what can't designers get pricing like photographers do?

[buccigraphic]

photographers right now get a really sweet deal of $9.99 a month for photoshop, lightroom and a host of mobile apps.

graphic designers, like myself, who might only need indesign, illustrator, photoshop and muse have to pay $49.99 for the basic creative cloud plan - which includes a bunch of applications i will never use.

if i just wanted the four applications i use and bought them separately, it would cost me $80 - $20 for each application.

meanwhile photographers can get photoshop and lightroom for less than $5 apiece.

how is this fair?

through the creative cloud plans, adobe is no better than a cable company - you get a lot of channels you never watch yet have to pay for them.

wheres the plans for designers, video, web, and sound?

its time adobe realised that not everyone wants to pay for things they never use.

[Ko.Maruyama]

I remember that Adobe used to have mix/match box sets. It was always a better deal to get the "Master" Suite. same continues.

Today, checking the PLANS site:  https://creative.adobe.com/plans

The price is under $40/all apps.  Even at a discounted price of $10/each app, your 4 apps = $40.

I'm pretty sure the mobile apps are free.(?)

Would you use Edge family or Acrobat DC?

[floramc]

I have to say that I understand your point. For a long time I felt the same way too. The classical and traditional thinking: where is my design premium? Why do you want me to pay for programs that I never use?

There is a very incisive factor to consider nowadays and that I experimented on my own skin. That is, being a professional and working with digital tools today is not the same thing as it was. There was a day I was tremendously content with Dw, today I need so much more than that if I say yes to a commission in web design.

This week I brought one of my assistants to get a new camera. I asked our best expert to teach him which camera to buy. And this expert was all the time telling him that being a photographer today and being professional means above all being able to answer 'yes' to a client and deliver a professional result above the standards. Which means, get a camera that gives outstanding videos.

On the other side I, the boss, who were a photographer, sit often editing videos in Pr for my colleagues who took the photography plan to discover that photography covers video too. I gain that sum of money they would on their own services if they had the open-mindedness to invest on a CC subscription.

that said, guessing you work with web design, I would suggest you to not ignore the edge family. Working with whatever form of creative design today means a flexibility that does not belong to the former shaped reality where everybody had a steady defined role.

To nob the content of CC and say 'I would just not use it' is closing your own doors. I spent my first 10 months with CC on my own tools until I realized Adobe had a better one to do the job and so I learned it.

The comparison with a cable tv seems to me quite out of place. You do not subscribe a creative to CC the same way you get a Netflix or an HBO subscription. While incredibly entertaining, CC is working material and is there to complete the amount of services that you can offer as a professional. To ignore the possibility is your choice.

To investigate the tools that are given, on the other hand, gives you the choice to answer 'yes' to a client who asks eg 'while at, can we put some animations on this banner?', deliver a professional result and put that 35 to 40% more on your bill just because you answered 'sure we can' and could to a business development issue.

This for me has become being a professional today and in years as a pro with CC I promise I went from using 4 to using 9 of the tools. I wish you the same professional growth, to get there, start exploring those tools "you will never use".

‌

[kevin stohlmeyer]

You have to realize that the $9.99 photography plan is just Photoshop and Lightroom. It does not include storage, TypeKit, CC sync features like Libraries, etc.

The other side of the argument is people complained when CC was deemed "too expensive" for Photographers. So Adobe released the Photography Plan as a stand-alone solution. Then people screamed that they made it "too cheap" and now anyone can buy Photoshop and call themselves an artist.

They can't win.

I am a graphic designer and while I mainly work in PS, AI, LR, ID and BR for desktop apps, I use Typekit and the Libraries daily, I sync my settings to the cloud and upload files to use for demos or on my iPad when I am traveling. I love the new apps. I find myself using Muse to build my own site, or DW to edit an asset from a client. The point of CC is that you have the freedom to use whatever you want when you need it.

The price is always going to be a point of contention, but if they were to drop the price down to nothing, how do you expect them to innovate new advances in software and services?

[TheLandOfDustin]

The answer is quite simple.

Although yes, the photography plan is a great deal, the other, huge group of people (graphic designers) are purposely left without a tailored plan. Why? Adobe knows you just want PS and AI - or some other of app combo not in a plan together, other than the full priced plan.
It's strategic - Adobe is first and foremost a business. Like all businesses, profit is king. Period.

[Bob_Howes]

I have to say, I understand where the original poster (and others) are coming from. 

I'm on the audio (Audition) side and there are a lot of people out there who only want Audition and have no interest in ANY of the other, more visually oriented, programmes.  Where there are some obvious groupings for designers, photographers and perhaps video people, audio can be very much "out on its own".  At $20 a month for the single app, I know a number of people who either go with the out-dated CS6 version or else leave the Adobe fold altogether. 

I guess I'm lucky in that I do video editing as well as the audio side so, for me, the full CC package makes economic sense.  However, I do think that the single app price (or some more possible small groups) would make sense.  On the audio side at least, I think Adobe could "sell" a lot more Audition subscriptions at a lower price.