I'm shocked Ciaran, but not surprised. Literally every single thing Adobe has said about supporting perpetual licenses has been dropped. They said that they would look at other options. Nope. They said that they would make sure perpetual licenses would be available. Nope. I no longer have any faith in anything Adobe says and I consider them to be a company with criminal policies. I consider ransomware to be criminal. As I said before, they may have lawyers that have adjusted the wording to cover their butts, but the concept of ransomware is illegal in most countries. At least the WCry guys only ask for your payment once. Adobe continues to ransom your own work back to you every month or every year. And it is totally unfounded. Adobe is the only major company I can think of that has switched to subscription/ransomware in a way that excludes perpetual licenses entirely. This is what takes them into the realm of criminal. Subscriptions services are not inherently criminal or ransomware. Having no choice and losing access to your files *IS* ransomware. Examples above include Corel, but you don't have to look too far to find other companies that have subcription services with perpetual licensing options. When you purchased your license for CS6, you made a contract. If Adobe chooses to discard that, they are in breach of contract. I would suggest to Adobe that if they wish to discontinue that service, they could offer to cancel it *and refund the purchase price*. I don't think it is legal or ethical to simply cancel a perpetual license outright. However, I'd bet cold hard cash that Adobe has defenses in place that make it highly impractical to actually deal with this through legal channels. This kind of behavior strengthens my resolve to encourage no company or individual to ever give a red cent over to Adobe ever again (or until they reverse these inappropriate policies). My own laptop is Win10 and I run Production Premium CS6 on it. I am worried that my licenses might also be cancelled. It was very difficult for me as a student to scrape together the cash to purchase Adobe licenses, so while that's no longer a large amount of money for me, it's still enough that I wouldn't let it go willingly. My recommendation would be to ask to have your request escalated to a higher level of staff. It's likely that the lower level people can't do anything anyways. Get them to do their homework. Do not allow them to pass off their company's poor customer service as a make-work project for you. If they ignore you, call Adobe in other countries. Don't sit down and take it. And above all, not one single penny more! I have helped over 500 Adobe users to avoid getting into CC subscription services and I have failed twice over the past 4-5 years. Yes, they lost out on my license, but they lost a lot more too. They knew it would happen. The memo from Adobe to its shareholders was that when CC was released, they expected enough people to see through its financial drawbacks that they expected to go into loss. They offset that by increasing the cost of the CC service and adding in tricky ways of increasing the cost (my sister pays something ridiculous like 800 CAD/yr for her license, fortunately reimbursed by the company she works for - although since she just gave birth and has dropped down to a very sparse work schedule, I don't know how long that will last). I think it's both amusing and telling that I have a post above that was moderated twice to allow and twice to hide (currently hidden) because I talked through what it would look like if Adobe's policies were applied back to Adobe and their staff. Adobe felt that this was inappropriate content. I guess that proves my point though. If it's inappropriate for people to do to Adobe staff such that it needs to be hidden from discussion, it's inappropriate for Adobe to do to its customers. I doubt I'd have had my comment hidden if I suggested that what people should do is allow <Adobe staff member> to purchase a car, then continue ownership of that car as long as they had the title for that car. I am only censored when I suggest that people should apply Adobe purchasing policies to <Adobe staff member> when they purchase a car. Amazing. ... View more

I manage dozens of computers in 4 offices around the world. I personally use Adobe software regularly on 2 laptops and 2 PC's. I am occasionally called in to help other local businesses that we partner with as well. I have led workshops in local photo/video clubs for over a decade. Perhaps what you think you know about my personal usage patterns doesn't match my usage patterns. I personally *own* Production Premium CS6 as a personal license. The vast majority of my Adobe use is not under that license. I have set up CC on a fairly hefty number of computers. I've set up and built actions in CC. I've stayed abreast of many of the differences between the versions in most (but certainly not all) of the avenues of the Adobe suite. I have 3 "spare" pc's set up with CC (trial mode, not putting cash into that) for conversion of files from the few customers we have that use CC (so far, there are about 4 customers that use CC out of 220 or so - most of our customers are small-medium businesses and only a few in the US/UK are using CC). As to your high horse preaching about 'stealing', get over it. The *vast* majority of students anywhere/everywhere pirate Adobe. Many of them move on to becoming Adobe professionals. Outside of the most prosperous places (UK/EU/US/Canada), piracy of Adobe vastly outstrips legitimate use. These are well-known phenomena. That's not a self-justification as much as "duhhhhh". Adobe uses a "paywall" to establish an elitist group of brand