it says of the Agreement for my copy of Corel Paintshop Pro.
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT: THIS IS A LICENSE, NOT A SALE

When our dog died, my wife insisted we bury it in the dog cemetery, which we did, casket, plot and all. She didn;t want it cremated. About $900. The following year we got a surprise bill for $79 to buy the annual service charge to take care for the plot including plantings etc. They bill it every year. If you stop paying, after five years they dig up your dog, cremate it, and throw the ashes around the cemetery despite you having bought the plot originally. The plot returns to the cemetery for resale to another sucker. The alternative is to buy for about $1500, a "forever" contract that they take care of the plot until time stops and won't dig up and discard your pet. I think the cemetery manager used to work for Adobe. Or vice versa. Anyway, we paid the $1500.

 

[MattKing]

I'm sure they did the math, and predict a certain percentage will pay for those seats. However, what if nobody subscribed? I seriously doubt they would lose money in that situation. The hardware is already in the price of the car, whether one subscribes or not.

This sales model merely reflects a reality of the marketplace - it is far more expensive to have lots of differently equipped cars in different dealerships, than it is to install the seats in all of them and license the use to the end users who want it.

 

[MattKing]

When our dog died, my wife insisted we bury it in the dog cemetery, which we did, casket, plot and all. She didn;t want it cremated. About $900. The following year we got a surprise bill for $79 to buy the annual service charge to take care for the plot including plantings etc. They bill it every year. If you stop paying, after five years they dig up your dog, cremate it, and throw the ashes around the cemetery despite you having bought the plot originally. The plot returns to the cemetery for resale to another sucker. The alternative is to buy for about $1500, a "forever" contract that they take care of the plot until time stops and won't dig up and discard your pet. I think the cemetery manager used to work for Adobe. Or vice versa. Anyway, we paid the $1500.

I'm sorry about your dog.
But I somehow doubt your dog's plot requires continuous updating in a highly competitive marketplace, where the "cemetery" software is constantly being updated.
And as I'm sure you don't need to be told, you should have read in detail the material from the cemetery before you signed.

 

[retina_restoration]

You ignored my point:

The problem with renting software in this case is that it was only after Adobe captured the market with the sale of their software, that they turned the screws on their existing customers forcing them to the subscription or die option.

I am inclined to think this as well.

Adobe knew they had captured an audience and whatever their motives (survival, or greed?), they chose to eliminate options that were friendlier to hobby-level artists/photographers* and treated everyone as if cost was not an issue. It's not so much the price I am now paying for Adobe's hostageware (though gawd knows I am paying more than twice what I was per 24 months), but the fact that Adobe's scheme for continuing to buy into their toolset treats me as if I am making swimming pools of cash using their tools, when in fact I make ZERO from my work. (Unless I sell a print, which these days happens less and less: maybe one every 2 years at the current rate)

Fact is, I really cannot justify the cost (and the emotional burden) of paying for Lightroom anymore, since it's only supporting my hobby (because no matter who you are, if you're not making $$$$ from photography, then it's just a hobby). If I stop paying, I am cut off from much of the functionality supporting a 10 year archive of work.

It also irks me that I do not have an option to subscribe to Lightroom alone - I must buy a package that includes Photoshop (and now Bridge, and the Firefly AI crap that is now inserted into their software, plus their creative cloud, which I will not use, since Adobe has it in their TOS that they can scrape my CC files to train their LLMs). You can rationalize Adobe's business model all you like, and even though I agree that "the subscription models guarantees their survival", there is no option to buy just the tools I need at a price that I can reasonably justify. I have every right to feel used/abused by Adobe. The FTC agrees with me.

*which is undoubtedly 99% of the people reading this forum.

 

[Chan Tran]

It is a question of semantics, I know, but rentals are licenses and vice versa.
How one pays for what one rents/licenses, and what the terms of that rental/license can vary immensely.
As it says of the Agreement for my copy of Corel Paintshop Pro.
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT: THIS IS A LICENSE, NOT A SALE

As I said software are rarely sold although sometimes they do sell. But licenced is not the same as rent.

 

[BradS]

@retina_restoration and anybody else who feels victimized by Adobe's subscription pricing...
What if...
1) Adobe offered one time purchase, ten year license for say, $3000 ?
2) or how about a five year license for $2000 ?
3) Adobe offered Light Room only subscription at 90% of the price for the full package?

what are your assumptions?

 

[warden]

I am cut off from much of the functionality supporting a 10 year archive of work.

My advice - don’t let it become eleven. Switch now and make the most of the software you end up using. After all you might be surprised at how good your new software can be since it appears you don’t use the newest Adobe features anyway.

I have every right to feel used/abused by Adobe. The FTC agrees with me.

Yes you have every right to your feelings and it’s clear this really bothers you. The FTC isn’t going to solve your problem though, only you can, and I hope you do.

