Adobe Officially Unveils CS6, $49/Month All-Inclusive Subscription Service(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Adobe Officially Unveils CS6, $49/Month All-Inclusive Subscription Service
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-cs6-and-its-49month-all-inclusive-creative-cloud-subscription-service/
17 comments
This could be an opportunity for a startup. Adobe is going to lose what was previously their lowest tier of price discrimination: people using pirated copies. I don't know if this is the case, but if a significant number of young illustrators (high school students say) currently start out using pirated copies of Photoshop, then there is an opportunity for someone else to capture all those users, and potentially keep them as they start to have money.
Are you suggesting people build alternatives to the Adobe suite? That's not something a startup can just do, there are alternatives that have been around for 5+ years and do not come close to the power of the Adobe suite, for anyone to compete they'll need to be better than all the current free alternatives which isn't something someone can do with 6 months of work.
There is definitely room for someone to compete with Adobe, but whether anyone ever can is what matters, there's a reason Photoshop is so widely used when there are free alternatives.
There is definitely room for someone to compete with Adobe, but whether anyone ever can is what matters, there's a reason Photoshop is so widely used when there are free alternatives.
You don't have to replace all of Adobe CS to compete with Adobe CS.
Not many of the folk I know with CS actually use the vast majority of it. For example I do almost no print work. All the stuff Adobe sweat over for the print folk - doesn't impact me in the slightest. In fact it gets in the way of the stuff I need to do since it adds complexity to the UI.
In the Mac land a bunch of folk are switching to paid tools like Pixelmator and Acorn as alternatives to Photoshop for some work. They don't replace everything that PS dues, but offer what a subset of the PS audience needs for a substantially cheaper price with some arguably better functionality in a few places. I know people who have CS and Pixelmator, and spend most of their time in the latter and just bring up CS when they need something "clever". Both Pixelmator and Acorn seem to be doing very well for themselves - and I think both are still single developer shops.
What nobody apart from Adobe seems to be really doing is the "suite" part - managing the integration well. For example - I would part with $200 in a heartbeat for a micro-suite that handled bitmap and vector work together to the same level that Pixelmator managed bitmap stuff, with some nice glue/plugins to support where I work (web apps, mobile apps, pushing out multiple resolution versions, etc.).
Not many of the folk I know with CS actually use the vast majority of it. For example I do almost no print work. All the stuff Adobe sweat over for the print folk - doesn't impact me in the slightest. In fact it gets in the way of the stuff I need to do since it adds complexity to the UI.
In the Mac land a bunch of folk are switching to paid tools like Pixelmator and Acorn as alternatives to Photoshop for some work. They don't replace everything that PS dues, but offer what a subset of the PS audience needs for a substantially cheaper price with some arguably better functionality in a few places. I know people who have CS and Pixelmator, and spend most of their time in the latter and just bring up CS when they need something "clever". Both Pixelmator and Acorn seem to be doing very well for themselves - and I think both are still single developer shops.
What nobody apart from Adobe seems to be really doing is the "suite" part - managing the integration well. For example - I would part with $200 in a heartbeat for a micro-suite that handled bitmap and vector work together to the same level that Pixelmator managed bitmap stuff, with some nice glue/plugins to support where I work (web apps, mobile apps, pushing out multiple resolution versions, etc.).
Not as nice as true integration, but in OmniGraffle you can link to an external file for the image in an object instead of copying it into the document. Better yet, when OmniGraffle receives focus, it notices when such external files change, and updates the document (I use 4.2.3 of OmniGraffle Pro, which is old, so this feature may have been improved and/or removed)
The latest version of OmniGraffle has Bezier curves, but I haven't used them, so I do not know whether they are any good, but I would guess that they may be lacking for the cases where you want to do more artistic drawing. It is more a diagramming tool than a drawing tool.
The latest version of OmniGraffle has Bezier curves, but I haven't used them, so I do not know whether they are any good, but I would guess that they may be lacking for the cases where you want to do more artistic drawing. It is more a diagramming tool than a drawing tool.
