84
Replies
Not quite got my head round this yet. If you have the education Master Collection CS5, I assume there is no upgrade offer - this is what has happened in the past. However, with it not being a 'full' update (only 4 or 5 progs actually have anything added) is there an upgrade price? Or do you have to buy the whole suite again despite duplicating most of the programs?
Todd's post Adobe Premiere Pro CS5.5: What’s new and changed « Premiere Pro work area is a pretty detailed write-up of the new stuff, both from a feature standpoint and a refinement standpoint. Marketing ought to hire this guy... 
In Japan for some reason it costs twice the American price to buy any Adobe software, even if you choose to download the English version 
A large factor influencing my decision to upgrade, other than how much money I have got at the moment, is how much it will be to upgrade from 5 to 6 compared to 5.5 to 6.
For the upgrade from CS5 Master to 5.5 it costs 90,000 yen.
However, to upgrade a whole version, ie. from CS4 to 5.5, costs 159,000 yen; about the same as what it cost me to upgrade from CS4 to CS5.
If I pay 90,000 yen to upgrade to 5.5, then I want my upgrade from 5.5 to 6 to cost me no more than that either.
If it cost 159,000 to go to each new version, plus 90,000 yen to get a point release then I would feel like I were being royally raped. I'd be paying 410,000 in a 3 year period compared to the 320,000 in a 3 year period of the old development cylce of 18 months.
Of course, in that case I'd skip the point releases, but then end up worse off in that I would have to wait 6 months longer than previously to get each new version.
I also still can't believe that it costs more to subscribe to something you'll never own, than it does to buy it outright. That seems like reverse logic to me. I can understand the month by month subsrciptions being premium priced, but the yearly rental ought to end up about the same as buying a point upgrade.
I also still can't believe that it costs more to subscribe to something you'll never own, than it does to buy it outright. That seems like reverse logic to me. I can understand the month by month subsrciptions being premium priced, but the yearly rental ought to end up about the same as buying a point upgrade.
Really? Rent a house or lease a car sometime--it makes perfect sense. You assume most of the benefits of ownership with less of the risk. This isn't going to appeal to shops that are solely or primarily Adobe shops--as you point out, it's a lot cheaper to just buy the software outright--but for a user or shop that has to crosstrain for a short period of time, e.g. a few months, it makes sense.
And of course the subscription will be at a premium price; if it wasn't, who would buy the software? I don't think the Bank of Adobe has opened yet, so if you need to finance the purchase and set up monthly payments for something you WILL own, there are credit card companies and vendors who are waiting for your call
There are economical reasons for rental versus buying:
- no inventory
- support is included (guess)
- temporary licenses
- what sense does it make to own software - I sill own a couple of MS-DOS, Turbo Pascal, WordPerfect, WordStar, CP/M etc licenses.
They are all mine... Oh, and I think there are also some unused Adobe licenses around for InDesign 1.5 or GoLive and other Adobe products. They became obsolete, when we upgraded to the Suite. Not all licenses where used to upgrade... 
Lucien.
Only, there is a reason why you pay more to rent those things.
Don't forget about flexibility. If I rent something, and decide that it's not for me, I can get rid of it relatively easily. Yes, I know that car leases and home rentals are constituted by a contract with a specific term, but that's still a heck of a lot more flexible than buying a house or a car and being stuck with it.
My personal view is that Adobe would tempt more users to keep updating to each new version if subscribing worked out cheaper than buying a new version every 18 months.
I suspect there is a whole floor full of bean counters at Adobe HQ who argued against this
In the big press release one of the reasons cited for introducing the subscription model was to target those that couldnt afford to buy outright. But if you actually intend to use the product for any length of time it would be silly to subscribe. It seems to me that only production houses who hire temps stand to benefit from subscribing. Everybody else is going to do what they have been doing, which is to upgrade if they can afford it, or wait a few versions if they can't.
Well, I think Adobe's logic is a little flawed there, but you reiterate exactly my point: there's no point renting if you're going to use the software "permanently." I wouldn't be too surprised if at some point in the future, the software goes totally to a subscription model, with incentives to those who set up long-term contracts.
JSS1138 wrote:
we sell also goods that our customers would like getting for free (no joke), but they are paying a lot of money for them... allowing me to feed my childrenReally? What market are you in? I need to move there.
Getting paid a lot does not mean that we get rich 
... We build blast furnaces! And believe me: you wont like moving into that market... 
AdChoices