Adobe just got greedy - upgrade only good for prior version

[FrozenInTime]

This needs customer backlash to sort out:

I'm sure many of us just upgrade Photoshop every other version:
There was no immediate need to pay $200 every other year for small feature or ACR changes

... But now you may no option 😡😡
Adobe is going to change it's photoshop upgrade policy so that you must have the immediate prior version to get the upgrade price.

http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/adobe-creative-cloud-and-adobe-creative-suite-new-choices-for-customers.html?PID=2159997

POSTED BY DAVID WADHWANI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, DIGITAL MEDIA

we are changing our policy for perpetual license customers. In order to qualify for upgrade pricing when CS6 releases,
customers will need to be on the latest version of our software (either CS5 or CS5.5 editions)

 

[Gid]

I stopped at CS3. It does more than I will ever need. I use LR3 for RAW conversion. If they use the same screw the customer approach with LR I'll find another way. I'd rather give up a bit of flexibility than pay through the nose for functionality I don't need and will never use. Nobody likes to get screwed. I see this as a rather arrogant marketing strategy - Adobe is not the only option available.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I stopped at Photoshop 7.0. Started at 3.0.

Lightroom is nice for Raw conversion, then open up with PS7.0.

When the time comes that 7.0 will not run on a new OS, I'll switch to another package.

Too bad Photostyler is not still around. PStyler 1.1 was nice.

 

[sevo]

Goodbye Adobe, as far as I am concerned.

 

[nightfly]

It's the standard for every graphics design firm I've ever worked with and they generally upgrade faithfully. It's a small cost of doing business.

For the general user, it sucks but there are alternatives, most of them just aren't as good. If they start loosing money they'll change the policy back. From their perspective, there's really no harm in trying it out. Customers don't generally love them as a company anyway.

Most people use such a small fraction of what these programs can do that the cost is not worth it. I use them professionally, so being able to use them for personal use is just a bonus. After years of using them though, I generally get the interface and I think they do a pretty good job. It's not like Microsoft where you have to use them because everyone else does AND the product sucks.

Also Adobe has been greedy for a long time. They just got MORE greedy.

 

[john_s]

I have an older version, so I'll stick with it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

No, they've been greedy for years. It's nothing new.

As Nightfly says, Customers don't generally love them as a company anyway and Adobe has been greedy for a long time. They just got MORE greedy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sevres_babylone]

I've also tended to buy every second upgrade. Since I recently bought the CS5 upgrade, I'm not likely to need/buy CS6. I'll worry about the policy change when CS7 comes around. My recollection is that Adobe had announced this change before CS5, but then amended it somewhat by having differential prices for upgrades dependent on which prior version one had. Which seems fair. If they're serious this time, that's disappointing. There's been some nice changes over time, but for me, once they got layers down, and colour for printing done well -- around PS6 or 7 -- there's not a lot of changes, if anything, that's essential for me. Oh, healing brush improvements have been good. I do more tweaking than special effects. For selections-type work, I tend to use the Nik plug-ins like Silver Efex and Viveza more; they're not cheap, but I like them, and they can be used on Aperture and Lightroom, with some variation.

 

[ChrisN]

There's a good reason they call it the "adobe tax".

Then there's their policy of charging higher prices in certain non-US markets even if the buyer purchases a download version (and no local taxes involved either).

Adobe is a shining example of monopolistic greed.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course, adobe can be defined as half-baked mud...

Cheers,

R.

 

[x-ray]

WE HAVE the power to do to adobe what customers did to Netflix. Netflix stock dropped fro
Near $380 to the $70 range.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There's a good reason they call it the "adobe tax".

Then there's their policy of charging higher prices in certain non-US markets even if the buyer purchases a download version (and no local taxes involved either).

Adobe is a shining example of monopolistic greed.

I am shocked and horrified.

But no more shocked and horrified than I was before, as I too live outside the USA. Part of my income is in dollars and I have a dollar account as well as a sterling account (my main income) and a euro account (because I live in the euro-zone).

I'm always amused at free-market fundamentalists who prefer to ignore the free market's valuation of different currencies. Look at dollar/ euro/ pound relationships in this century...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

This only applys to Perpetual Licenses. Not the licenses most of us have.

 

[Paddy C]

As Pickett point out this is for a particular license.

I'm more concerned with Adobe's cloud obsession. I currently can't even buy the bandwidth to make that a useful option.

 

[ssmc]

I also don't use PS for "special effects" and CS3 has an excellent panorama stitching function so I'm happy with what it does for what I need, so that's where I stopped, and just use the free DNG converter if I don't have an OEM RAW converter (NX, DPP, etc.)

I am reminded (in principle) of Nikon's extremely dubious history with Capture / NX / NX2, especially WRT the D700, though at least you won't have to take out a second mortgage for NX2...

 

[sevo]

This only applys to Perpetual Licenses. Not the licenses most of us have.

So what licenses do most of us have? Maybe you are right that the majority have either a pirated version or a student or corporate version. Personally I paid in full, and suppose that must be the "perpetual" license - it sure isn't temporary or tied to a particular course or employment.