We have just heard that Adobe has listened to the cries of photographers since the Adobe MAX announcement of the new CC pricing and is giving a new bundle specific to their needs containing Photoshop and Lightroom for just $9.99 a month... if you sign up by December 31... and prove ownership of CS3 or later.
From the Adobe Blog:
"During today’s keynote at the Photoshop World conference in Las Vegas, Adobe is showcasing how photography workflows will evolve to take advantage of an increasingly connected world. This includes a tour of how easy it is today to use Creative Cloud to make your content and creations available anywhere, plus the power of Behance to showcase work. We also highlight some of the exciting new technologies that we’re working on for Photoshop CC and Lightroom; our roadmap for making our photography products even more connected; and a peek at how we’re planning to bring advanced Adobe digital imaging technology to mobile devices. You’ll see these products and services become available in the not too distant future.
If you missed the keynote, you can watch the replay here, which should be posted within about 24 hours. Throughout this week at Photoshop World, we’re demoing some great digital imaging innovation and I hope you’re as excited as we are about what’s available today and what’s coming soon, thanks to our talented teams of engineers.
Since introducing Photoshop CC, we’ve listened to feedback from a spectrum of our customers, from advanced professionals to casual enthusiasts. One common request was a solution specifically tailored for photographers. We listened, and at Photoshop World we’re announcing a special offer for our loyal Photoshop customers. Beginning today, customers who own Photoshop CS3 or higher are eligible for a special Creative Cloud membership offer that includes all of the following for just $9.99/month:
Photoshop CC
Lightroom 5
20 GB of online storage
Behance ProSite
Access to Creative Cloud Learn’s training resources
Ongoing upgrades and updates
To be clear, $9.99 is not an introductory price. It is the price for those of you who sign up by December 31, 2013.This offer will be available at the same time we introduce the new version of Lightroom 5.2 in a couple weeks. Visit the FAQ to learn more and follow Photoshop on Facebook, Twitter and Google+ to find out when the offer goes live.
All of us on the Photoshop team look forward to continuing to build on our 20+ year relationship with our loyal community."
So it sounds like the concept is a limited offer, in both time and scope. From what I have gathered (and I Adobe has clarified it is indeed a limited time offer), if you don't sign up for this deal by the end of the year, there will be no option to do so in the future. You also have to prove ownership of an Adobe license from CS3 or later. Kind of a weird decision to make this not a continual deal going into the future if you ask me. I understand the CS3 requirement though.
To answer some additional questions about current CC members:
Existing Creative Cloud members who wish to transition to this offer must own a previous version of Photoshop or Photoshop Extended, version CS3 or later (CS3.x, CS4, CS5.x, or CS6).
If you meet this qualification, how you transition will depend on the type of membership you have:
Photoshop CC single-app members will be automatically transitioned to this new program, with its additional benefits and lower ongoing price.
Creative Cloud complete members should contact Adobe Customer Service to discuss transitioning to this new offer.
Zach - I own CS6 Premium Production & Lightroom 5 legally, just fyi, but Adobe did NOT lose a billion last year, they actually set records in terms of revenue and profits.
You can read it on their annual report: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/201212/Q412Earni...
In terms of piracy, they did. Over a billion dollars in potential Adobe revenue was pirated in Adobe software last year. Adobe is the one company in the world that loses more potential money in piracy than they make in sales annually.
It's not potential revenue if those pirates aren't willing to pay for the software. In an imaginary world where piracy is impossible, not all of those people would opt to buy the software. Thus, you can't just multiply the number of pirated copies by the MSRP to get some potential revenue loss.
In the real world, piracy is a natural force of the free market. It has an equilibrium point based on a product's desirability, accessibility (including price), and the risks involved in performing the piracy. If your product is excessively pirated, there's a chance that it's just not accessible, usually because it's overpriced.
Take music, for example. Music piracy in the US has decreased significantly, arguably largely because of the growth of digital services like Spotify that provide a ton of accessibility. Fewer people bother to pirate when it's cheap and easy to get music legally. And since 2003, digital music revenues have increased from $20mm to $4.2bn. http://mashable.com/2011/03/24/internet-music-piracy-study/
Another great example is video gaming. I don't have any studies to cite, but as a gamer, I know that Steam and pricing programs like the Indie Bundle make piracy look unappealing.
Adobe's products are overpriced. They should make their prices friendlier to retail consumers, especially because their operations are extremely scalable. They may make less per copy, but their total revenues will surely increase.
Music piracy declined when monthly streaming services came into fruition and revolutionized the market. How is Spotify's business model any different from Adobes'?
In terms of overpriced, they're able to set the price because all of their competitors failed at innovation compared to Adobe. Also, this is a HUGE price cut to their normal pricing market...so how are you STILL not happy?
Music piracy declined because the convenience of streaming services overcame the benefits of piracy. Revolution had very little to do with it, especially since Napster revolutionized the industry in the opposite direction.
Sure, they're able to set the price. But until the price drops to a breakeven point with piracy benefits, pirates won't switch over. Subscriptions are subscriptions, but consider that $10/month at Spotify gives you access to over $10 million worth of songs. $40/month at Adobe gets you ~$800 of software.