I like OmniGraffle - just upgraded it in fact - but it's a very different kind of product from Illustrator :)
(Incidentally, an idea with these types of objections to it tends to be a good startup idea.)
I think it can still be done. Corel's options for vector and photo editors still get business, and quark express competed with indesign for a long time (assuming the reason it died was because they failed to keep innovating, not because indesign's position is insurmountable). There are yet tons of video editing software options to compete with Premiere.
When I look at the free/open source solutions (gimp, scribus, inkscape), what I see are tools made by engineers. I think if you injected in a good measure of input from designers and usability experts it'd go a long way towards being solid competition.
When I look at the free/open source solutions (gimp, scribus, inkscape), what I see are tools made by engineers. I think if you injected in a good measure of input from designers and usability experts it'd go a long way towards being solid competition.
QuarkXPress existed WAAAY before InDesign came out. It was the 800 pound gorilla in the publishing world for many years.
InDesign was the insurgent and KILLED Quark in short order - primarily because Quark had become such a legacy piece of junk and couldn't keep up with the times or the much more modern InDesign.
InDesign was the insurgent and KILLED Quark in short order - primarily because Quark had become such a legacy piece of junk and couldn't keep up with the times or the much more modern InDesign.
tldr: It wasn't that they couldn't keep up with the times, it's that they didn't, because they were milking their cash cow hard and wilfully ignoring the future.
Quark committed suicide: they outsourced virtually all of their R&D, leaving none of the people who had built the previous versions employed. They ignored their users, assuming they were captive, for more than a decade.
They also ignored the move to OS X for literally years, leaving (mainly Mac-based) users to choose between staying on OS 9 and moving to Windows and buying all new hardware.
Adobe came along at just the right moment with InDesign -- ran on OS X, best-of-class print tools -- and you could almost hear the stampede.
A real pity, too, as InDesign has a horrorshow UI, while XPress's "make boxes, put things in them" metaphor is exactly how DTP should be done.
Quark committed suicide: they outsourced virtually all of their R&D, leaving none of the people who had built the previous versions employed. They ignored their users, assuming they were captive, for more than a decade.
They also ignored the move to OS X for literally years, leaving (mainly Mac-based) users to choose between staying on OS 9 and moving to Windows and buying all new hardware.
Adobe came along at just the right moment with InDesign -- ran on OS X, best-of-class print tools -- and you could almost hear the stampede.
A real pity, too, as InDesign has a horrorshow UI, while XPress's "make boxes, put things in them" metaphor is exactly how DTP should be done.
> It wasn't that they couldn't keep up with the times, it's that they didn't.
e.g. Microsoft, MySpace, etc. etc. I'd argue didn't and couldn't are essentially one-and-the-same.
e.g. Microsoft, MySpace, etc. etc. I'd argue didn't and couldn't are essentially one-and-the-same.
Before InDesign killed Quark, Quark killed PageMaker. Going on how long it's been, i think InDesign is due for a killing by now.
Adobe software is just too powerful to be replaced. It's like Autodesk. You can do almost everything there. This flexibility (and still competing with/being the most powerful tool in that niche) makes it almost impossible to defeat. Of course adobe is not perfect (very far from that) but their software is being developed for several years, is not something a startup makes in some months. Of course is possible, look at the example of Sketchup, there was dozens of great 3d modeling tools and they gained a good market position innovating where others grasp: usability for newbies. But they had to be great on this, good usability wouldn´t be enough..
Is there an identifiable set of users who use only a subset of what Creative Suite provides? If so, supporting that subset better than CS could be a possibility.
There are probably several identifiable subsets of users who make use of different parts of the Suite.
Ostensibly, the idea of the CS was that you could mix and match just the pieces that suit the work flow of your discipline, whether that's photo finishing, graphic design, interactive design, or what have you.
The reality is that this is one of the reasons Adobe's products are bloated, difficult to learn, and not truly integrated or consistent in their UI.