loyalists. It is integral to their market position and their business plan. Piracy is *crucial* to making Adobe as strong as it is. If they genuinely didn't want piracy, they wouldn't leave the keys in the door overnight, every night, for decades. They want it. They need it. They encourage it. So quityerwhining about it. In the end, I put money in their pocket and became a strong advocate for it when people can afford business software prices. Adobe is not worried about some minor software piracy that happened nearly two decades ago. Neither should you be. If you would like to bring up real instances of usage, feel free. I already brought up examples above of specific usage patterns in CS6 and CC. I've discussed them in many other parts of this forum. As to my usage of free software, my argument was not that it's better and free. My argument was that development costs cannot possibly be as high as you think they are - and are more likely far closer to what I think they are. If dev costs were genuinely so high, then nobody else would have product on the market. Then the argument comes up "Adobe was first, the other guys are just copying - invention trumps innovation". Which would be a great argument if it weren't also true that Adobe was certainly not first and that most of their great inventions came from purchasing other companies that developed the tech (ie warp stabilizer, content aware fill....) and if most of the "new updates" didn't contain almost exclusively sideways movements and features borrowed from other software (ie artboards in PS from AI and text wrapping from Word...). Again, as a working professional in a multi-national collaborative environment, I can't just switch my software for whatever reason. Hence, I refer to other companies that I interact with and the experiences of others, as well as their comments. I do agree that there is a negative bias for comments. However, your argument is somewhat self-defeating. I am arguing that there is little notable improvement that would cause people to speak up. You say that of course people don't speak up because people generally don't unless there's something genuinely notable. However, look at some of the vids that Adobe has released of older versions where people were excited about major new features, not just a new name. You will actually see lots of positive comments. Adobe did actually used to have a *lot* of positive buzz surrounding their updates. They have successfully reduced that to a trickle. People used to talk excitedly to each other about things like "did you hear about content aware fill? it's amazing! I can't wait for CS_". Adobe's reception to their software releases since CS2 have generally been very positive. CS3 was a major step forward from CS2 in that it no longer performed like a rusted WW2 tank in the mud with no tracks and water in the fuel line. CS4 was a minor refinement with little fanfare. CS5 was a good jump (again many users tend to go with "every second update" for good reason) and CS5.5 was really big too. CS6 polished a lot of the stuff that came with CS5.5 but wasn't quite ready. CC brought a lot of excitement too. There were a lot of changes that were overdue and people were looking for CS6.5 or CS7. I've mentioned some of these above. And with CC came the added subscription model and the death of the intermediate suites. There's no longer anything for people with specific jobs (ie Web Design Premium or Production Premium), there's just "PLEASE PAY ALL FOR ALL". That started a negative spiral and Adobe has probably lost a good third of their paid licenses (ignoring natural market growth), many of them being established professional users. I didn't say there was anything wrong with having a backup plan. I also have a backup-oriented workflow which involves archiving original files. But I don't create non-Adobe backups of work files or project files. For example, when I get a batch of 600 pics from a photographer, I archive the originals. I then build folder structures and set up access for those people that will work on it. I use Bridge heavily for collaborating, with a combination of ratings, color coding for work assignment and/or completion stages and ACR. I use batches to finalize most things to PSD (working files) or proof/finals (JPG, PNG, TIFF and the occasional animated GIF or external project (AI, Prem, ID...). Take Bridge out of the picture and that causes a lot of problems. Take PS out of the picture and the work files get broken. I use similar processes for home projects. Now you're suggesting that you also have an archival step for your working files that is non-Adobe specific? So you're keeping TIFF files with layers? What about the adjustment layers? What about your smart objects and smart filters? I know that files certainly can be imported. But it pretty much mangles whatever it was that you were doing. Most of my work files have between 80 and 300 layers, with extensive use of smart objects and adjustment layers. That's not something you can just drag and drop into MS Paint. and as I said, I don't think it's abnormal. I think it's saying something that you are planning for the time when you lose access to your work, but you're arguing that the idea of "ransomware" is ludicrous. You either think it's something that could happen or you don't. As to the Ferrari argument, that's nonsense too. NO car maker sells cars exclusively on a subscription basis where they reserve the right to jack up the price and take away the car you *already purchased* if you stop paying. There is leasing, and lots of people use it. But most people don't. Most people would be insulted if you stopped selling cars outright. Car enthusiasts most of