This could be an opportunity for a startup. Adobe is going to lose what was previously their lowest tier of price discrimination: people using pirated copies. I don't know if this is the case, but if a significant number of young illustrators (high school students say) currently start out using pirated copies of Photoshop, then there is an opportunity for someone else to capture all those users, and potentially keep them as they start to have money.
Are you suggesting people build alternatives to the Adobe suite? That's not something a startup can just do, there are alternatives that have been around for 5+ years and do not come close to the power of the Adobe suite, for anyone to compete they'll need to be better than all the current free alternatives which isn't something someone can do with 6 months of work.
There is definitely room for someone to compete with Adobe, but whether anyone ever can is what matters, there's a reason Photoshop is so widely used when there are free alternatives.
They've turned a blind eye to piracy for years, not taking obvious steps to curb it. It's said to be for the reasons you state. Adobe has a solid track record over decades of knowing when to hold and when to let go, way back to the fonts for their first product, postscript. For flash, they adroitly opened it to foil open alternatives just as they started to get traction. Although the founders are gone, this is a essential issue across their stable of products - a little like J&J or Procter & Gamble or Nestle in this, they've demonstrated they know how to manage their franchises.
They will continue to offer a shrink-wrapped version according to the article. Even if this wasn't needed for customers who still want it (perhaps jacking up the price, for offline access, security, privacy), it would be worth keeping just for the reasons you state (for piracy).
I think there might be more of an opportunity for software that facilitates what Adobe's graphics software is used for but was never designed for: The work flow from site mockup to finished graphics, fonts, markup, CSS, and JS.
The reality is that the work flow of developing an interactive screen kind of still sucks. The process is basically ad hoc, tools are unintuitive and unoptimized.
At one time, Fireworks may have been a step in the right direction, but it's the neglected stepchild of the Adobe line, and I anticipate its continual decline...
Adobe offers their software at a much lower rate to high schools, collges and their students. The liberal arts classes with computers have Adobe suite. Web design teachers teach almost exclusively using Adobe software. If you are a high school student majoring in art or design in the U.S more than likely you will have no cost access to Adobe software at your school. This business model has serve Adobe well for years.
While I agree with you to some extend, there also was a student edition of PS for I think around 200bucks, which offered a reasonable alternative and was regularly subject to various discounts.
I think the subscription model may be good for businesses, because they could always be on the latest version without having to go through a new approval process etc.
However, for private users the barrier to entry will generally not be lowered I believe. At least not for the occasional amateur photographer/graphic designer/video guy. Many people buy PS once and are on e.g. version 'CS' and stay there for a rather long time. They might try the new thing out, but can always fall back because they "own" a copy and can use it as they please. People do not think as rational about it, the security to always have a fallback is worth a lot apparently.
While I'm sure there's still some (possibly even a lot -- it's a big market) opportunity there, Adobe is the 500lb gorilla in the space, and they're trying to capture the low end. It seems like the opportunities in this space for a startup just dropped significantly.
I think you have that backwards. Using a pirated copy of Photoshop means it is part of their toolset and if they get hired by a legitmate company that is what they will want to use. By the way does YCombinator encourage the use of pirated software?
You rent music until iTunes shuts down, you rent books until Amazon decides to take them back, now it's heavy software that you only get to keep as long as Adobe says it's OK.
I still occasionally use a copy of Corel Draw/PhotoPaint 11 that came out in 2002. You know what? It works great and does 99% of what I'd use Illustrator/Photoshop for, and I don't have to keep forking money on it. In fact, I expect to be able to use it just as well 10 years from now.
I think Adobe is fighting their biggest competitor here: themselves (like Microsoft and other large software providers). There is little they can keep adding to justify the upgrade, so they are instead making sure you can't hang on to that old copy you're used to.
At least they're charging upfront for the same thing and not messing with the toolbars (ahem ribbon ahem) to claim they've added something worthwhile..
I don't rent music from iTunes at all. Once I purchase it and the bits are on my hard drive I can back them up as I please, I can listen to them as I please and since they don't have DRM I can share them however I want.