Excellent responses DXLi...this is the truth.
"benefits of piracy" lets call a spade a spade here. Theft, robbing, steeling, breaking the law. you seem to talk about it as if it is just a fact, we have to stop thinking of it in terms of convenience and start calling people what they are, thieves
I'm not making any kind of moral statement about piracy. I'm just saying that people will pirate until the costs outweigh the benefits. Morality is just a component in the costs part of the equation.
But now that you mention it, do you really think there's no difference between piracy and robbery? Between downloading a copy of something and committing violent larceny?...
Not only that but the music industry said they will allow back ups to ipods, etc.
Great comparison with Spotify. The problem is value for money. People just don't feel that the Adobe products hold the value that Adobe claim.
And piracy -- c'mon. Piracy is one of the largest factors that have made Adobe to what it is. It is their greatest marketing tool since many (really zero) people would start to use apps that would cost $800+ and then create the need to use them for real as professionals.
They didn't revolutionize the market, Napster had done that, they offered a service AND a VERY cheap price point - Free!. I put together a presentation arguing the 99cent price point before the itunes store happened. Its frankly cheap enough that it became nothing for someone to buy. Since middlemen and distribution costs decreased to almost nothing, this was possible. Streaming services are simply an evolution of that itunes pricing model.
For Adobe, their middlemen costs are decreased significantly in a similar vein. They could afford to go less as well which they apparently understand with this new offer. With a very, very low fixed cost per user, they could probably drop the pricing to far less than half. If the volume increased enough, they might actually make more money? Its no secret that businesses/websites love the subscription model since people are often reluctant to bother with turning it off even if they hardly use it if the price is not too high.
They'd definitely make more revenue. The product's sales should behave similarly to a Laffer Curve, where revenue is maximized in the middle. And anyways, profit margins aren't as important as free cash flow.
It's a very hard one to calculate. I completely stand by the argument that people may not buy Adobe products if it wasn't possible to pirate, but I do think that there would be a hell of a lot of people who would end up buying. I'm trying to think if I would lay down the coin for photoshop or lightroom if I hadn't pirated it for the past 14 years....Maybe I would now that photography is a hobby of mine and I appreciate the programs for more than just playing around with photos I've pulled online. They should do some sort of survey asking people if they would buy it if they couldn't pirate.
Agreed. It's very hard to calculate. I'm not saying that 0% of pirates would buy in that situation, but it's definitely not even close to 100%.
You cannot count "potential revenue" as losses.
That would be like me saying I SHOULD be earning $20k a month with my photography, but I'm not so I am losing $20k a month. Doesn't work that way.
I see what you're saying, but I feel like it's more complicated than that.
Isnt that the twisted logic of the RIAA and movie industry? Just because someone pirates The Lone Ranger doesn't always mean they saved $8, it often means that they wasted an afternoon on a movie that they would never has seen in the first place. The same goes for someone pirating Gangam Style, a Breaking Bad episode or Photoshop.
There is a legitimate counter-argument as to how Piracy HELPS sales long term because pirating a Rihanna song can lead to paying for her concert, pirating the Mad Men pilot gets them to buy the DVD set or pirating Photoshop sets them up for a career involving professional PS related work.
Just like the Game of Thrones creators, I'm sure Adobe is fully aware of the benefits of getting their product out in the hands and minds of users who have become lifelong fans.
Really... Using that Copyright Math, a 12 year old could "cost" a record label $8 Billion dollars with just one ipod. There is no way record labels could be in business if those "losses" were real.
Question is: were those actual damages? Would that 12 year old ever paid $8 billion for that music? If not - what actual damage was done? Server load (illegally downloaded from friends = no server costs from record label)... Potential sales? Realistically - 12 year olds spend less than $300/yr in music even if buying CD's or via iTunes.
You can watch the TED Talk with Rob Reid I'm referencing. It might just blow your mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0
Which means that piracy is not affecting them that much so that info negates all their arguments to fight piracy.
nice try zach, but "losing over a billion dollars annually to piracy" is not actually true. How do you quantify losses that never would have been sales in the first place?
Zach Sutton, who was just last week telling us we should shut up and not complain about Adobe's abusive price strategies.
Well it looks like all of our "complaining" has actually affected positive change for consumers. The new, more fair pricing strategy will not only benefit "complainers" but also early adopters of CC who will now see lower rates.
But the most important part of Adobe's abrupt change of pricing is it shows that we have a voice and when companies push us, we can push back.
Anyone know if this $10/month price is good for just a year and then goes up, or does it stay at $10/month? It wouldn't be worth it for me if it doesn't stay at $10/month for at least two to three years. I already got CS6 and LR5.
So I just bought LR5 when it came out, which was, what, like 3 months ago? That was $79 I think. Is there any kind of credit I could get, or something, since I already own this (and PS CS6)? It would suck to know that I could have held out for 3 months and then saved that cash.