all. But also you can't compare cars with software because the value of the car is in the hardware. The value of software is not in the hardware. I don't think anyone is trying to say that Adobe will try to ask for the DVD and plastic case back if you decide to stop paying for CC. Nobody is even complaining that you might not be able to use the software to create *new* work if you stop paying. The thing that people are upset about is that you have a professional working tool that has been in a dominant position in multiple industries with *existing bodies of work* that these people will lose access to if they stop paying. It's not ransoming the software. It's blocking access to our *our own work* that causes the anger and indignation. From the point of view of a business, that's frustrating, but not a big deal... as you say, if I can't afford the licensing, my business is dead and I have no need to access that work. But from the point of view of a freelancer, casual user or a *personal license*, it becomes a very, very big deal. If I lose access to my own personal use work, I lose access to work files of personal projects like watching my friend's children grow up, video projects from my sister's wedding, video projects I worked on with my cousin's children whose father is now in jail for murder and who have lost a part of their youthful innocence that will never come back. I might not re-visit those things for 10-20 years. Under a perpetual license, as is common to *every other software company*, that's not a problem. But Adobe wants to hold that as a license to coerce me to pay a lot of money for this. I consider that inappropriate. Of course, there's some very subjective viewpoints in there and most of my objections are regarding the personal license holders, but I can also see the viewpoint of hundreds of businesses - small businesses and freelancers. I live in a country where small business is much more prevalent than in North America/UK. And the Production Premium suite is a perfect fit for many of these people. Just as many would use a 2-3 program license (PS+AI or PS+AI+Prem). Removing that is harmful to those businesses and freelancers. CC represents a significant increase in price, so it's understandable when Jimmy over there decides that $600/yr isn't worth it when he was able to keep a relatively recent copy of Prod Premium for around $220/yr for the 5-6 projects per year that he does with it for his little shop. I can see his point of view. I'm surprised that you/Adobe cannot. Or that you think his/her point of view is invalid. It was valid enough to create the intermediate suites in the first place. They were a good idea, a good example of paying attention to actual needs of actual customers. Taking that away is the opposite of that. ... View more

Not quite sure why you felt the need to take a dig at my intelligence at the end there, but based on your assessment of what "acceptable" business practices are and your justification for stealing what you can't afford...I'll leave that alone for now. Your intelligence is shown by your words. If you think ransomware is acceptable, that says something about you. If you think it's OK simply because it has been around for a few years now, that says something about you. If you think that $50 isn't much money, therefore ignore annual costs and the plight of people who operate in differently scaled economies, that says something about your intelligence. If you think that access to your own work in the next few years is the only consideration to your license, then that says something about your point of view. Plenty of people pay for Adobe software for a license not attached to a business. For myself, my license is for personal use and is not the license I use for work. If I was on a subscription model, I would have paid 2400-3000 USD for that license at this point. Or I would lose access to things like my sister's wedding video project, the PSD and Bridge XML/ACR work for 3500 pics I took during that 2-week holiday, and a whoooole lot more. Not to mention what happens after I retire... As to "justification for stealing what I can't afford", I have a valid license for Adobe Production Premium CS6 via upgrade paths from software legally purchased. *Adobe* has been validating piracy for years by choosing not to change their methods to crack their software. 0-day cracks are available because it's the same basic crack, with just a few value changed in the algorithms. Adobe supports this because *it feeds their business model*. Adobe would be just another company if they didn't have market dominance in so many avenues. They achieved this market dominance by making their software easy to crack. They are well aware of this. They are also well aware that they have served as a model for many other companies who are using similar methods. Windows has been easy to crack, instead of making it harder to crack, MS has opened their doors to the "legitimate" software side of things with their "no questions asked" policy on W10 upgrades. As long as MS remains market dominant, they remain powerful. These are known strategies. Mentioning "greedy shareholders" in the same breath as admitting you (for a time) and the majority of your colleagues are software pirates is indeed rich.  That you can actually sit there and justify that with an air of indignation is telling to say the least, and highlights the disconnect that a lot of people seem to be having, so let me clear it up for you as simply as I can: Businesses aren't obligated to price their products or services within your price range. Businesses aren't obligated to concede to their customers' every whim and demand. Businesses exist to sell/market/develop a product or service and make money while doing it. You have the right to change who you do business with.  