 

[Chan Tran]

@retina_restoration and anybody else who feels victimized by Adobe's subscription pricing...
What if...
1) Adobe offered one time purchase, ten year license for say, $3000 ?
2) or how about a five year license for $2000 ?
3) Adobe offered Light Room only subscription at 90% of the price for the full package?

what are your assumptions?

I still use CS2 and it's licensed to me forever not 10 years. I know how to keep it running. If the license is only for limited time then after that time they can procecute you if you keep using it.

 

[retina_restoration]

@retina_restoration and anybody else who feels victimized by Adobe's subscription pricing...
What if...
1) Adobe offered one time purchase, ten year license for say, $3000 ?
2) or how about a five year license for $2000 ?
3) Adobe offered Light Room only subscription at 90% of the price for the full package?

what are your assumptions?

Lightroom 6 - which is what I was using up till Adobe made it incompatible with 2023 operating systems - cost $149 as a standalone product, and for that price I knew I could get 2-3 years of service out of it before some mandatory upgrade (software or hardware) made it necessary to buy the next iteration of it.

In what scenario does $1000 per year to buy a license even remotely resemble their previous "buy as standalone" model?? Get real.

 

[BradS]

Lightroom 6 - which is what I was using up till Adobe made it incompatible with 2023 operating systems - cost $149 as a standalone product, and for that price I knew I could get 2-3 years of service out of it before some mandatory upgrade (software or hardware) made it necessary to buy the next iteration of it.

In what scenario does $1000 per year to buy a license even remotely resemble their previous "buy as standalone" model?? Get real.

Wow! I wasn't aware that they were giving it away (I've never bought or even used any of their products - except for the free pdf reader). That price is/was very clearly NOT sustainable. Seriously, that was a gift...essentially free. It was the "Grab Market share" price.

No wonder you're upset.

 

[MattKing]

But licenced is not the same as rent.

When it comes to personalty, it is a distinction without a difference.
It all turns on what the terms are, which in turn turn on what the market expectations are.
Which is, in fact, the crux of this thread's subject.
I wonder how Adobe's income is divided between their various products. I wouldn't be surprised if the wording at issue and the cancellation procedure at issue came from the Acrobat part of their business, which may very well be the largest portion of their business, and will mostly involve business customers.
I'm sure if they are found to be wrong, the result will force changes, and they will be called to account.

 

[retina_restoration]

Wow! I wasn't aware that they were giving it away (I've never bought or even used any of their products - except for the pdf reader). That price is/was very clearly NOT sustainable. Seriously, that was a gift...essentially free. It was the "Grab Market share" price. I absolutely guarantee they would have gone out of business had they continued that way.

No wonder you're upset.

They were only "giving it away" to a very specific, very tiny segment of their user base. The photographers who opted to buy a license to the Lightroom only version were so insignificant to their survival strategy as to be immaterial. Removing that option for those of us to had bought Lightroom that way for years was one of the most hostile things Adobe could have done.
It's absurd to suggest that the people who bought Lightroom 6 that was had any significant impact on Adobe's bottom line.

 

[MattKing]

It also irks me that I do not have an option to subscribe to Lightroom alone

I just checked, and I can subscribe to Lightroom alone at $12.99 CDN a month.
This page on the Adobe website seems to offer it to US residents for $9.99 a month: https://commerce.adobe.com/store/co...380437117D&cli=adobe_com&ctx=fp&co=US&lang=en
Are you unable to access that?

 

[Chan Tran]

I just checked, and I can subscribe to Lightroom alone at $12.99 CDN a month.
This page on the Adobe website seems to offer it to US residents for $9.99 a month: https://commerce.adobe.com/store/commitment?items[0][id]=7D31EB7B815967837F7882380437117D&cli=adobe_com&ctx=fp&co=US&lang=en
Are you unable to access that?

It's not $9.99 a month really. It's $120 a year but you paid $9.99 a month but you have to subcribe for at least a year. This is where the lawsuit is about because it made people think it's a monthly thing.

 

[MattKing]

It's not $9.99 a month really. It's $120 a year but you paid $9.99 a month but you have to subcribe for at least a year. This is where the lawsuit is about because it made people think it's a monthly thing.

I understand the allegation.
I guess I don't understand what people find misleading about this:

The red highlighting has been added by me.

The fact that it is difficult to cancel is blameworthy. But the fact that you are going to have to pay for a whole year (or some lesser early termination fee) if you don't cancel within the cancellation period seems straightforward.

 

[retina_restoration]

I just checked, and I can subscribe to Lightroom alone at $12.99 CDN a month.
This page on the Adobe website seems to offer it to US residents for $9.99 a month: https://commerce.adobe.com/store/commitment?items[0][id]=7D31EB7B815967837F7882380437117D&cli=adobe_com&ctx=fp&co=US&lang=en
Are you unable to access that?