Ostensibly, the idea of the CS was that you could mix and match just the pieces that suit the work flow of your discipline, whether that's photo finishing, graphic design, interactive design, or what have you.
The reality is that this is one of the reasons Adobe's products are bloated, difficult to learn, and not truly integrated or consistent in their UI.
They've turned a blind eye to piracy for years, not taking obvious steps to curb it. It's said to be for the reasons you state. Adobe has a solid track record over decades of knowing when to hold and when to let go, way back to the fonts for their first product, postscript. For flash, they adroitly opened it to foil open alternatives just as they started to get traction. Although the founders are gone, this is a essential issue across their stable of products - a little like J&J or Procter & Gamble or Nestle in this, they've demonstrated they know how to manage their franchises.
They will continue to offer a shrink-wrapped version according to the article. Even if this wasn't needed for customers who still want it (perhaps jacking up the price, for offline access, security, privacy), it would be worth keeping just for the reasons you state (for piracy).
They will continue to offer a shrink-wrapped version according to the article. Even if this wasn't needed for customers who still want it (perhaps jacking up the price, for offline access, security, privacy), it would be worth keeping just for the reasons you state (for piracy).
I think there might be more of an opportunity for software that facilitates what Adobe's graphics software is used for but was never designed for: The work flow from site mockup to finished graphics, fonts, markup, CSS, and JS.
The reality is that the work flow of developing an interactive screen kind of still sucks. The process is basically ad hoc, tools are unintuitive and unoptimized.
At one time, Fireworks may have been a step in the right direction, but it's the neglected stepchild of the Adobe line, and I anticipate its continual decline...
The reality is that the work flow of developing an interactive screen kind of still sucks. The process is basically ad hoc, tools are unintuitive and unoptimized.
At one time, Fireworks may have been a step in the right direction, but it's the neglected stepchild of the Adobe line, and I anticipate its continual decline...
The Creative Cloud is optional at this point - customers can still pay for a regular upgrade. As such, a file of some sort would get out.
Adobe offers their software at a much lower rate to high schools, collges and their students. The liberal arts classes with computers have Adobe suite. Web design teachers teach almost exclusively using Adobe software. If you are a high school student majoring in art or design in the U.S more than likely you will have no cost access to Adobe software at your school. This business model has serve Adobe well for years.
Yeah, Adobe pushes CS like a drug; They get you hooked in high school when it's free and make you pony up a nice chunk of change when you're hooked and need it to make your livelihood.
While I agree with you to some extend, there also was a student edition of PS for I think around 200bucks, which offered a reasonable alternative and was regularly subject to various discounts.
I think the subscription model may be good for businesses, because they could always be on the latest version without having to go through a new approval process etc.
However, for private users the barrier to entry will generally not be lowered I believe. At least not for the occasional amateur photographer/graphic designer/video guy. Many people buy PS once and are on e.g. version 'CS' and stay there for a rather long time. They might try the new thing out, but can always fall back because they "own" a copy and can use it as they please. People do not think as rational about it, the security to always have a fallback is worth a lot apparently.
I think the subscription model may be good for businesses, because they could always be on the latest version without having to go through a new approval process etc.
However, for private users the barrier to entry will generally not be lowered I believe. At least not for the occasional amateur photographer/graphic designer/video guy. Many people buy PS once and are on e.g. version 'CS' and stay there for a rather long time. They might try the new thing out, but can always fall back because they "own" a copy and can use it as they please. People do not think as rational about it, the security to always have a fallback is worth a lot apparently.
While I'm sure there's still some (possibly even a lot -- it's a big market) opportunity there, Adobe is the 500lb gorilla in the space, and they're trying to capture the low end. It seems like the opportunities in this space for a startup just dropped significantly.
They can always use cs5 and below..
I think you have that backwards. Using a pirated copy of Photoshop means it is part of their toolset and if they get hired by a legitmate company that is what they will want to use. By the way does YCombinator encourage the use of pirated software?
