p.1 #1 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
Word is that Adobe is planning to double the price on CC photograph bundle from $9.99 to $19.99. I certainly won't pay $240 a year to rent software from Adobe -- wasn't too happy about 1/2 that much. So as I see it there are now two options for many of us...
1) FIGHT - let Adobe know that you are really pissed off about them even considering such an insane price increase. Make it clear that you would never consider the increased pay structure and will opt for option #2 if they bump up prices this way. Hopefully Adobe will listen to their client base and either cancel price increases or significantly reduce their planned increase.. as for me I would consider a 5-10% increase to be my tolerance -- Adobe that is NO MORE than $10.99!
2) FLIGHT - If option #1 does not work I am committed to discarding CC and transitioning to other options. Photoshop is not really a problem now a days as there are several options - for fixed pricing (most for less than 5 months of renting CC) that already provide all, or in some cases better, options than what I use in Photoshop. LR is a bit tougher, but none the less I think I will get started by exporting all of the photos in my library as high quality jpg, or dmg files to start preparing for a likely transition.
Thoughts?
- Ideas for LR transition?
- Do you think a 2X price increase is warranted from Adobe?
- If an increase takes place, and you decide not to migrate... with that precendence set, how long until Adobe turns the screw again?
p.1 #3 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
From what I've seen, apparently "the word" is wrong—this time. But eventually Adobe's going to raise their prices and this might be a good time for introspection on what the software is worth to you and what you'll do if you decide to switch. For example, I know of other applications that can read most (not all) LR library structures, but know of none that preserves LR's edits. So every once in a while I think it's worth considering migration strategies and whether or not to employ one. It's just prudent imo.
p.1 #5 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
Who's word was that? Adobe like many other company does split testing from time to time to see how new perspective customers react to a larger amount cloud storage. Some seen the $9.99 20GB plan and others the $19.99 1TB plan. This did not effect current customers. This has happened before. As you can see thread started in Oct of last year.
To clarify what happened, Adobe removed the 20GB plan from their website in some locations as a market research test. The test failed in fairly spectacular fashion. This was a test for NEW customers, not a threat to double the price for existing customers. An inflationary price rise is likely at some stage, as it hasn't changed in 5 years, but that's very different to the rumors of prices doubling.
p.1 #6 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
Zenon
Thats exactly why I posted... my guess is Adobe is testing the waters to see how much anger and loathing they get for a 2X price increase... when they "back off" and only increase prices by 25% we sheep will feel like we've won an important battle and will meekly continue marching in whatever direction Adobe takes us.
Still looking for a reasonable LR alternative. Apple why did you forsake us with cancelling Aperture!
p.1 #7 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
Does anyone remember film and processing costs? Typical shooters on this forum shoot hundreds, often thousands of images a year. At a very low price of $10 per roll of 36 photos for film and processing that is ~$280 per year. And for that you have a pile of 4x6 prints with which you can do nothing unless you operate your own darkroom.
Many complain about LR and PS, wanting this or that feature, wanting it to be faster, etc. I am one of them. It takes money to do those things. And Adobe is a publicly traded company. Complain to the shareholders or, here is an idea: buy Adobe and be a shareholder. You can go to the annual shareholder meeting and tell them to reduce the price.
p.1 #8 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
byteseller wrote:
Thoughts?
- Ideas for LR transition?
- Do you think a 2X price increase is warranted from Adobe?
- If an increase takes place, and you decide not to migrate... with that precendence set, how long until Adobe turns the screw again?
If Adobe decides to double the price or just bump it up a bit I would hope communication is clear for users. Just spell it out. I can take it. Nothing stays the same price forever so I fully expect to see increases. Hopefully gradual ones.
I don't know where my ceiling is for what I would pay. I've got over $20K worth of photo gear. Given that expenditure, is $240 a year for IMO the best software combo in the industry unreasonable? I shoot RAW and a huge part of the IQ of an image is done via software so I would say yes it's worth it. In fact, it's probably one of the better bang for the buck things in my photo budget.
p.1 #9 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
jharter wrote:
Does anyone remember film and processing costs? Typical shooters on this forum shoot hundreds, often thousands of images a year. At a very low price of $10 per roll of 36 photos for film and processing that is ~$280 per year. And for that you have a pile of 4x6 prints with which you can do nothing unless you operate your own darkroom.
Many complain about LR and PS, wanting this or that feature, wanting it to be faster, etc. I am one of them. It takes money to do those things. And Adobe is a publicly traded company. Complain to the shareholders or, here is an idea: buy Adobe and be a shareholder. You can go to the annual shareholder meeting and tell them to reduce the price....Show more →
Spending $3-4K/year on film and processing seemed expensive, but was nothing compared to digital. Each FF Canon body was over $7000 for the first 5 years and still averaging about $4000 later, not to mention the cost of computing. Film cameras were far less expensive and updated far less frequently.
My problem with Abode is not about the cost, but that they take over your computer and control to the OS level and internet. That's not acceptable for my personal use of anything else whatsoever on that computer. (I far prefer PS over LR, which just happens to be useless for my purposes.) In a business it would be leased equipment and monthly payments for hardware and software are not atypical. As well businesses often allow the MACs for the artsy/graphics departments.
p.1 #10 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
byteseller wrote:
Zenon
Thats exactly why I posted... my guess is Adobe is testing the waters to see how much anger and loathing they get for a 2X price increase... when they "back off" and only increase prices by 25% we sheep will feel like we've won an important battle and will meekly continue marching in whatever direction Adobe takes us.
