-
The New Adobe
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “f having an Avid style exit ramp, that costs more money in the long run is something that is of interest, fair enough. That is completely valid and it seems like it’s something Adobe could do, and really, it would be great for Adobe, less great for me (it’s $1300 to turn the subscription back on instead of $50).”
Just a quick thought on this – it’s only more expensive to go with a perpetual license if you purchase it and don’t keep up with your $299 support contract for at least three years (roughly the break even point). Your initial buy in is $1,300, plus two years of support/upgrades at $299/year. So in three years you’ve spent $1898.
If you subscribe on the annual contract then you’re at $50/month ($600/year). At three years you’ve spent $1800, and if you stop subscribing you lose everything. With perpetual you can stop subscribing and keep using your software forever. And if you’re using it on even a semi regular basis, it’s cheaper to just pay the $299/year support and buy a perpetual license. I mean, how many people bought FCPX because it was only $300? Even if you only use it for one project it should pretty much pay for itself.
If Adobe would have offered the same deal (keep your license but pay $299/year support, or even $499), I think they would have had a massive uptake of the creative cloud suite. The cost doesn’t seem to bother most people (I completely agree with you that paying for every program sucks, though. The need tiers) – it’s the lack of an exit that people hate. And if you make it cheap enough to just autorenew but really expensive if you drop it completely you can pretty much lock in your customers without all the ill will.
I think Avid’s plan is pretty smart. Adobe should pay attention to it. I’m interested to see how it all shakes out.
—————-
Michael Hancock
Editor -
[Michael Hancock] “Just a quick thought on this – it’s only more expensive to go with a perpetual license if you purchase it and don’t keep up with your $299 support contract for at least three years (roughly the break even point). Your initial buy in is $1,300, plus two years of support/upgrades at $299/year. So in three years you’ve spent $1898. “
I have said from the beginning that this is not about the money, but it is certainly about the money.
It’s not about the overall cost, it’s about how often it’s spent and for what.
For Adobe, I’m sure a big reason to not offer an exit strategy similar to what we talk about here, is that a whole lot of people, the “millions” of people that are supposedly not subscribing because of a lack of perpetual license, or ownership, those millions who upgrade occasionally, those millions would give Adobe $50 and then turn off the subscription, and receive a large set of tools for nothing.
This is not to say that the current CC model is the only way forward. Adobe could figure something else out.
[Michael Hancock] “And if you make it cheap enough to just autorenew but really expensive if you drop it completely you can pretty much lock in your customers without all the ill will.”
Sure, it just seems like somewhat of a hoodwink to me, personally.
It’s not quite forcing you to subscribe, but you will pay for the privilege of not subscribing, and if and when you want to stop subscribing and then subsequently want to resubscribe. So why not just subscribe?
I think it is much easier, or at least makes much more sense in Adobe’s case, to pay for what you use, when you use it, especially when there’s 35ish apps of which 29ish are fairly useless to me. Basically I would use 3-4 apps a lot, the rest of the apps rarely, most of them not at all. If it’s truly a rental system, let’s make the system rentable.
At least with Avid, I know exactly what I’m paying for.
Jeremy
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Cross posting this from the Adobe CC Debate forum, because it’s pretty stunning to me.”
When you have to deal with the garbage Al and the rest of the Adobe Technical team have had to put up with for the past two years, he’s allowed to have a “moment.” All the vitriol directed towards people who had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go subscription does wear on you after a while. People on this very forum seem to be openly cheering for Adobe to fail. How do you think that reads to the people who are simply creating great software for us to use? They are working their butts off to get new features, fix bugs and in general make our lives easier. All the while seeing people on forums just like this one openly cheering for Adobe to fail.
Adobe is not some nameless company. For me Adobe is Al, David, Todd, Dennis, Megan and a bunch of other really great people. It doesn’t make work pleasant when the same people have nothing better to do than to whine and complain day after day after day after day…. .and cheer on the hopeful failure of their company.
If you know Al, and I’m VERY fortunate to have known him for three years now, you know he is probably THE most positive person in the industry and well loved even by his competitors for just being a nice guy. It’s very uncharacteristic for Al to have public moment like this, but he’s also human.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative MediaCraft and Career Advice & Training from real Working Creative Professionals
-
I havnt read anything on wanting adobe to fail as a company, most of us whant the subscription only to fail and will do anything to make our voices as loud as can be. That said i think that all of us have the highest regard for all the adobe people except for a few that took the gastly decision and even those i am sure have redeeming qualities.
the fire is not directed at you guys though you are in the general direction of it so take cover and bare with us the fire will continue.
ricardo marty
-
[walter biscardi] “… he’s allowed to have a “moment.””
Walter,
While I find your embrace of emotion reassuring, it should probably be applied to all, including those in the forum who occasionally have an outburst.
[walter biscardi] “All the vitriol directed towards people who had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to go subscription does wear on you after a while.”
The other Walter expresses the opinion that for Adobe the “business model” and the “development model” are linked – that one informs the other. In response, it’s fair to note that for users, the features and the “business model” are linked – one affects the other and it’s quite fair for them to discuss all aspects. And users also had “nothing to do with the decision to go subscription” – one might claim they are also not responsible for the repercussions.
It seems clear that one of Adobe’s PR strategies on this is not to have anyone available to discuss the subscription controversy – you won’t find it in the forums except in carefully qualified statements. It’s probably a savvy strategy (from a business point of view), but the weight of that is going to fall on people like Al Mooney and Todd and Kevin here in the forum. If they think they can simply dismiss discussions with claims of “not my department” they’re being naive about their role and the intelligence of those posting here.
Or, to put it another way: if Adobe wishes to relieve Al Mooney from questions about the subscription model, who did they send to NAB to discuss it?
Franz.
-
[Franz Bieberkopf] “Or, to put it another way: if Adobe wishes to relieve Al Mooney from questions about the subscription model, who did they send to NAB to discuss it?”
There appeared to be approx. 50 – 100 Adobe Team personnel on site at NAB this year. Any public comments are made through their PR department. Al was there to meet with company representatives and to make public appearances at events like the SuperMeet.
Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative MediaCraft and Career Advice & Training from real Working Creative Professionals
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up