You rent music until iTunes shuts down, you rent books until Amazon decides to take them back, now it's heavy software that you only get to keep as long as Adobe says it's OK.
I still occasionally use a copy of Corel Draw/PhotoPaint 11 that came out in 2002. You know what? It works great and does 99% of what I'd use Illustrator/Photoshop for, and I don't have to keep forking money on it. In fact, I expect to be able to use it just as well 10 years from now.
I think Adobe is fighting their biggest competitor here: themselves (like Microsoft and other large software providers). There is little they can keep adding to justify the upgrade, so they are instead making sure you can't hang on to that old copy you're used to.
At least they're charging upfront for the same thing and not messing with the toolbars (ahem ribbon ahem) to claim they've added something worthwhile..
I still occasionally use a copy of Corel Draw/PhotoPaint 11 that came out in 2002. You know what? It works great and does 99% of what I'd use Illustrator/Photoshop for, and I don't have to keep forking money on it. In fact, I expect to be able to use it just as well 10 years from now.
I think Adobe is fighting their biggest competitor here: themselves (like Microsoft and other large software providers). There is little they can keep adding to justify the upgrade, so they are instead making sure you can't hang on to that old copy you're used to.
At least they're charging upfront for the same thing and not messing with the toolbars (ahem ribbon ahem) to claim they've added something worthwhile..
I don't rent music from iTunes at all. Once I purchase it and the bits are on my hard drive I can back them up as I please, I can listen to them as I please and since they don't have DRM I can share them however I want.
If iTunes were to shut down tomorrow all of my music purchased from iTunes would continue to function.
If iTunes were to shut down tomorrow all of my music purchased from iTunes would continue to function.
Good point, I'm a few years behind with that. Movies from iTunes are still protected though, right?
$20 per month for just Photoshop seems like an easy sell for small businesses who would otherwise pirate a copy.
Photoshop upgrades usually cost <$200, and most people I know skip versions. I think at best Adobe has shipped a version each 18mo (sometimes 2 years).
So Photoshop "upgraders" have paid $10/mo in the past, and this is just $5 if you skip versions. $20 is quite a bit more. But I guess it's cheaper for the first year, so maybe new users will like that.
So Photoshop "upgraders" have paid $10/mo in the past, and this is just $5 if you skip versions. $20 is quite a bit more. But I guess it's cheaper for the first year, so maybe new users will like that.
Adobe is moving to a yearly release cycle going forward, with a major/minor tick-tok.
They've also made version skipping uneconomical going forward with the elimination of upgrade pricing for all those except the most recent version owners:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html#upgrade...
They've also made version skipping uneconomical going forward with the elimination of upgrade pricing for all those except the most recent version owners:
http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html#upgrade...
It's not $79/mo. if you have to pay annually. It's $948 per year. The $49/mo. price point should be the month-to-month price. That's a no brainer. Layout out $1000 in one hit is asking too much when the full purchase price is only a few hundred more.
It's not a few hundred more if you want everything in the cloud offering.
Creative Cloud gives you many more applications than the CS Master suite - which is $2600. See http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-cs...
If you just use The Design Standard suite it's a waste... if you use most of the Adobe products and upgrade regularly it's probably a saving.
Creative Cloud gives you many more applications than the CS Master suite - which is $2600. See http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-cs...
If you just use The Design Standard suite it's a waste... if you use most of the Adobe products and upgrade regularly it's probably a saving.
That's an interesting point. All I really want is Illustrator, Photoshop and maybe InDesign.
um... or $75/Month if you are in the UK http://cl.ly/0W0O1T23121r0O0d0g0j
Even accounting for VAT@20% this is still a £9 price increase over the US price. It's not that hard to put the 'u' back in color.
although they seem to be charing a VAT rate of 23% http://cl.ly/1g382s2t1P290Y0i2V3S - which I can't see any reference to in the VAT rates guide for the UK http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/rates.htm
The UK figure is inclusive of VAT. The US figure is exclusive of sales tax.
