DougDolde wrote:
Steve Jobs once said even Jesus Christ couldn't sell a subscription model. He was talking about music downloads but...
I've always maintained that if you are going to quote someone, it's only courteous to quote them correctly. In his Rolling Stones interview, Steve said "The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model and it might not be successful."
CS 5.5 will have to last me a long time. IMO the real question is will they provide updates to the older programs for new cameras. I will NOT buy a subscription for software! It might be a good thing that LR was never included w/ the CS programs. Hopefully they will keep it separate and continue to provide reasonably priced updates.
godfather wrote:
IMO the real question is will they provide updates to the older programs for new cameras.....
I hear you but why would they?? That would go against their new business model. If you want new camera support, join the cloud. That's the only way you are going to get it, unfortunately.
skibum5 wrote:
Yeah I've been using OO for a long time now.
This gives Google an opening to come out with a competing product. If Adobe blunders again by messing with L/R, such a move would negatively impact NIK, and that would cause Google a lot of financial pain, especially after just buying NIK.
I really think we are seeing the start of a battle of the giant and not so giant. Google stock is $800+ per share, Adobe is $44 per share. From a business standpoint, I believe Adobe made a terrible blunder attempting to squeeze a few more shekels out of its customers versus, just raising its base price a few bucks across the board, and not being greedy.
When you read their fine print in their FAQs, Adobe clearly warns you they can raise their monthly subscription fee and your only choice is to pay or cancel your subscription. This is their open ended ability to dip into your wallet. It doesn't say once a year or once a month.
Sounds like they hired some CableTV accountants - they operate the same way.
Photographers are not considered core market of Photoshop by Adobe, and actually only small percentage Photoshop users are photographers. What Adobe says is it really doesn't care that market segment.
^^ interesting that only the first article touches on the no-pay-no-software complaint of many. The other two just do what financial analysts do best -- focus on the money aspects with no mention of consumers' perpetual payments.
I switched over to creative clould the day it was announced for CS6. As someone who upgrades to every version, I don't find it that much of an inconvenience personally, and actually think I'll save money in the long run. But I understand not everyone upgrades every version, and for them it may be a bigger deal.
DanBrown wrote:
I've always maintained that if you are going to quote someone, it's only courteous to quote them correctly. In his Rolling Stones interview, Steve said "The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model and it might not be successful."
Poor Steve obviously never saw Spotify and the like approaching fast in his rearview mirror But I wonder what he would have said about Adobe's move. I'm sure it would have been colorful considering there was no love lost between Apple and Adobe.
Interest analogy though... music subscription vs software subscription. I subscribe to Spotify but I also like to own mp3s as well. I have the choice.
Sorry, Adobe, but software is not like music, however many dubious "updates" and assorted gimmicks you can shove down the pipe. I can access Spotify anywhere, on any computer in the world and on virtually every internet-connected device. And I'm happy to pay $8 a month to Spotify because there are hundreds if not thousands of new tracks available monthly. Spotify also has a free option so I'm not screwed if I stop paying, or I can imply buy the mp3s I want to listen to.
Nice to have that old fashioned "buy and own" option
joshkrause wrote:
I switched over to creative clould the day it was announced for CS6. As someone who upgrades to every version, I don't find it that much of an inconvenience personally, and actually think I'll save money in the long run. But I understand not everyone upgrades every version, and for them it may be a bigger deal.
Do you have any concerns about no longer having access to the software and associated proprietary files if you stop paying one day?
I've been pounding computers since the TRS-80. Its been my experience that when you get involved in subscription software, most providers get lazy insofar as updates and improvements as they have a cash flow bonanza. Their head bean counter is filling out his deposit slips already.
'Usually when you make such a dramatic transition, you run the two business models in parallel. In Monday's presentation, Adobe's CFO Mark Garrett said that the subscriptions have topped 500,000. At $50/month, that's $300 million a year; with annual revenues of $4.5 billion, that's meaningful but not overwhelming. Their 2012 10-K stated:
We continue to derive the majority of our revenue from perpetual licenses. However, our subscription revenue, as a percentage of total revenue, has increased to 15% in fiscal 2012 from approximately 11% and 10% in fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2010, respectively, as we transition more of our business to a subscription-based model."
Garrett said that beyond the core audience or beyond full-time "creative professionals," it's targeting three other groups: marketing staff at small/medium businesses, SOHO photographers/hobbyists, and education.
All of these are problematic. When I ran a small business, we wouldn't spend $600/year/seat for anything, nor would I as an individual. Even at a reduced pricing of $360/year, the price seems too rich for the education market ("one of our most important vertical markets" according to Garrett).
I think Garrett is in for a surprise - a BIG push back!
that would cause Google a lot of financial pain, especially after just buying NIK.
You've got to be kidding. Google's revenue for 2012 alone was $50 billion. Sales from the Nik plugins are insignificant for Google -- the amount of money we're talking about is probably less than Google's paper clip budget for the week.
lukeb wrote:
I think Garrett is in for a surprise - a BIG push back!
We can wish... but I suspect actual pushback (voting with wallet) might be more limited than the verbal pushback we're seeing/hearing now.
Adobe's new model is probably the dream of every software maker out there (steady, predictable revenue streams) so IMO it's a toss up as to whether this is the beginning of a trend or the beginning of the end for Adobe as a large number of its current customers slowly drift away to competitors.
Whatever the case, Adobe has deep pockets to spend what it can on marketing to try to make this work. I just hope we see a partial u-turn later this year as revenues come in below investors' expectations
BluesWest wrote:
You've got to be kidding. Google's revenue for 2012 alone was $50 billion. Sales from the Nik plugins are insignificant for Google -- the amount of money we're talking about is probably less than Google's paper clip budget for the week.
John
No John, I'm not kidding at all. If I were Google, I would not be happy a new acquisition was being hurt by another company I had no control over and I was dependent on for revenue. If you are suggesting Google may well just laugh it off, I would suggest you are over-simplifying.
Lets not forget Nik's plugins are for L/R and PS.
No successful company likes to have a stick poked in its eye.
Google's primary goal for its Nik purchase is to make those filters as cloud-based solutions to compete with Facebook's Instagram.
+1
Google doesn't give a hoot about Photoshop. Their goal is to push everyone into the cloud (the real cloud, not a software subscription model masquerading as the cloud).
Google doesn't give a hoot about Photoshop. Their goal is to push everyone into the cloud (the real cloud, not a software subscription model masquerading as the cloud).
John
Google's number one goal is to sell ads, as many and anyway they can, use their products click the ads thats what makes them happy.
But I wonder what he would have said about Adobe's move. I'm sure it would have been colorful considering there was no love lost between Apple and Adobe.