-
Adobe Rent Price Increase
-
[Charlie Austin] “I will never in a million years cut a personal project in Pr, because someday I might stop renting it and then I no longer have access to my work.”
I guess if you’re concerned about future proofing you could simply export an XML of your finished sequence when wrapping a project up and then you will have a simple way to move projects through NLE’s.
Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync -
[Charlie Austin] “With …FCP X (which I own) and others, if I stop paying I’m just frozen in time, not dead in the water.”
Unless, of course, you decided to switch to PC in the meantime. ☺
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Charlie Austin] “Honestly, It’s even more insane that anyone rents Photoshop, though I guess you can open PSD’s in pretty much anything these days…”
I’m curious as to your thinking. As a full time photographer I’d consider it insane not to rent Photoshop. 10 bucks a month for the greatest imaging software known to man and the industry standard. It’s a bargain in anyones language and I’m not sure what the drawback is?
I can’t envision a situation where in ten years time I have to open an ancient PSD (why I would want to do that to start with…) and not be able to open it with something. And if such a situation came up, well so what? Work done in a PSD can be redone in a short space of time. Not like a Premiere project. In the case of Premiere I can kind of, sort of, see the argument against rental.
-
My 2 cents…
On the customer side, it’s a VERY modest ask.
And it will upset hardly anyone.
On the Adobe business side, if we fantasize there are, say 100,000 subscribers on Premiere only (ignoring ALL the $50 a month folk) then in doing this very modest adjustment they just increased Premiere cash flow by $100,000 per month from now on – with ZERO COGS (cost of goods sold) increase at all.
If any pushback is ignorable – then the business office has a shiny new lever directly connected to their profit needle.
Can’t be abused, certainly or it effects customer satisfaction.
But now it’s been used.
We’ll see what this means, if anything, for the future.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “with ZERO COGS (cost of goods sold) increase at all. “
It’s probably harder to think about the cost of goods sold for a company that offers no physical goods, but I’d be surprised if the costs related to developing CC (both the software and the SaaS sides) haven’t increased at all since 2013. It has been in constant development since release, but there’s been no net increase in Adobe employees (or contractors) since 2013 to work on it? No Adobe employees (or contractors) that fall under the CC revenue umbrella have gotten a raise since 2013? Adobe hasn’t had to pay for more servers to handle the dramatic increase in CC users since 2013?
[Bill Davis] “But now it’s been used.”
It being used was an inevitability though. The price was never going to stay the same forever, especially at the rate of development Adobe is pushing.
-
Totally fair points, Andrew.
I’m thinking back in the days where “goods” had to be sent to market via a distribution chain that added a really BIG chunk to COGS.
The digital connected software rental model, is obviously very different.
Heck, even with the digital connected sales model Apple uses, they were able to go from a $1200.00 price point down to $399 for their NLE software. Thats a 66% price drop. They surely gamed out the profitability of that.
So there is obviously a HUGE net positive profit effect on costs after a switch to digital distribution. One that I’d suspect greatly dwarfs any year over year rise in labor or the like.
But this is obviously PURELY shirt-tail speculation on my part.
I could be totally wrong and Adobe might be just “keeping up” by instituting this price increase.
If so, I hope Wall Street stays happy – they have a tendency to value bottom line profit growth near the top of their list of good things.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “Heck, even with the digital connected sales model Apple uses, they were able to go from a $1200.00 price point down to $399 for their NLE software. Thats a 66% price drop”
I think that had much more to do with Apple wanting to ‘reset’ the price of their NLE rather than a linear price drop tied to doing away with physical distribution. For example, when FCP Legend shipped with manuals the box weight nearly 18lbs and when they ditched the printed manuals the box went down to less than 2lbs. Nary a price drop did we see. ???? A console video game typically costs $60 at retail and it’s estimated that about $4-$8 of that is for creating and shipping physical copies. I’d imagine the numbers are about the same for software in general.
Where does the company want their margins to be and what will the market find viable? Apple has traditionally had very high margins are hardware and that allows them to have narrow margins on their software (or just give it away for free). Apple also did away with DVD SP, Soundtrack Pro, and Color and split Compressor and Motion out into separate SKUs which probably did more for the price drop than not shipping discs in the mail. Ultimately I think Apple just wanted to offer X at a more affordable price point and they decided on $299.
Another example of price points is Blackmagic with Resolve and Fusion. Both received massive price drops to just $999 (plus the free versions obviously) after Blackmagic acquired them and then both got huge price drops to just $299. BM, like Apple though, has a hardware business that affords them a lot of flexibility in the pricing of their software.
This all reminds me of an older interview with Steve Jobs. Shortly after the iTMS was launched Steve Jobs was asked about the competition (like Rhapsody and the legal Napster) and he said he didn’t worry about them because they don’t sell MP3 players. The iTMS prices were set extremely low because it was never designed to have viable profit margins, it was designed to sell iPods.
If I had to guess, I’d say Adobe set the initial price of CC with healthy margins in order to get working capital upfront and then over the years the margins have narrowed and narrowed as the cost of doing business went up. Now they’ve hit the floor of where they want the margins to be so they’ve poked the price to get the needle out of the yellow and back into the green (so to speak).
-
Perhaps.
But I produced a lot of videos on retail product supply chain management back in the day.
Ships or rail cars arriving with goods, storage warehouses across regions feeding hub distribution centers – those feeding regional and local DCs – further feeding stores with weekly re-stocks. Vast networks of trucks, drivers, and tens of thousands of workers, just to get the box onto the shelf in your neighborhood – and enable your purchase.
Now it’s one click and $299 gets exchanged for some IP, digitally.
And that ENTIRE old system is bypassed.
It’ll be hard to convince me THAT change isn’t the largest factor in this stuff.
In retail, the guys who knew, always told me controllable labor costs are the lever that controls profitability.
The largest client I worked with had more than 20,000 retail employees and likely that many again behind the scenes in admin and distribution.
Compared to a couple hundred software engineers, computer scientists and marketing folks for a popular software product?
Not even close really. I bet you could DOUBLE your fixed operational overhead in a software business many, many times over and not move the costs needle as much as giving even a small pay raise to a retail workforce like that.
That’s how I see it. But that’s just speculation. Not my game anymore.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
[Bill Davis] “Compared to a couple hundred software engineers, computer scientists and marketing folks for a popular software product?”
That’s only part of the expenses. There’s also the entire cloud infrastructure since Adobe offers cloud storage, stock footage libraries, website hosting, a digital assets marketplace, etc. These added value aspects of the cloud subscription require a small army of people to maintain and keep running and then there’s the massive cloud server infrastructure.
Bottom line, the expenses are much more than what you’ve laid out.
Windows 10 Pro
i7-5820k CPU
Nvidia GeForce GTX 970
Adobe CC 2018
Renders/cache: Samsung SSD 950 Pro x2 in Raid 0
Media: Samsung SSD 960 PRO PCIe NVMe M.2 2280
Media: OWC Thunderbay 4 x 2 Raid 0 mirrored with FreeFileSync -
[greg janza] ” There’s also the entire cloud infrastructure since Adobe offers cloud storage, stock footage libraries, website hosting, a digital assets marketplace, etc.”
There in lies the problem. I don’t use any of the above. Why should I have to pay for it?
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Visual Storyteller
https://vimeo.com/channels/1322525
Managing Partner, Low Country Creative LLC
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up