So the ex-VAT figure would really be about $62. So only about $12 on top - and a chunk of that 12 will disappear dealing with hedging exchange rate nonsense.
So the ex-VAT figure would really be about $62. So only about $12 on top - and a chunk of that 12 will disappear dealing with hedging exchange rate nonsense.
I use Dreamweaver practically everyday, it's industry leading software, but it's not irreplaceable.
I've tried Microsoft's Expression software and feel is a viable alternative for a one-time price of $79 smackers.
If I get an itch to upgrade, it won't be to rent Adobe software.
I've tried Microsoft's Expression software and feel is a viable alternative for a one-time price of $79 smackers.
If I get an itch to upgrade, it won't be to rent Adobe software.
Dreamweaver is an industry standard? I don't know of anyone working web dev using dreamweaver (I've always thought of it as a teaching/hobbyist tool akin to, though obviously better than, FrontPage).
It's the only visual web tool I've seen which generates clean HTML/CSS.
Dreamweaver sits right next to Sublime Text 2 in my toolbox and is great for visual layouts. (Saves a lot of typing.) I then switch over to Sublime or something else to hook them up.
Dreamweaver sits right next to Sublime Text 2 in my toolbox and is great for visual layouts. (Saves a lot of typing.) I then switch over to Sublime or something else to hook them up.
Do newer versions output better HTML? Because it's pretty obvious to me when a site has been generated, and when it's been coded manually. I'm sick of seeing <strong><strong></strong><strong></strong></strong> everywhere, and CSS rules being called style1, style2, etc.
I started off with Dreamweaver but very quickly had to move to Text Editors because the I had very little control over the generated HTML. While it was great for cases where I am mixing static HTML pages with little design, but whenever there was JS, decently complicated CSS or Server Side Scripting involved DW became largely useless as I had to modify generated source and at times, rewrite it.
Photoshop generates HTML/CSS, but I would imagine it's even worse than Dreamweaver's generated code. It sounds like you're tidying up the generated markup anyway - after a few runs I imagine you'd be pretty close to giving it a go from scratch?
It's like generated scaffold code. A quick way to get a good percentage along the way and then dip in and hand-tweak it from there.
For me the DW generated code is clean enough that there's really no "re-doing" stuff, just extending and refining.
For me the DW generated code is clean enough that there's really no "re-doing" stuff, just extending and refining.
I paid for Photoshop 6, and then CS1 and CS3.
I'll happily pay $29/mo (and even $49/mo) for the Creative Suite. I think that a lot of people under estimate the power of Photoshop and the other applications -- there is no alternative because nothing robustly imports and exports as .psd files. Photoshop especially is an example of a Microsoft Office esque product in that every designer I know uses Photoshop in a subtly different manner, making it nearly impossible for anyone to create a "Photoshop killer." I also secretly love Fireworks, despite it not being updated for about six years.
I have always thought Adobe did a pretty good job at combatting piracy, especially in the more recent CS versions: it really is a lot of work to pirate the applications now.
The applications are total trash to use though if you're anyone other than someone that is not technically sophisticated save for growing up in the Adobe world. (designers, basically.)
I'll happily pay $29/mo (and even $49/mo) for the Creative Suite. I think that a lot of people under estimate the power of Photoshop and the other applications -- there is no alternative because nothing robustly imports and exports as .psd files. Photoshop especially is an example of a Microsoft Office esque product in that every designer I know uses Photoshop in a subtly different manner, making it nearly impossible for anyone to create a "Photoshop killer." I also secretly love Fireworks, despite it not being updated for about six years.
I have always thought Adobe did a pretty good job at combatting piracy, especially in the more recent CS versions: it really is a lot of work to pirate the applications now.
The applications are total trash to use though if you're anyone other than someone that is not technically sophisticated save for growing up in the Adobe world. (designers, basically.)