I can access that plan, yes. But that's exactly the same price as the Lightroom + Photoshop plan, which is far easier to find on Adobe's site. They have done their best to hide the Lightroom only subscription from view (I have no idea how you found that option - it's so well hidden); they want users to have both tools - probably to keep people addicted to both. (Though I still have no use for Photoshop)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm sorry about your dog.
But I somehow doubt your dog's plot requires continuous updating in a highly competitive marketplace, where the "cemetery" software is constantly being updated.
And as I'm sure you don't need to be told, you should have read in detail the material from the cemetery before you signed.

...and tell my wife, what?

 

[MattKing]

I can access that plan, yes. But that's exactly the same price as the Lightroom + Photoshop plan, which is far easier to find on Adobe's site. They have done their best to hide the Lightroom only subscription from view (I have no idea how you found that option - it's so well hidden); they want users to have both tools - probably to keep people addicted to both. (Though I still have no use for Photoshop)

Interesting, because when I go to the US Adobe site, and click on the Photo options, I get a price of twice that - $19.99 per month - for both Photoshop and Lightroom.

 

[MattKing]

...and tell my wife, what?

That we are going to have to pay a lot to bury our dog there for a long time.

 

[retina_restoration]

Interesting, because when I go to the US Adobe site, and click on the Photo options, I get a price of twice that - $19.99 per month - for both Photoshop and Lightroom.

My plan costs $119.88 per year, paid in one lump sum (see attached). If I was asked to pay $20 a month for what I'm getting, I would certainly seek out an alternative (or go without).

Also, back in August of 2022 when I was planning my path ahead, I had several phone discussions with Adobe support and was told unequivocally that there was no option to subscribe to Lightroom alone, only bundled with Photoshop. Either I was misled, or that option has been created since September of 2022.

 

[MattKing]

So as an existing subscriber for two software products, they are charging you less (~1/2) than if you were to sign up as a new subscriber. Which is certainly at least some incentive to stay with them.

 

[retina_restoration]

So as an existing subscriber for two software products, they are charging you less (~1/2) than if you were to sign up as a new subscriber. Which is certainly at least some incentive to stay with them.

So it appears. I'm surprised to discover this.

 

[MattKing]

So it appears. I'm surprised to discover this.

I would say that I'm glad I could help, but I am not sure if I've actually helped.
I will agree that the product options and pricing structures for all the plethora of Adobe products is as easy to navigate as - well - a Photoshop menu.

Of course, I'm not currently using anything from Adobe other than Acrobat Reader.

 

[TomR55]

I am inclined to think this as well.

Adobe knew they had captured an audience and whatever their motives (survival, or greed?), they chose to eliminate options that were friendlier to hobby-level artists/photographers* and treated everyone as if cost was not an issue. It's not so much the price I am now paying for Adobe's hostageware (though gawd knows I am paying more than twice what I was per 24 months), but the fact that Adobe's scheme for continuing to buy into their toolset treats me as if I am making swimming pools of cash using their tools, when in fact I make ZERO from my work. (Unless I sell a print, which these days happens less and less: maybe one every 2 years at the current rate)

Fact is, I really cannot justify the cost (and the emotional burden) of paying for Lightroom anymore, since it's only supporting my hobby (because no matter who you are, if you're not making $$$$ from photography, then it's just a hobby). If I stop paying, I am cut off from much of the functionality supporting a 10 year archive of work.

It also irks me that I do not have an option to subscribe to Lightroom alone - I must buy a package that includes Photoshop (and now Bridge, and the Firefly AI crap that is now inserted into their software, plus their creative cloud, which I will not use, since Adobe has it in their TOS that they can scrape my CC files to train their LLMs). You can rationalize Adobe's business model all you like, and even though I agree that "the subscription models guarantees their survival", there is no option to buy just the tools I need at a price that I can reasonably justify. I have every right to feel used/abused by Adobe. The FTC agrees with me.

*which is undoubtedly 99% of the people reading this forum.

Reading through this thread, I’m struck by the assumption that the relationship between Adobe and the “customer” is a primary consideration. But, I suspect that the relationship is between Adobe and its “stakeholders,” which include customers, and more importantly investors, i.e., Adobe stockholders who have no interest, per se, in Adobe products, only in their earnings statements.

I am certainly no business wonk; but I suspect that this fundamental change in the producer’s priorities accounts for much of the dysfunction and anger that I hear from a vast majority of consumers. Producers please investors first and give short shrift to consumers whose demands they (producers) can manipulate over time; this generates obscene profits for the producers while second-classing consumers … and then wings fall off of airplanes.

 

[MattKing]

I am certainly no business wonk; but I suspect that this fundamental change in the producer’s priorities accounts for much of the dysfunction and anger that I hear from a vast majority of consumers. Producers please investors first and give short shrift to consumers whose demands they (producers) can manipulate over time; this generates obscene profits for the producers while second-classing consumers … and then wings fall off of airplanes.

An ironic comment, given that Adobe has very successfully changed their business model to one based on keeping customers sufficiently happy that they are willing to continue subscribing and therefore continuing to pay money month after month/year after year.