Adobe Photography Subscription Survey Regarding New Subscription Pricing

[thommy]

Hi everyone, just curious, has anyone received a survey from Adobe?
I didn't get the survey myself.
But I read about the survey on Luminous Landscape Forum and discovered that Adobe is asking for a change of the Lightroom + Photoshop $9.99 plan.
Two plans seems to be in consideration.
1. They will pull Photoshop from the "Lightroom + Photoshop $9.99 plan" and give us 1TB backup for $9.99.
2. Photoshop included without 1TB backup will cost double $19.99.

Any thoughts why Adobe is even considering these changes?

 

[Victoria Bampton]

They do these random surveys on a regular basis, with different ideas each time. I'm sure they do it just to put us off the scent!!

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

Be sure to tell them "Option 3".

 

[NJHeart2Heart]

I don't know about others but 1tb is nothing for backup. I am a hobbyist and I have over 2tb photos. What use would that backup be if we had to go through the effort of deciding what decide what to backup..and if I made a.rule that say only this year's I'd backup, than I'd have to remove a bunch each year... Backup means everything, not just a small subset... Not even remotely worth the effort imo.

 

[Roelof Moorlag]

Backup means everything, not just a small subset... Not even remotely worth the effort imo.

Yes, i'm with you on this. Not long ago i went to crashplan. It's about 60 dollar per year for my main system. The data is not limited so my 2 TB photo's is no problem.

 

[clee01l]

I agree that 1TB does not make sense for backup. However, Creative cloud comes with Adobe storage useful for other purposes like "assets". Perhaps this is what the 1TB is suggested for

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

But just for clarity, the question is "double the price" or "double the price" in a sense (thinking of it now as 50/50 LR/PS).

yes, I know, this is not an announcement, it's a survey, but the absence of any "I don't want to pay double" means the survey cannot give any real feedback about how people might feel about such an increase, just what form you want it in. Even if it's just a hint of thinking there, it is a disturbing hint.

 

[dasuess51]

For me, ditch the 1Tb storage and give me PS. PS is an integral part of my workflow since I do 100% of my BW conversion there by round-tripping from LR. And while I do not want my monthly subscription fee increased, the 10 bucks a month I pay now is cheap for what I get. Of course, YMMV.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NJHeart2Heart]

But just for clarity, the question is "double the price" or "double the price" in a sense (thinking of it now as 50/50 LR/PS).

yes, I know, this is not an announcement, it's a survey, but the absence of any "I don't want to pay double" means the survey cannot give any real feedback about how people might feel about such an increase, just what form you want it in. Even if it's just a hint of thinking there, it is a disturbing hint.

Good point Linwood...!

 

[PhilBurton]

But just for clarity, the question is "double the price" or "double the price" in a sense (thinking of it now as 50/50 LR/PS).

yes, I know, this is not an announcement, it's a survey, but the absence of any "I don't want to pay double" means the survey cannot give any real feedback about how people might feel about such an increase, just what form you want it in. Even if it's just a hint of thinking there, it is a disturbing hint.

I agree. The way this survey is designed is "leading the witness" precisely because "I don't want to pay any more than I am paying now" is not an option. Frankly, this is amateurish.

They might also run another survey in which they ask perpetual user like me how much would I be willing to pay for a CC subscription. Clearly I'm not willing to pay $10 a month, but maybe I would be willing to pay five dollars a month. If they don't ask, they will never know.

Phil

 

[Victoria Bampton]

You can always start a thread on the feature request forum to voice your thoughts Phil.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[awp]

I never want to go the subscription route. Once they have you tied in they can charge what they like. No thanks.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

I never want to go the subscription route. Once they have you tied in they can charge what they like. No thanks.

Yes and no. If you stop paying, you still have access to Lightroom except for Develop module, Map module and Sync. That means you can export your photos and there's no risk of losing anything, or you can move over to other software without risk.

Plus, they haven't put the USD prices up since its introduction in 2013 (some exchange rates and local tax law changes have changed prices in other currencies slightly) and we have no evidence that they're going to do so anytime soon. Even the price of a cup of coffee has gone up since 2013, which suggests they're working hard to maintain our trust.

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

I have a slightly different perspective than Victoria but end up the same place. Subscription "lock in" is no different than perpetual, it is more of a difference in time scale.