The only critical benefit I see to CS6 is (hopefully) compatibility with OSX Lion's new app management scheme.
I'm curious to see if/how this catches on. Most creative professionals have already paid for CS so it's more cost effective to upgrade than subscribe, especially if they're doing the skip-every-other-version approach. The only market this works for are enterprise customers who need this kind of payment process.
Perhaps the next generation or two will adopt subscriptions, but I'm skeptical. Like Paul said, if CS becomes subscription only, most new designers will look for something pirateble and/or affordable first.
I'm curious to see if/how this catches on. Most creative professionals have already paid for CS so it's more cost effective to upgrade than subscribe, especially if they're doing the skip-every-other-version approach. The only market this works for are enterprise customers who need this kind of payment process.
Perhaps the next generation or two will adopt subscriptions, but I'm skeptical. Like Paul said, if CS becomes subscription only, most new designers will look for something pirateble and/or affordable first.
Except Adobe killed upgrade pricing if you skip versions now. Only CS5 and 5.5 owners get upgrade pricing for CS6.
There is a temporary reprieve for CS 3 & 4 owners until the end of 2012 (they backtracked somewhat after user feedback). After that only the most recent previous version get upgrade pricing going forward - everyone else pays full price.
This effectively kills version skipping as for the suites you'd typically have to skip 3-4 versions to spend less than $50/month overall in the end.
There is a temporary reprieve for CS 3 & 4 owners until the end of 2012 (they backtracked somewhat after user feedback). After that only the most recent previous version get upgrade pricing going forward - everyone else pays full price.
This effectively kills version skipping as for the suites you'd typically have to skip 3-4 versions to spend less than $50/month overall in the end.
Hardly.
If you've paid for CS5.5 Master Collection, your total upgrade cost is $549.
Even if you've only paid for CS2 Design Standard, the upgrade cost is $1399.
Considering a two-year subscription cycle costs $1200-$1900, it's more cost effective to upgrade.
If you're short term, subscriptions are probably ok. But if you're committed long term they're a HUGE risk.
If you've paid for CS5.5 Master Collection, your total upgrade cost is $549.
Even if you've only paid for CS2 Design Standard, the upgrade cost is $1399.
Considering a two-year subscription cycle costs $1200-$1900, it's more cost effective to upgrade.
If you're short term, subscriptions are probably ok. But if you're committed long term they're a HUGE risk.
I think that this is a really good idea. $588/year is expensive for hobbyists but not for serious amateurs and professionals. The online storage and iPad integration for editing while travelling also looks great.
A little off topic, but one of the architects of Creative Cloud called me a couple of months ago, mainly to talk about Clojure vs. Java development, and that got me interested in Creative Cloud.
I probably won't be a customer though: I have invested a lot of time learning Final Cut Pro 7 and the combination of expense and the getting up to speed time is a deal breaker for me.
A little off topic, but one of the architects of Creative Cloud called me a couple of months ago, mainly to talk about Clojure vs. Java development, and that got me interested in Creative Cloud.
I probably won't be a customer though: I have invested a lot of time learning Final Cut Pro 7 and the combination of expense and the getting up to speed time is a deal breaker for me.
I'm surprised they didn't come out with this sooner. Anybody savvy with details as to whether this will bring in more or less income per user than the traditional sales methods?
Would they go into this if they thought it would make less money? Probably trying to go after users who pirate the software and try to make it seem more appealing to subscribe so they at least get some revenue.
They still sell it in the traditional box too. That's how I'll be upgrading.
I'd like to believe there is a market need for a cheap Photoshop Light. $99 or something low for a version of Photoshop that has 90% of the features removed. Just the most basic ones for the average user left in. I get the sense that most people who pirate Photoshop and make the rest of us endure the terrible DRM are only pirating the $600 piece of software to rotate and crop images because nothing else is out there.
That's the corner of the market that Photoshop Elements ( http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html ) is targeting is it not? $99 as you suggest!