Still looking for a reasonable LR alternative. Apple why did you forsake us with cancelling Aperture!
We will see. Previously there had been no increases for existing customers for 5 years. The 1 App and All App plans had a 6% increase last year.
p.1 #11 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
EB-1 wrote:
Spending $3-4K/year on film and processing seemed expensive, but was nothing compared to digital. Each FF Canon body was over $7000 for the first 5 years and still averaging about $4000 later, not to mention the cost of computing. Film cameras were far less expensive and updated far less frequently.
My problem with Abode is not about the cost, but that they take over your computer and control to the OS level and internet. That's not acceptable for my personal use of anything else whatsoever on that computer. (I far prefer PS over LR, which just happens to be useless for my purposes.) In a business it would be leased equipment and monthly payments for hardware and software are not atypical. As well businesses often allow the MACs for the artsy/graphics departments.
Let's not forget that those $3-4K for film were in 1995 dollars and in today's dollars that's like $5-6.5/year...or basically buying a new high end digital every year. Also if one does not need to be on the bleeding edge, one can pick up a used camera for 1/2 the cost as digital depreciates very fast.
I hear quite often people having over 200,000 images in the catalogue which equates to over $50,000 in film costs which I'm pretty confident the vast majority of people here have not sunk that much into their digital photography.
The bottom line, digital cameras might cost more upfront...but in the end the cost is much lower.
p.1 #12 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
Also, with the advent of eBay and forums like this (which occurred contemporaneously to LR/PS), the availability of used equipment has skyrocketed and costs have plunged. You can buy an excellent, if somewhat outdated, digital camera for peanuts compared to a similar level used film cameras back in the day. In the film days, few could afford the luxury of an advanced darkroom that would have provided a small fraction of the capability of LR and PS. When I closed my darkroom about 7-8 years ago I had equipment that would have retailed for over $50,000 in 1970's dollars and I could not do what PS does.
I understand that people don't like a software program "taking over their computer." But just use one computer for photography only. A decent, LR/PS worthy computer is much less than the cost of an equivalent enlarger plus light source plus lens. Few people used their darkrooms for dinner parties and even thought to complain about it.
p.1 #13 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
I don't understand what taking over a computer means. I got notified of updates with both PS and LR standalone programs so they had to be communicating with Adobe at all times. I don't see any difference with the plan. Since getting in Nov of 2017 I don't have a single file in the cloud.
p.1 #15 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
jharter wrote:
Does anyone remember film and processing costs? Typical shooters on this forum shoot hundreds, often thousands of images a year. At a very low price of $10 per roll of 36 photos for film and processing that is ~$280 per year. And for that you have a pile of 4x6 prints with which you can do nothing unless you operate your own darkroom.
Many complain about LR and PS, wanting this or that feature, wanting it to be faster, etc. I am one of them. It takes money to do those things. And Adobe is a publicly traded company. Complain to the shareholders or, here is an idea: buy Adobe and be a shareholder. You can go to the annual shareholder meeting and tell them to reduce the price....Show more →
Most film photographers these days develop their own films which reduces the cost significantly. $10 per roll of 36 frames is also a bit exaggerated - it is more like $5-7 for a 35 mm roll and $10 more reasonable for some 120 rolls of film. Biggest cost factor involving film is the time to develop and process (scanning or printing). But some like me enjoy this as alternative workflow when sitting in front of a monitor to PP digital images. I don't even go now into the details of why film shooting has advantages over digital in some areas.
p.1 #18 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
Doesn't every business try to determine what it can charge? Photographer's here post questions about what they can shcarge for selling gear, prints, images, etc.
@retrofocus I think a roll of 36 exp 35mm film plus processing costs more than $7 nowadays. It cost more than that in the 80's if I recall. I understand that some choose to use film - I shot large format film exclusively until 7-8 years ago - but that has nothing to do with the fact that LR/PS is a bargain (even at $20 a month) for the avid photographer and a steal for a professional.
As for the comment about about gas companies ... much of the price is tax, especially in Canada where tax can be as much as $1.50 a gallon. That is an idea. Maybe the government could tax each exposure taken on digital cameras - a photon tax - and redistribute the confiscated funds to level the playing field, i.e. subsidize Adobe products.
p.1 #19 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
rw11 wrote:
......
Adobe is experimenting with the best way to suck dollars out of consumers, just like a parasitic insect tries different veins to suck blood from
It is a mixed metaphor, but I always think of them as blood sucking, monopolistic pigs. Since they have had a virtual monopoly they do not need to be concerned about treating customers well, providing reasonable pricing, or even providing any sort of support. It also seems to me that the Photoshop products show minimal improvements. Chez and a few others seem to be on the payroll. For professionals with a full time photography business, the costs are pretty minimal. That is not necessarily true for a lot of us who are not pros and don't do that much processing. I would like to see their greed result in competition and do them in.
p.1 #20 · Fight or Flight - Adobe's plans for Doubling CC Price
jharter wrote:
Doesn't every business try to determine what it can charge? ......
Not every business is close to being a monopoly. Not every business tries to gouge the maximum from their customers. In fact most businesses seem concerned about providing their customers with value, treating them well and building strong customer loyalty.
