
Adobe Officially Unveils CS6, $49/Month All-Inclusive Subscription Service - driverdan
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-cs6-and-its-49month-all-inclusive-creative-cloud-subscription-service/
======
pg
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.

~~~
citricsquid
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.

~~~
shuzchen
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.

~~~
jonah
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.

~~~
bonaldi
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.

~~~
jonah
> 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.

------
tga
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..

~~~
X-Istence
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.

~~~
tga
Good point, I'm a few years behind with that. Movies from iTunes are still
protected though, right?

------
Dramatize
$20 per month for just Photoshop seems like an easy sell for small businesses
who would otherwise pirate a copy.

------
herf
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.

~~~
davidjade
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...](http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/faq.html#upgrade-
eligibility)

------
SpaceDragon
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.

~~~
nopassrecover
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).

~~~
jonah
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.

~~~
SquareWheel
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.

~~~
philwelch
Back when I was a kid, I'd play with Dreamweaver and then go back and clean up
the generated HTML, which went OK. It wasn't a bad workflow, but as an adult I
do it all by hand of course.

------
astrodust
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.

~~~
adrianhoward
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...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/22/adobe-officially-unveils-
cs6-and-its-49month-all-inclusive-creative-cloud-subscription-
service/creative_cloud_price_comparison/)

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.

~~~
astrodust
That's an interesting point. All I really want is Illustrator, Photoshop and
maybe InDesign.

------
ed209
um... or $75/Month if you are in the UK <http://cl.ly/0W0O1T23121r0O0d0g0j>

~~~
paulofisch
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.

~~~
ed209
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>

------
pclark
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.)

------
radley
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.

~~~
davidjade
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.

~~~
radley
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.

------
mark_l_watson
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.

------
ecubed
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?

~~~
kylelibra
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.

~~~
jonah
They still sell it in the traditional box too. That's how I'll be upgrading.

------
kylelibra
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.

~~~
theallan
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!

~~~
pkmays
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

~~~
philwelch
> 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?

------
seanalltogether
Does this mean Fireworks is dead? I've always preferred it over Photoshop for
creating web/clientside assets.

~~~
cageface
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.

------
galfarragem
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?

------
twelvechairs
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]

~~~
JoshTriplett
> 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.

~~~
runako
>> 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.

~~~
daeken
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.

~~~
runako
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.

~~~
daeken
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.

------
mey
Unrelated, but issues with Adobe's tool suites.
<http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/>

~~~
panacea
I love that tumblr and agree with the premise that adobe software has flaws,
but it's kinda mean to post that link, even with the 'unrelated' signal, don't
you think?

~~~
mey
I guess what do you perceive the value proposition of their software? Is it
worth $49/mo?