Photoshop Elements is actually a totally different product. Someone who's very comfortable with the Photoshop workflow might not like Elements at all.
There actually was a Photoshop Light: Photoshop LE. I got a free copy of Photoshop 5.5 LE along with a Wacom tablet. It really was a stripped down Photoshop. Imagine someone had sprinkled #ifdef PHOTOSHOP_LE everywhere and then said "Ship it!"
It was nearly the perfect product for me. The only really annoying limitation was working with a single step of undo/redo. I taught me to be very deliberate with my brush strokes. :D
There actually was a Photoshop Light: Photoshop LE. I got a free copy of Photoshop 5.5 LE along with a Wacom tablet. It really was a stripped down Photoshop. Imagine someone had sprinkled #ifdef PHOTOSHOP_LE everywhere and then said "Ship it!"
It was nearly the perfect product for me. The only really annoying limitation was working with a single step of undo/redo. I taught me to be very deliberate with my brush strokes. :D
> Imagine someone had sprinkled #ifdef PHOTOSHOP_LE everywhere and then said "Ship it!"
This is a surprisingly common strategy for shrinkwrapped software. I interviewed at Chief Architect once. (http://www.chiefarchitect.com/). They have one codebase. They have about a dozen products overall though, which are all selective builds of the same codebase. Now instead of just selling $2000 software to professionals, they can sell $60-$600 software to hobbyists. Kind of funny thinking about how much money the humble #ifdef has made the software industry, eh?
This is a surprisingly common strategy for shrinkwrapped software. I interviewed at Chief Architect once. (http://www.chiefarchitect.com/). They have one codebase. They have about a dozen products overall though, which are all selective builds of the same codebase. Now instead of just selling $2000 software to professionals, they can sell $60-$600 software to hobbyists. Kind of funny thinking about how much money the humble #ifdef has made the software industry, eh?
Pixelmator, Acorn, GIMP and Paint.NET does pretty much this.
Pixelmator has a UI that rivals Photoshop in many areas.
Pixelmator has a UI that rivals Photoshop in many areas.
I haven't tried Pixelmator or Acorn, but GIMP and Paint.Net are not very good.
They're ok for totally free, but are a pain in the ass to use or missing some fairly obvious things (e.g. being able to set the radius of a rounded corner in Paint.Net).
And I say that as someone who rarely uses them, I can't imagine how annoying they are for proper designers.
They're ok for totally free, but are a pain in the ass to use or missing some fairly obvious things (e.g. being able to set the radius of a rounded corner in Paint.Net).
And I say that as someone who rarely uses them, I can't imagine how annoying they are for proper designers.
Does this mean Fireworks is dead? I've always preferred it over Photoshop for creating web/clientside assets.
Fireworks is still listed as part of the suite (as is Flash).
Fireworks is there but doesn't seem to have received a lot of attention.
It's a pity. I find it far more useful for the work I do than any of the other suite apps.
It's a pity. I find it far more useful for the work I do than any of the other suite apps.
neither photoshop nor fireworks are ideal for creating websites. Some features in fireworks are great but it's missing some important stuff that give photoshop the edge. it will be interesting to see how Adobe Muse turns out in practice.
It got a modest update. Nothing earth shattering, but quit useful:
http://www.adobe.com/content/dotcom/en/products/fireworks/fe...
http://www.adobe.com/products/fireworks/buying-guide-version...
http://www.adobe.com/content/dotcom/en/products/fireworks/fe...
http://www.adobe.com/products/fireworks/buying-guide-version...
I don't know if "pirates" are aware of it but the cloud will change pirated software game. Not on audio (that's why audio industry keep on complaining) but on top software for sure (we don't listen them complaining..). Free use of top software will have hard times. Is this good?
Simple maths: Subscription to new CS6 photoshop, $20/mo. Current cost of Photoshop CS5 standalone from amazon, $578.
How much time do I have to use the standalone version for before it becomes more effective than the cloud one?
