Offer application packages at a reduced rate

i know there are lots of these suggestions, so i sympathize.

I don't have time to search for every suggestion that might match, but I have spent about an hour this morning doing just that.

then you should be upvoting previous suggestions that you want to see implemented.

Honestly, I would hope that if they see more, and more people making the same suggestion that they would seriously consider changing their business model.  I agree that it isn't likely to happen without outside intervention.  Another player needs to come along to shake up the market.

I have seen Affinity products, and they are promising.  If I was an individual creator, I might even consider that as a viable option.  However, we are a commerical printer and have decades of files created in InDesign that makes it too much of a burden to consider switching.  Not to mention that we still need to support supplied InDesign files, even though we use a PDF workflow.

When we switched from Quark to InDesign, we also had the pain of converting those Quark files to InDesign, but we got through it...and would again, if needed.

In my opinion, it is the users that just accept the pricing based on the idea that most users only use 3-4 apps that is part of the problem.  We shouldn't just accept that we are paying Adobe to create all of these apps, when we only use a fraction of them.

the truth is not going to be helpful. you and the many others that have been making these suggestions (with slight variations), want to hear that adobe's about to change its plans to your benefit.  that's understandable but unlikely (based on the past).

As I said to kglad, I'm not saying that you are wrong...just that it doesn't address the underlying idea of paying for what you use.  I see lots of responses like yours in various other posts requesting the ability to pay for what is used.

I don't know if you are an employee, or just a fan, but simply responding with this message over and over is not helpful.  Obviously users don't want to have to pay for all of the apps when they aren't using them all.  If it weren't for the simple fact that we don't have a viable alternative, we would have switched to a competitor already.

As I pointed out previously, Quark was once the dominant player in the market and abused their posiiton.  Once Adobe released Creative Suite 3, we switched, and never looked back.  Quark is an afterthought these days...the same could happend to Adobe, if they won't respond to what their users want.

It's kind of like a buffet.

You pay the same price whether you consume all the choices or you only eat three of the dishes offered.

adobe assumes most users will use 3 or 4 apps and prices the all-apps subscription accordly.