If iTunes were to shut down tomorrow all of my music purchased from iTunes would continue to function.
Photoshop upgrades usually cost <$200, and most people I know skip versions. I think at best Adobe has shipped a version each 18mo (sometimes 2 years).
So Photoshop "upgraders" have paid $10/mo in the past, and this is just $5 if you skip versions. $20 is quite a bit more. But I guess it's cheaper for the first year, so maybe new users will like that.
Adobe is moving to a yearly release cycle going forward, with a major/minor tick-tok.
They've also made version skipping uneconomical going forward with the elimination of upgrade pricing for all those except the most recent version owners:
It's not $79/mo. if you have to pay annually. It's $948 per year. The $49/mo. price point should be the month-to-month price. That's a no brainer. Layout out $1000 in one hit is asking too much when the full purchase price is only a few hundred more.
The UK figure is inclusive of VAT. The US figure is exclusive of sales tax.
So the ex-VAT figure would really be about $62. So only about $12 on top - and a chunk of that 12 will disappear dealing with hedging exchange rate nonsense.
Dreamweaver is an industry standard? I don't know of anyone working web dev using dreamweaver (I've always thought of it as a teaching/hobbyist tool akin to, though obviously better than, FrontPage).
I'll happily pay $29/mo (and even $49/mo) for the Creative Suite. I think that a lot of people under estimate the power of Photoshop and the other applications -- there is no alternative because nothing robustly imports and exports as .psd files. Photoshop especially is an example of a Microsoft Office esque product in that every designer I know uses Photoshop in a subtly different manner, making it nearly impossible for anyone to create a "Photoshop killer." I also secretly love Fireworks, despite it not being updated for about six years.
I have always thought Adobe did a pretty good job at combatting piracy, especially in the more recent CS versions: it really is a lot of work to pirate the applications now.
The applications are total trash to use though if you're anyone other than someone that is not technically sophisticated save for growing up in the Adobe world. (designers, basically.)
The only critical benefit I see to CS6 is (hopefully) compatibility with OSX Lion's new app management scheme.
I'm curious to see if/how this catches on. Most creative professionals have already paid for CS so it's more cost effective to upgrade than subscribe, especially if they're doing the skip-every-other-version approach. The only market this works for are enterprise customers who need this kind of payment process.
Perhaps the next generation or two will adopt subscriptions, but I'm skeptical. Like Paul said, if CS becomes subscription only, most new designers will look for something pirateble and/or affordable first.
Except Adobe killed upgrade pricing if you skip versions now. Only CS5 and 5.5 owners get upgrade pricing for CS6.
There is a temporary reprieve for CS 3 & 4 owners until the end of 2012 (they backtracked somewhat after user feedback). After that only the most recent previous version get upgrade pricing going forward - everyone else pays full price.
This effectively kills version skipping as for the suites you'd typically have to skip 3-4 versions to spend less than $50/month overall in the end.
I think that this is a really good idea. $588/year is expensive for hobbyists but not for serious amateurs and professionals. The online storage and iPad integration for editing while travelling also looks great.
A little off topic, but one of the architects of Creative Cloud called me a couple of months ago, mainly to talk about Clojure vs. Java development, and that got me interested in Creative Cloud.
I probably won't be a customer though: I have invested a lot of time learning Final Cut Pro 7 and the combination of expense and the getting up to speed time is a deal breaker for me.
I'm surprised they didn't come out with this sooner. Anybody savvy with details as to whether this will bring in more or less income per user than the traditional sales methods?
Would they go into this if they thought it would make less money? Probably trying to go after users who pirate the software and try to make it seem more appealing to subscribe so they at least get some revenue.
I'd like to believe there is a market need for a cheap Photoshop Light. $99 or something low for a version of Photoshop that has 90% of the features removed. Just the most basic ones for the average user left in. I get the sense that most people who pirate Photoshop and make the rest of us endure the terrible DRM are only pirating the $600 piece of software to rotate and crop images because nothing else is out there.
neither photoshop nor fireworks are ideal for creating websites. Some features in fireworks are great but it's missing some important stuff that give photoshop the edge. it will be interesting to see how Adobe Muse turns out in practice.