If you buy a perpetual license, you are fooling yourself that you can use it perpetually. Sure, in theory you can -- but only if you avoid upgrading your hardware, operating system and cameras. Sure, LR 4 might still run on Windows 10 (will it? not sure. How about LR1? LR2? ), but at some point it won't support newer drivers or printers or OS or something. And camera support tends to go even faster. Again, sure you can use DNG converter to "cheat" and not get proper ACR support for a new camera. And you can also just convince yourself you do not need any new features.

But really... aren't you still going to upgrade even a perpetual license? And do not they have you where they can charge anything they want, and you have to take it or (maybe not RIGHT then but eventually) stop using it?

There's definitely more immediacy, and more definitive "this is how the subscription ends". But even with perpetual licenses, software is really ephemeral ... you either stop using it, or you periodically bring it current. Just on a different time scale.

I had a great perpetual license for Visicalc somewhere, but I'm using Excel now.

 

[PhilBurton]

You can always start a thread on the feature request forum to voice your thoughts Phil.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I just did that post.

Phil

 

[PhilBurton]

I have a slightly different perspective than Victoria but end up the same place. Subscription "lock in" is no different than perpetual, it is more of a difference in time scale.

If you buy a perpetual license, you are fooling yourself that you can use it perpetually. Sure, in theory you can -- but only if you avoid upgrading your hardware, operating system and cameras. Sure, LR 4 might still run on Windows 10 (will it? not sure. How about LR1? LR2? ), but at some point it won't support newer drivers or printers or OS or something. And camera support tends to go even faster. Again, sure you can use DNG converter to "cheat" and not get proper ACR support for a new camera. And you can also just convince yourself you do not need any new features.

But really... aren't you still going to upgrade even a perpetual license? And do not they have you where they can charge anything they want, and you have to take it or (maybe not RIGHT then but eventually) stop using it?

There's definitely more immediacy, and more definitive "this is how the subscription ends". But even with perpetual licenses, software is really ephemeral ... you either stop using it, or you periodically bring it current. Just on a different time scale.

I had a great perpetual license for Visicalc somewhere, but I'm using Excel now.

Ferguson,

You are right. That approach also applies to buying a new car vs. buying a used car, as just one example. But as in the car example, it's a combination of hard numbers and "emotions." The "hard numbers" favor the perpetual licence. The "emotions" favor the subscription, so you are always up to date. It's always a tradeoff, given that most people have a finite amount of "money."

Phil

 

[oleleclos]

I never want to go the subscription route. Once they have you tied in they can charge what they like. No thanks.

My view exactly. When I saw that Adobe were offering the Lr+PS package at half the monthly cost of PS alone, far from jumping at it, it made me wonder what they were up to. No good, most likely

I don't mind paying for what I get - including updates - but I won't be held over a barrel (carefully avoiding the word "ransom" ).

 

[LRList001]

Ferguson,

You are right. That approach also applies to buying a new car vs. buying a used car, as just one example. But as in the car example, it's a combination of hard numbers and "emotions." The "hard numbers" favor the perpetual licence. The "emotions" favor the subscription, so you are always up to date. It's always a tradeoff, given that most people have a finite amount of "money."

Phil

From the perspective of the seller, a monthly subscription model, even if it results in less income pa, is more attractive to shareholders over the long haul as it is a more certain revenue stream. Perpetual licensing leaves the seller on a knife-edge that if the users stop buying they have no income. Rolling users onto monthly billing creates a more bankable revenue stream. Car sales are going the same way. This is not first and foremost for the buyer's benefit, though the seller will claim that by being a more stable business they can invest more reliably in their product, which by implication is to the buyer's advantage. Given the track record of earlier 6.x, 'perhaps' is one way of considering 6 to be a stable product, until recent versions. The funding of purchasing decisions generally splits budgets into 'capital' and 'operational'. If the capital budget is providing funding, then perpetual is the route. if the operational budget is involved, then monthly subscription is the route. From a business perspective, use of any resource should be funded by output, which lends itself to subscription pricing. Home use is more akin to capital budgeting, ie, "is there any spare cash to fund that luxury item?".

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

The "hard numbers" favor the perpetual licence. The "emotions" favor the subscription, so you are always up to date.

Maybe. It's been too long to remember precisely, but if I recall the numbers strongly favored subscription if you are one who upgraded ever version, and I think it was close if you upgraded PS every other and LR every version (which is about what I used to do). With the caveat I do not recall hard numbers, I am pretty sure the answer is not "always perpetual" but rather "it depends".