Then again, with CS6 and LR5, it doesn't really make sense to buy into Creative Cloud yet anyway. I'll just buy in before the end of the year...
Good question... I upgraded to LR5 on Monday :(
Ah bugger. I was sold when I saw the price but coming from someone who's only ever had pirated copies it looks like I won't be able to do the right thing. Good on them for listening though!
This is exactly the problem. The cost of being "legal" is still too high for those who aren't at the professional level.
I'm sure there are many others hoping to get in on this but simply don't use PS enough to justify buying a full license to give them the "benefit" of paying monthly fees.
Maybe if there weren't so much pirating, the price would come down. I'm sure this is part of Adobe's plan to recoup profits. ~ Catch22. Bring the price down and see less pirating. In quantitive terms (because Im simple like that)---
Less cost (10) X more sales (100) = high profit (1000). High Cost (100) X fewer sales (10) = Same high profit (1000). Less cost = more happy customers. High costs = reason why this discussion is happening.
CC was pirated in the first day lol
If they really were listening to us, they would provide CS7 on dvd to purchase for those photographers who do not have their work computers hooked up to the internet, I know hundreds of those.
You don't need to "stream" CC, it is installed on you computer.
you have to download it to your computer and it is a huge file. then it has to connect to Adobe every 30 days to verify. PLUS all the updates you get you have to have a fast connection to download appropriately the updates. Perhaps the word "stream" was used incorrectly. I was referring to a very fast internet connection and many around me are still on dialup at 56k modems, try to download CC on that. In the beginning Adobe said they would still have boxed versions of CS7 for those without internet, guess they backed off that and now those photographers are left out in the cold. Typical of big companies.
From the FAQ: An Internet connection is required the first time you install and license your desktop apps, but you can use the apps in offline mode with a valid software license. The desktop apps will attempt to validate your software licenses every 30 days.
For annual members, you can use the apps for up to 99 days in offline mode. Month-to-month members can use the software for up to 30 days in offline mode.
Thought I read that in some cases they do have an option to get the software on disk like for installations that are not allowed to connect to the internet.
And, really 56k modems? I must say I am surprised at that. At modems. At all.
Adobe originally talked about the disc but they have backed off that idea and now there is no disc. Either get it by internet or not at all. Yes, I don't know about where you live but here in WV laptops are still sold with 56K modems because they are used a lot in our rural areas where the government and companies refuse to run broadband. So photographers in those areas are doomed. A few of them have already said they will switch over to Corel. Myself, I'll use the free DNG converter if I get a new camera and CS5 raw will not open the files but Adobe no doubt will either get rid of DNG or start charging for it, alienating more customers.
No I think they must offer the disk to military institutions that have systems that are not allowed to attach to the internet. That doesn't mean they'll offer it to other customers though, I grant you. Sorry to hear about lack of broadband--am a big supporter of having broadband access everywhere. I'm sure some people will switch away and some will switch to, or pay where they didn't before. It will be a mix and Adobe will react/change if/when the impact becomes apparent. But I don't know that I would assume Adobe will get rid of DNG or start charging for it. I don't think they are deliberately trying to alienate customer, though sometimes big changes will have that effect on some customers. Hope it all works out in the end. If I wanted this and lived where there is no broadband I think I'd take a roadtrip somewhere where I could get access. Yes, I'm that way :-)
Not me. For instance, I do not let my work (photography) computer access the internet, thus not able to get cc since it is not in disc form where I can install it to the pc of my choice. Adobe is out to make money so yes, I bet by year's end they will charge for DNG.
Okay I guess time will tell. Degustibus non disputatem.
Not to mention those photographers whose internet speeds are so slow they cannot stream or use the Cloud for anything.
No Bridge? Seriously?
Yep, they got rid of bridge too.
I did some research and found that Bridge is included: http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/faq.html
Then all the instructors on creative live and other website need to be told because all the photoshop cloud instructors for the past month have ALL said there is no bridge so you will have to use CS5 or CS6 bridge..hummm.
Weird. Will probably need to email them to get confirmation. Adobe doesn't seem to know what they got themselves into with the cloud.
And they may as well realize that no matter what answers they give, the fact is, you need to download a huge program and then download all the updates, none of which can be saved to disc to install later if you have to replace your hard drive and the majority of WV does not have fast broadband to download Cloud.
So I have CS5 Master Collection, how does the new pricing affect my app accessibility if I take this deal? Am I going to lose access to my CS5 apps not included in this deal?
I don't think you lose access to any CS5 stuff you already have.
So basically after dumping 800bucks last year on PS CS 6 and not being happy at all about the CC only strategy announcement I am now supposed to be happy for being allowed to pay some bucks less for a subscription model I hate in the first place? Haha...How about letting me decide when my budget allows for spending money on something and just giving me a retail box I can save up to and leave me alone with all this subscription madness :) One can only hope camera companies don't try to pull off camera subscription models to generate steady revenue because of the used camera market... :D
Oh, how nice. So in order to benefit from this, as someone who already owns PS CS6, I get to pay for PS CS6 twice! Brilliant!
Yes exactly! :D
So where do you sign up?