Adobe testing a new price point for the Creative Cloud Photography Plan

[JuanMa]

I simply do not want to add subscriptions for software to the pile of regular payments draining already my account every month.

That is the key…

 

[cayenne]

I don't use the cloud storage and I don't want that cloud storage for sure. I already have 1TB for 5 users with Office 365 Home for about £8 per month. Raising cost by £10 to give me 1TB I'm not going to use is proper rip off. Plus, I trust MS to secure it and provide better tooling much more than Adobe.

I like Lightroom and I don't mind subscription model but to pay double, I expect significant improvements in the product to see increase in the value. That is a major issue because there were few new tools in Lightroom since it became rental but no major improvement and performance is still crap.

Lightroom benefits only from classic vendor lock-in because I can't take my library and import it to another product with all my develop settings easily. I can only import TIFFs with processing and loose ability to modify it later or RAWs and loose all my processing.

You might look into the On1 RAW offering. I believe the newest versions can import your LR development settings in, as long as you are working from a fairly recent version of LR.

HTH,

cayenne

 

[snappy604]

I don't use the cloud storage and I don't want that cloud storage for sure. I already have 1TB for 5 users with Office 365 Home for about £8 per month. Raising cost by £10 to give me 1TB I'm not going to use is proper rip off. Plus, I trust MS to secure it and provide better tooling much more than Adobe.

I like Lightroom and I don't mind subscription model but to pay double, I expect significant improvements in the product to see increase in the value. That is a major issue because there were few new tools in Lightroom since it became rental but no major improvement and performance is still crap.

Lightroom benefits only from classic vendor lock-in because I can't take my library and import it to another product with all my develop settings easily. I can only import TIFFs with processing and loose ability to modify it later or RAWs and loose all my processing.

On1 can import most of your LR settings

 

[PureClassA]

All of your points are correct. However history teaches us that the minute you try and gouge your customer someone else will rise and take those customers and Adobe has increasingly new entrants into the photography sector all eager to take some of their crown. Plenty of global examples of this.

The majority of users of the photography plan are not professionals, price is sensitive and cheaper alternatives are out there.

All true, however, consider the relative in-elasticity of migrating software for most folks. $20 isn't going to be enough to push them away

 

[Labdoc]

Price is still $9.99 https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-lightroom/compare-plans.html?promoid=VKW3KGR6&mv=other

 

[fentiger]

not the same subject but similar, a couple of day ago i cancelled my iTunes .
next day everything on my mac and iPhone was wiped clean. not a single song left. they have their talons so deep in your goolies, your stuffed.

 

[stevelee]

not the same subject but similar, a couple of day ago i cancelled my iTunes .
next day everything on my mac and iPhone was wiped clean. not a single song left. they have their talons so deep in your goolies, your stuffed.

As expected with a subscription.

 

[Rudeofus]

Here is the best response to a forced offer of 1TB cloud storage (for those who can't just cancel): as many people as possible should fill their unneeded cloud storage space with random data. I am quite sure, that Adobe thought "we'll sell them 1TB, but most will use less than 100GB", planned their hardware resources accordingly, and random data cannot be compressed either.

If enough people do this, Adobe will come scrambling "save sooo much for reducing storage to 50GB!!!"

 

[stevelee]

Here is the best response to a forced offer of 1TB cloud storage (for those who can't just cancel): as many people as possible should fill their unneeded cloud storage space with random data. I am quite sure, that Adobe thought "we'll sell them 1TB, but most will use less than 100GB", planned their hardware resources accordingly, and random data cannot be compressed either.

If enough people do this, Adobe will come scrambling "save sooo much for reducing storage to 50GB!!!"

More likely they would use this as an excuse to raise the price on everybody and require you to have another couple of terabytes.

 

[Rudeofus]

More likely they would use this as an excuse to raise the price on everybody and require you to have another couple of terabytes.

They are just in the process of studying, how roughly doubling the price would affect the size of their customer base. I don't think they can make a profit from supporting their software plus storing the full 1TB of pure random data at US$20/month. They can even less likely make a profit from storing a couple of TB of random data at US$40/month, and would at the same time lose almost all non-professional and most of their small scale professional customers.