You do not have the right to change how someone else conducts business. As to this nonsense, I made a genuine effort to purchase Adobe software when I was in Uni. But they decided that the normal options available in Canada and the US were not available everywhere. Therefore I used my own methods to accomplish the goal. If I had not, I would not have learned their software. They would not be ahead of the game, they would be a couple grand poorer. While that's not a huge amount of cash, it illustrates my point above. They are well aware that the price of their software puts it beyond the reach of the average person. They are well aware of the prevalence of piracy. They make no effort to change either the cause or the method of piracy, so they are quite OK with it. I've spoken with Adobe staff before and they are indeed aware of this pattern. Seems like most of their management has no clue though. Sounds like you match that pretty well. CC has driven piracy upwards dramatically because of increased costs and resistance to ransomware. Either way, I ended up saving up my pennies (yeah, I lived on around 200-300 USD per month while I was studying abroad) and eventually had enough to purchase. That's how that worked out. Incidentally, Adobe has made various CS2 products available for free. I personally used PS 7.0, CS3 and CS4 before I was able to afford buying in. I have told Adobe directly. They don't have a problem with it. My indignation now is *not* that people are forced to piracy. That's been happening since day 1 for Adobe. I *used to* try to combat that. Not anymore. My indignation now is that Adobe's method to try to get people to pay is by blocking access to their own body of work. That is unacceptable in every case and a far greater problem than University students pirating Photoshop for a few years to learn it. As to development costs, this is also futile discussion. How much it costs them to develop software is not related to how good it is. Look at CC2017. It is being released as a "major update". Everywhere I have seen, the vast majority of response to it has been that it is a paltry offering with very small levels of improvements, things like adding "tight" text alignment in AI (borrowed from MS Office)... Compare that with something like Content Aware Fill. That was indeed a major function. That would have cost quite a lot to implement. Look at artboards in PS. A function nobody asked for - yes, it's kind of handy, but it's a borrowed function from AI and it's not critical for 99% of the people 99% of the time. Look at the increased functionality of the Properties panel. The functionality added actually doesn't add full functionality and literally just borrows functions from other panels, but only some of them... Now you are trying to suggest that I'm somehow dumb for suggesting that none of these functions offer either increased value for working professionals (when the vast majority of working professionals are actually saying that they aren't impressed) or that none these borrowed functions represent significant amount of work by the developers compared to major functions like Warp Stabilizer. Even the tools that I think were worth adding - ACR filter in PS and Premiere, along with the new color grading tool in Premiere... Those are refinements of existing technology and aren't really treading new ground. Why would you think that they represent the same amount of R&D investment of earlier technologies that were much bigger steps? Why would you try to argue that common sense on these issues is foolish? Support for 4K by the way does not require a subscription service. Every major NLE on the market has offered 4K support for years (and 3D). Even programs like Vegas Pro offered it before Adobe did, while costing half the price and not needing a subscription. What does that tell you about your imagined "development costs"? Davinci Resolve has offered 4K support for ages. Hitfilm too. Oh yeah, Hitfilm has a fully featured NLE with 4K support... for free.... What was that about not understanding development costs? I've worked wedding photography too. I know what you mean about the lowballers. And certainly I have a limit for my own value. But I wouldn't suddenly triple my rates and say "yep, that's just what I'm worth now, but I'm going to slow down my work too". Because that would be rude. I most certainly wouldn't tell previously existing customers that they couldn't have access to their previously shot photographs unless they paid my new rates. I most certainly wouldn't tell my customers that they have to pay $10 a month to display their photographs on their wall or I would come take them away. As to ransomware, this is a real thing. If your license expires, you do not have access to those programs, and you lose access to your work files, ie prproj, .psd, .ai etc... That's ransomware. It's not unique to Adobe and it's not a new concept. It's not a word I made up. Educate yourself please. You think that backing up your work in non-Adobe formats is normal. But I ask you... if you didn't stand to lose access to your work if you were no longer in a position to pay the monthly/yearly ransom, why would that be normal? Backup is backup, but for my work, since I started using Adobe software something like 17 years ago, I've never had to backup specifically in non-Adobe formats. Granted, I keep RAW files and original video files, but I don't export my .prproj files to generic format or Bridge sidecar files... Why do you think that's normal behavior if you have purchased software, that you would need to have a way to access it with other software??? And you think I'm weird. ... View more