Again, aging memory, but I seem to recall the $10/mo coming out pretty late in the CC launch, as though it was a reaction to negative press and user complaints. At the time people were saying "it's really cheap compared to buying -- there's a catch". Maybe there will be a catch, but it's been a while without any "gotcha".

 

[PhilBurton]

From the perspective of the seller, a monthly subscription model, even if it results in less income pa, is more attractive to shareholders over the long haul as it is a more certain revenue stream. Perpetual licensing leaves the seller on a knife-edge that if the users stop buying they have no income. Rolling users onto monthly billing creates a more bankable revenue stream. Car sales are going the same way. This is not first and foremost for the buyer's benefit, though the seller will claim that by being a more stable business they can invest more reliably in their product, which by implication is to the buyer's advantage. Given the track record of earlier 6.x, 'perhaps' is one way of considering 6 to be a stable product, until recent versions. The funding of purchasing decisions generally splits budgets into 'capital' and 'operational'. If the capital budget is providing funding, then perpetual is the route. if the operational budget is involved, then monthly subscription is the route. From a business perspective, use of any resource should be funded by output, which lends itself to subscription pricing. Home use is more akin to capital budgeting, ie, "is there any spare cash to fund that luxury item?".

If you work out the numbers based on actual Lightroom major releases, the numbers strongly prefer perpetual licencing.

To your point, Wall Street prefers recurring or subscription revenues to one-time purchase revenues for precisely the reason you state. I heard the same from the CFO of my company back in 2001, when I asked him why we had yearly pricing.

Phil

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

If you work out the numbers based on actual Lightroom major releases, the numbers strongly prefer perpetual licencing.

Doesn't that presume you have zero value attributed to photoshop?

I do admit some people who want Lightroom might not want Photoshop -- but there is a perpetual license for that alone (at least now).

 

[Ian.B]

weather it's subscription or perpetual seems such an emotional (for the want of a better word) subject for many it does keep adobe in the limelight more often than the others -- maybe adobe is smarter than they thought they are
Younger ones have a longer future with editing needs to consider; but I'm at a stage when thinking ahead is not so far or as important as it used to be :rofl: . or should that be

 

[PhilBurton]

Doesn't that presume you have zero value attributed to photoshop?

I do admit some people who want Lightroom might not want Photoshop -- but there is a perpetual license for that alone (at least now).

In my particular case, I also own Photoshop 6.0 perpetual license. I use PS rarely, mainly for spot removal. I may be showing my ignorance, but I have yet to learn about layers and masks. Conceptually, I understand, but the actual doing, not so much. :humble: :whistling:

 

[Linwood Ferguson]

In my particular case, I also own Photoshop 6.0 perpetual license. I use PS rarely, mainly for spot removal. I may be showing my ignorance, but I have yet to learn about layers and masks. Conceptually, I understand, but the actual doing, not so much. :humble: :whistling:

I was talking to someone else about this on another forum.

I think a lot of people who are primarily Lightroom users should think of Photoshop as a bunch of individual tools.

Context Aware Fill, as an example, is a tool people can use without knowing much of anything about Photoshop -- just Edit In, do the clone thing (and nothing else) - and exit. Takes 10 minutes or so to learn by instructions in video or text on the internet. Context Aware Fill is kind of like magic, and almost worth the upgrade by itself.

Or all the selection tools, e.g. I took some head shots up against a cinderblock wall, and it was pretty darn easy to change it to a solid blue background that the team wanted. Almost impossible to do that in Lightroom, really easy in Photoshop.

There's maybe half a dozen such tools people can use without "learning photoshop", and several added in recent versions. I think a lot of people are hesitant to dive in due to the very, very steep learning curve if you really want to use PS as your primary editor. But to use it for some specific and very useful features in conjunction with lightroom is pretty easy.

I've seen some stuff for "Photoshop for Lightroom Users", e.g. Kelby has one, but the ones I saw I think are too complicated. Maybe they cover only 10% of photoshop, but I think the essentials are more like 1/2 of 1% or less, but they are an incredibly useful sliver.

 

[Roelof Moorlag]

Context Aware Fill, as an example, is a tool people can use without knowing much of anything about Photoshop -- just Edit In, do the clone thing (and nothing else) - and exit. Takes 10 minutes or so to learn by instructions in video or text on the internet. Context Aware Fill is kind of like magic, and almost worth the upgrade by itself.

Do you have more examples? I'm one of those who wants to learn Photoshop better sometime but don't know where to begin. Content Aware Fill i found out some while ago and indeed it's not that hard. I'm very curious about another examples of these 'low hanging fruit'