I don't know if "pirates" are aware of it but the cloud will change pirated software game. Not on audio (that's why audio industry keep on complaining) but on top software for sure (we don't listen them complaining..). Free use of top software will have hard times. Is this good?
Simple maths: Subscription to new CS6 photoshop, $20/mo. Current cost of Photoshop CS5 standalone from amazon, $578.
How much time do I have to use the standalone version for before it becomes more effective than the cloud one?
[EDIT]
28 months
(original post said 28 weeks. apologies for my bad maths and thanks to all those who corrected me.)
[/EDIT]
> Simple maths: Subscription to new CS6 photoshop, $20/mo. Current cost of Photoshop CS5 standalone from amazon, $578. How many weeks do I have to use the standalone version for before it becomes more effective than the cloud one? 28.
Months, not weeks. You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective. And that assumes that a new version doesn't come out in that time.
That's 28 months - not weeks. So assuming you would normally upgrade every 2.5 years then it's about the same cost. If they release a new version each year then the subscription service would win easily.
More importantly, creative suite is now affordable for a huge range of people. Freelancers, students and small businesses can now afford a legal and full version.
Err, you mixed up your units. It takes 28 months for the break-even point, not weeks. That's damn near two and a half years of use before it makes sense to buy it outright.
I love that tumblr and agree with the premise that adobe software has flaws, but it's kinda mean to post that link, even with the 'unrelated' signal, don't you think?
[+] [-] pg|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citricsquid|14 years ago|reply
There is definitely room for someone to compete with Adobe, but whether anyone ever can is what matters, there's a reason Photoshop is so widely used when there are free alternatives.
[+] [-] 6ren|14 years ago|reply
They will continue to offer a shrink-wrapped version according to the article. Even if this wasn't needed for customers who still want it (perhaps jacking up the price, for offline access, security, privacy), it would be worth keeping just for the reasons you state (for piracy).
[+] [-] reneherse|14 years ago|reply
The reality is that the work flow of developing an interactive screen kind of still sucks. The process is basically ad hoc, tools are unintuitive and unoptimized.
At one time, Fireworks may have been a step in the right direction, but it's the neglected stepchild of the Adobe line, and I anticipate its continual decline...
[+] [-] radley|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] inkaudio|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] replax|14 years ago|reply
I think the subscription model may be good for businesses, because they could always be on the latest version without having to go through a new approval process etc.
However, for private users the barrier to entry will generally not be lowered I believe. At least not for the occasional amateur photographer/graphic designer/video guy. Many people buy PS once and are on e.g. version 'CS' and stay there for a rather long time. They might try the new thing out, but can always fall back because they "own" a copy and can use it as they please. People do not think as rational about it, the security to always have a fallback is worth a lot apparently.
[+] [-] daeken|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigphishy|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] J3L2404|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tga|14 years ago|reply
I still occasionally use a copy of Corel Draw/PhotoPaint 11 that came out in 2002. You know what? It works great and does 99% of what I'd use Illustrator/Photoshop for, and I don't have to keep forking money on it. In fact, I expect to be able to use it just as well 10 years from now.
I think Adobe is fighting their biggest competitor here: themselves (like Microsoft and other large software providers). There is little they can keep adding to justify the upgrade, so they are instead making sure you can't hang on to that old copy you're used to.
At least they're charging upfront for the same thing and not messing with the toolbars (ahem ribbon ahem) to claim they've added something worthwhile..
[+] [-] X-Istence|14 years ago|reply
If iTunes were to shut down tomorrow all of my music purchased from iTunes would continue to function.
[+] [-] Dramatize|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herf|14 years ago|reply
So Photoshop "upgraders" have paid $10/mo in the past, and this is just $5 if you skip versions. $20 is quite a bit more. But I guess it's cheaper for the first year, so maybe new users will like that.