People have been suggesting to Adobe to add a perpetual license option of some sort since CC was first unveiled. The most popular and sensible of these was seen in many threads, including this one - specifically to have a "lock in" if the person pays for 2 years, if they stop paying for some reason, they are able to lock in. This would provide people the option to pay on alternating years (as many, MANY freelancers and personal users did since the early years, even well before CS). Having it cost more than it used to for a perpetual license would be unacceptable. If anything, CC has brought *less* features, less often to the Adobe suite. If Adobe had held their pattern, they would be on CS8 or CS9 by now, with major updates in each of those packages. The price of the Adobe suite has always been high, which has been an attempt to position themselves as professional software, *NOT* indicative of the cost to make it. There are many other programs that do a similar thing that are priced significantly lower. Increasing the price would help the greed of Adobe's shareholders, but the price is based on things like average global incomes and what working professionals could afford. Last I checked, wages for tech workers were going down in most countries, not up. The result of this is that in countries where they make significantly less than what Adobe views to be "average", piracy of Adobe is near 100%. I know hundreds of local photographers, photo printing companies, video professionals in this country. I know two that have paid for it. I am one of them. Another shop I know is running Photoshop CS3 that they paid for. Adobe knows all about this. They continue to keep the piracy methods static (it's basically the same method to crack Adobe today as it was for PS 7.0). I spent years trying to encourage people to "go legit" with their Adobe software. I no longer do. Increasing the price of the software simply because their main license method has become more expensive is unacceptable business behavior. It is easier now than ever to accept rampant piracy of Adobe's software. This ultimately means that the price burden must be shared by a larger number of people. And the evidence suggests that this has indeed happened. Adobe's revenue went up a tiny bit, but compared to the average cost increase of nearly 2x to everyone *except* the vertical markets, it indicates that a *LARGE* number of CS users did not convert to paying for CC. As my old manager always used to say to me, you can't look at overall increase, you have to compare your overall increase to the overall market increase. If your company makes 3.2% more over last year, that's good, but it's not so good if the size of the market increased by 2.5%... or 5%... Adobe doesn't take that into account and the reason is that if you take a serious look at their revenue, it shows a massive drop in paying customers. Did they switch to another software suite? Which one? Unlikely. Pirate Bay is far, far more likely. Adobe used to use piracy to drive their conversions to real sales (I also switched to paying after pirating for years through my 'starving student' days). Now they use CC to drive piracy. I'm pretty familiar with much of the Adobe suite. There are a handful of major functionality improvements at best. There are a ton of bugs that haven't been addressed for many years. Many of the updates that have been introduced in the recent "2017" are sideways, minor updates to things that have introduced no new functionality, just moved some of it from one place to another (ie the perfunctory increased capabilities of the properties panel), or gimmick BS stuff like the emojis... They did introduce a few major updates early on that were presumably earmarked for CS7 (ie adobe camera raw filter and improved roundtripping with the video editing suites), but if you think you've got better value with "constant updates", you're just enjoying having your ears tickled by the spin-masters. On every video I have seen about "new features" in CC 2017 (which is being presented as a "major" update to CC), the vast majority of comments are basically that people are unsatisfied with the quantity and quality of the updates. On the other hand, the biggest problem introduced by CC is the ransomware. A current trend in black hat software design is "cryptolocker/ransomware". Adobe CC's subcription plan is essentially the same. You pay, or you lose access to your files. This is a dealbreaker for many people. Myself included. I can understand that you might not want to support software after a certain point (ie the countless bugs in CS6 which continue to be ignored even though the license *was* perpetual and bug repair *is* the responsibility of the manufacturer - look at Microsoft and XP/7). But you cannot validate the idea that adding in a subscription requirement *for access to your own work* is acceptable in any way. Again, there are very simple solutions for this that would see me convert instantly to a CC customer. They have been suggested since CC was instigated. Adobe has no interest in doing any such thing. Back when they introduced it, they promised that they would consider alternatives with perpetual licensing. Nothing ever came of it and they expect us to just forget it and start paying them to support a ransomware business model because of cognitive anchoring (ie because it has become familiar to us, so the impropriety is diluted). Apparently that works pretty well on some people, yourself included. But for intelligent people, the answer is: Nope. Not ever. ... View more