[EDIT] 28 months (original post said 28 weeks. apologies for my bad maths and thanks to all those who corrected me.) [/EDIT]
[EDIT] 28 months (original post said 28 weeks. apologies for my bad maths and thanks to all those who corrected me.) [/EDIT]
> Simple maths: Subscription to new CS6 photoshop, $20/mo. Current cost of Photoshop CS5 standalone from amazon, $578. How many weeks do I have to use the standalone version for before it becomes more effective than the cloud one? 28.
Months, not weeks. You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective. And that assumes that a new version doesn't come out in that time.
Months, not weeks. You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective. And that assumes that a new version doesn't come out in that time.
>> You'd have to use the standalone version for 2 years and 4 months before it became more cost effective.
You'd have to use it continuously for that time. If you use Photoshop less frequently, ownership makes even less sense. For example, I use Photoshop maybe every few months. It would take me a lot of years of $30/mo to get to $578. And I'd be happier with Adobe when I got there, because I'd be on a current version of the software.
I hope they don't mess this up with crappy DRM, like in their standalone CS editions.
You'd have to use it continuously for that time. If you use Photoshop less frequently, ownership makes even less sense. For example, I use Photoshop maybe every few months. It would take me a lot of years of $30/mo to get to $578. And I'd be happier with Adobe when I got there, because I'd be on a current version of the software.
I hope they don't mess this up with crappy DRM, like in their standalone CS editions.
As of CS5, don't they do effectively nothing DRM-wise? IIRC, there wasn't even a crack necessary, just a modification to the hosts file during install (to point it to a fake licensing server, presumably). It makes a lot of sense to not invest heavily in DRM once you're where Adobe is.
Crack? I wasn't talking about how they made it hard for people to circumvent their DRM. I was talking about how hard they made CS to use after you give them over $1,000 for it.
I decided to delay any further spending with Adobe for as long as possible after how sorry their install/DRM process was for legally-licensed CS4.
I decided to delay any further spending with Adobe for as long as possible after how sorry their install/DRM process was for legally-licensed CS4.
What I'm saying is that with CS5 they stripped the DRM down to basics, as far as I'm aware. Outside of a check to the licensing server on install, I don't believe there was anything more to it.
"I hope they don't mess this up with crappy DRM, like in their standalone CS editions."
No kidding. Adobe is a prime example of a company that doesn't understand DRM. I don't need your application to constantly hog my bandwidth after I already gave you several hundred dollars.
No kidding. Adobe is a prime example of a company that doesn't understand DRM. I don't need your application to constantly hog my bandwidth after I already gave you several hundred dollars.
Oops. My bad. Thanks for the correction! :)
Looks like it could be a very sensible option then! At least, if you feel like you are going to need all the latest features of the newest version of photoshop and can't just 'make do' with CS5.
Looks like it could be a very sensible option then! At least, if you feel like you are going to need all the latest features of the newest version of photoshop and can't just 'make do' with CS5.
Err, you mixed up your units. It takes 28 months for the break-even point, not weeks. That's damn near two and a half years of use before it makes sense to buy it outright.
I think you mixed up months and weeks. The period is actually 28.9 months, ie. almost two and a half years.
I think it's pretty attractive, especially considering updates will likely be automatically included in the subscription.
I think it's pretty attractive, especially considering updates will likely be automatically included in the subscription.
That's 28 months - not weeks. So assuming you would normally upgrade every 2.5 years then it's about the same cost. If they release a new version each year then the subscription service would win easily.
More importantly, creative suite is now affordable for a huge range of people. Freelancers, students and small businesses can now afford a legal and full version.
More importantly, creative suite is now affordable for a huge range of people. Freelancers, students and small businesses can now afford a legal and full version.
The upgrade is usually $200 or less. So $20 a month is way more expensive than it is now. Assuming I upgrade every 2 years that's $200 to upgrade outright or $480 at $20 a month.
[deleted]
Unrelated, but issues with Adobe's tool suites. http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/