[+] [-] davidjade|14 years ago|reply
They've also made version skipping uneconomical going forward with the elimination of upgrade pricing for all those except the most recent version owners:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html#upgrade...
[+] [-] astrodust|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianhoward|14 years ago|reply
Creative Cloud gives you many more applications than the CS Master suite - which is $2600. See http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-cs...
If you just use The Design Standard suite it's a waste... if you use most of the Adobe products and upgrade regularly it's probably a saving.
[+] [-] ed209|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulofisch|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianhoward|14 years ago|reply
So the ex-VAT figure would really be about $62. So only about $12 on top - and a chunk of that 12 will disappear dealing with hedging exchange rate nonsense.
[+] [-] SpaceDragon|14 years ago|reply
I've tried Microsoft's Expression software and feel is a viable alternative for a one-time price of $79 smackers.
If I get an itch to upgrade, it won't be to rent Adobe software.
[+] [-] nopassrecover|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pclark|14 years ago|reply
I'll happily pay $29/mo (and even $49/mo) for the Creative Suite. I think that a lot of people under estimate the power of Photoshop and the other applications -- there is no alternative because nothing robustly imports and exports as .psd files. Photoshop especially is an example of a Microsoft Office esque product in that every designer I know uses Photoshop in a subtly different manner, making it nearly impossible for anyone to create a "Photoshop killer." I also secretly love Fireworks, despite it not being updated for about six years.
I have always thought Adobe did a pretty good job at combatting piracy, especially in the more recent CS versions: it really is a lot of work to pirate the applications now.
The applications are total trash to use though if you're anyone other than someone that is not technically sophisticated save for growing up in the Adobe world. (designers, basically.)
[+] [-] radley|14 years ago|reply
I'm curious to see if/how this catches on. Most creative professionals have already paid for CS so it's more cost effective to upgrade than subscribe, especially if they're doing the skip-every-other-version approach. The only market this works for are enterprise customers who need this kind of payment process.
Perhaps the next generation or two will adopt subscriptions, but I'm skeptical. Like Paul said, if CS becomes subscription only, most new designers will look for something pirateble and/or affordable first.
[+] [-] davidjade|14 years ago|reply
There is a temporary reprieve for CS 3 & 4 owners until the end of 2012 (they backtracked somewhat after user feedback). After that only the most recent previous version get upgrade pricing going forward - everyone else pays full price.
This effectively kills version skipping as for the suites you'd typically have to skip 3-4 versions to spend less than $50/month overall in the end.
[+] [-] mark_l_watson|14 years ago|reply
A little off topic, but one of the architects of Creative Cloud called me a couple of months ago, mainly to talk about Clojure vs. Java development, and that got me interested in Creative Cloud.
I probably won't be a customer though: I have invested a lot of time learning Final Cut Pro 7 and the combination of expense and the getting up to speed time is a deal breaker for me.
[+] [-] ecubed|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylelibra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylelibra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theallan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TorbjornLunde|14 years ago|reply
Pixelmator has a UI that rivals Photoshop in many areas.
[+] [-] seanalltogether|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cageface|14 years ago|reply
It's a pity. I find it far more useful for the work I do than any of the other suite apps.
[+] [-] Schlaefer|14 years ago|reply
http://www.adobe.com/content/dotcom/en/products/fireworks/fe...
http://www.adobe.com/products/fireworks/buying-guide-version...
[+] [-] RossM|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbylstra|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galfarragem|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twelvechairs|14 years ago|reply
[EDIT] 28 months (original post said 28 weeks. apologies for my bad maths and thanks to all those who corrected me.) [/EDIT]
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|14 years ago|reply
Months, not weeks. You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective. And that assumes that a new version doesn't come out in that time.
[+] [-] abrimo|14 years ago|reply
More importantly, creative suite is now affordable for a huge range of people. Freelancers, students and small businesses can now afford a legal and full version.
[+] [-] daeken|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] saturn|14 years ago|reply
I think it's pretty attractive, especially considering updates will likely be automatically included in the subscription.
[+] [-] cmillllllls|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mey|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panacea|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]