It is verifiable by a google search that Adobe has stated that they intended to address this even as early as 2013. Aaaaaaand they have absolutely not done so. Of course they would not. A kidnapper would not ask for a ransom for a child, then say that the child would be allowed out on weekends and could visit the family's home. It is contrary to the policy of ransomware. Which is why intelligent people everywhere recognize that CC is ransomware. Professionals who enter into this contract lose control over their own work. This is unacceptable on every level. I consider this to be illegal, although I'm sure there are some Adobe paid lawyers that have made sure it sort of technically isn't. But it means that I no longer have any qualms about people who have turned instead to pirating. Adobe used rampant piracy to establish their brand at the top of the ladder and become an industry standard, but creating easy, predictable cracking methods that were not closed from early versions right until today. This worked because as students and young people grew older and matured, both emotionally and professionally, they grew into a desire to purchase software legitimately and give back to the company that enabled their livelihood. It was a very good grand plan for the long term taking advantage of the unavoidable nature of software piracy and turning it into a scheme that put butter on their bread and food on their plates. Now they are trying to screw those people over and enforce draconian, improper and possibly flat out illegal policies such as ransomware (which is not really any different from Cryptolocker or some other big bad in our real world) and for some reason, they think that will not drive a mass exodus straight back to pirating their software. Their soft-peddle is that they "will address this issue in the future", but in the past 3 years have made no visible attempt to do so. How do they expect a working professional/freelancer to find new work if they cannot access their work files? Why do they even think that it's acceptable to limit *anyone*'s access to their own work in the first place? These are not answers that they want their shareholders to think about. I have voted with my wallet, but my vote is insignificant. But I will remain voting that way until they wise up. I am still willing to continue to pay for upgrades on my own license, but I will never pay a red cent under terms of ransomware. If someone kidnapped my child, they could expect some serious resistance from me and I would not behave at all nicely, especially if my child were to be secured, I would react with extreme prejudice. True, this is only trying to kidnap my work, so I wouldn't need to kill anyone as I would probably do if my child were at stake. But the insult is definitely the same flavor. Adobe doesn't treat my work with respect. Why should I (or anyone else) treat theirs? ... View more

InDesign also has the most version compatibility problems as well. I still remember trying to work with another company in the US and we had 4 different people involved, including the print shop (this was before CC). Versions we were running included CS3 (print shop), CS6 (myself and others in the art department), CS5.5 (my home computer and laptop prior to upgrading) and CS4 (US customer). He sent the original document, we prepared his document, sent it to him and he was unable to open it. I was also unable to open it at home to figure out what the problem was, so we lost a day due to time zone conflicts, the next day, I opened in CS6 and found no problems... wasn't until the next day that we figured out that he was using CS4. Even trying to save the document for CS4, it was still impossible to open it. I had to download a pirated version to test it on a test machine to figure it out too. Then to top it off, when it was finished, we got to the print shop (small mom&pop deal as is common here in Asia) and they had CS3. Fortunately, that wasn't a problem because we presented PDF for print rather than ID files... but just goes to show what a PITA ID can be for version mismatches. It boggles my mind that Adobe still hasn't even been able to get their mailouts working properly. I still get authentication red flags on my notification emails about activity on this thread. And when I'm typing in this very box, every time I create a line break, about halfway into the next sentence, it puts me up a line for no reason. And the line breaks get doubled too. I've got 15 empty lines under this paragraph. What a ridiculous mess. Vegas Pro 13 was my go-to non-Adobe program, but DaVinci Resolve is looking more attractive every single day. ... View more

That very thing has been suggested. Indeed, this is how most or all subscription based antivirus software has been operating for many years, a more "business friendly" option has been suggested by many, including myself... that once you have paid for a full year or so, the product gets locked in at that level. Adobe even has a thing where if you are on an annual subscription, but stop partway through, you still have to pay half the remaining payments!!!! If this allowed you to continue using the product but be unable to get updates, people would be a lot less angry. Of course, adobe would make less per customer, but they wouldn't have lost 30 to 50% of their (potential) customer base as they did by this anti-progress, anti-consumer pricing model. We still have nothing on the horizon for intermediate package users too. Anyone who uses PS and AI is basically getting screwed. As are those who are using PS and premiere and speedgrade and or after effects. Production premium suite users are universally getting the shaft. Paying 320% more for no added value isn't my cup of tea... ... View more