This is Adobe's ultimate weakness in this game: they force you to accept an offer, which includes storage space that most people won't need. They offer this service at a price, which only works out for Adobe, if in fact only few people use up their full quota of online storage space. At the same time it costs most of us nearly nothing to fill up the 1 TB quota with garbage data. Adobe would be in deep trouble, if people followed up on this in numbers.

 

[Del Paso]

No. You can choose whether to remain or go. It's a business. They exist to make as much money as they can by offering a product/service that people want. If they have determined that the broad market still has a healthy appetite to pay $19.99 per month for their product, they'd be stupid not to. It's called price elasticity, and Adobe obviously has created so valued a product for this industry that they appear to have quite a large elasticity.

Unfocused Brought up a great point. You have DPP with all Canon cameras. It's a fine software. Use it instead. It's free!

The trouble with DPP is that, if you use several different camera brands, you'll have to use an additional development software...
Why, for Christ's sake, isn't everybody using DNG, why so many proprietary systems? I could have kept on using LR 5.7 for life, if I hadn't bought the 5 D IV.

 

[privatebydesign]

The trouble with DPP is that, if you use several different camera brands, you'll have to use an additional development software...
Why, for Christ's sake, isn't everybody using DNG, why so many proprietary systems? I could have kept on using LR 5.7 for life, if I hadn't bought the 5 D IV.

No you can convert your 5D MkIV files to DNG for free and then still use LR5.7

 

[StoicalEtcher]

I am the only one to find it a little ironic to be talking about the advantages/uses of the DNG file format (creator: Adobe) on a thread mostly complaining about Adobe?

 

[privatebydesign]

I am the only one to find it a little ironic to be talking about the advantages/uses of the DNG file format (creator: Adobe) on a thread mostly complaining about Adobe?

No you aren’t, look at my posting history, I have taken a ton of flak and been labeled an Adobe apologist (that’s the politest) for pointing out that Adobe are the only software company I know of that offers a fully supported free program and format to facilitate a work around so you never have to upgrade their software.

Meanwhile the disenfranchised will bemoan their lot in life and proclaim confirmation of my corporate shill status...

 

[Mikehit]

This is Adobe's ultimate weakness in this game: they force you to accept an offer, which includes storage space that most people won't need. They offer this service at a price, which only works out for Adobe, if in fact only few people use up their full quota of online storage space. At the same time it costs most of us nearly nothing to fill up the 1 TB quota with garbage data. Adobe would be in deep trouble, if people followed up on this in numbers.

So what are you hoping to achieve with this?

 

[Rudeofus]

So what are you hoping to achieve with this?

Present a legal way, how to stop Adobe from engaging in the behavior, which has been discussed in this thread for seven pages already ...

 

[unfocused]

Present a legal way, how to stop Adobe from engaging in the behavior, which has been discussed in this thread for seven pages already ...

1. What behavior? Offering a superior product and charging for it?
2. I think you seriously overestimate the cost of cloud storage. Many services offer unlimited storage for less.

 

[stevelee]

I pay the full monthly subscription price and use enough of the products that the yearly total comes out to only slightly more than I was paying in annual upgrades.

But I don't want to go this route with all of my software. The next version of MacOS will break the non-64-bit apps, many of which I use all the time. The current OS warns you of them when you start them up. I may try to hold out from the OS upgrade as long as I can. But eventually I will need to find alternative solutions for music notation software and my check writing, to name two.

 

[Rudeofus]

What behavior? Offering a superior product and charging for it?

You've got to be kidding me ... that's what you took home after seven pages of forum postings?

I think you seriously overestimate the cost of cloud storage. Many services offer unlimited storage for less.

The underlying assumption of such services and pricing models is that people don't use up their quota. People with a few hundred MB worth of data effectively subsidize power users and the whole cloud storage operation. Adobe's price calculation may work out with such a user base, but will likely blow up, if a sizable part of their user base fill up their quote with uncompressible data.

 

[Mikehit]

You've got to be kidding me ... that's what you took home after seven pages of forum postings?

What I see is:

• people who use Photoshop CC sahying an increase in price would be too much for them
• People who do not like the subscription model saying that they are abusing their market position for no other reason they are raising prices
• Some people who do not like the subscription model coming to the rather odd conclusion that what Adobe are doing is illegal

The underlying assumption of such services and pricing models is that people don't use up their quota.

And you act as though they are the only company who do this. Almost every services company builds this into their overhead/cost calculation and would be dumb if they did not.