Why I'm cancelling my Adobe subscription

[dunfly]

This is why I don't use adobe, even though it would be easier. Once they got close to a monopoly they started telling people what they would sell them instead of asking what they want. Fortunately there are alternatives.

 

[ronlane]

This is why I don't use adobe, even though it would be easier. Once they got close to a monopoly they started telling people what they would sell them instead of asking what they want. Fortunately there are alternatives.

So you don't have a cell phone? They all do the same thing and at a MUCH higher price.

 

[dunfly]

Apples and oranges. Cell phones are hardware and a service with no real alternatives.

 

[Warhorse]

$10 a month to constantly have the latest edition of Lightroom/Photoshop is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

I have/do waste much more money on more trivial things on a regular basis.

 

[ronlane]

Apples and oranges. Cell phones are hardware and a service with no real alternatives.

No, it's just like that. You rent their service or do without it. Same way with cable or satelite TV. They all have cheaper versions. You can use GIMP, or bet rabbit ears and get local channels or get a cheap prepaid plan if you had to have a cell phone.

But even at that you can't compare what you get for $10 a month from Adobe with anything that is free to edit photos with. You get what once was nearly $1,000 (Photoshop and Lightroom) and all the upgrades for $10 a month. So figure this, if someone bought Photoshop and lightroom at $1,000 and used it and another person rented at $10 a month. By the time the $10 a month reached the $1,000 level, they will have about 8 years+ of upgrades included in that. The other person, will probably not be using that software because the new camera won't be supported by the other software. So then they will have to spend the money to get an upgrade.

Now, if the $10 a month person were to stop paying, they would still the LR on their computer that they could still print, view, export their photos. Do everything that it will now just not be able to use the develop module.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, it's your choice. I just have seen WAY too many people bash the business model that Adobe, and others, have gone to.

 

[Derrel]

It seems like some people here are forgetting the very Basics ...it's not $10 a month it's $60 a month, because Adobe forces you to have a live internet connection each month and in my area that is around $50 a month now, plus the Adobe tithe. No longer can a powerful workstation sit unattached to the internet.

I had Adobe CC for two years and got no valuable updates to the application, but was forced to spend $149 or so on a new Macintosh operating system to be able to run the new CC, when my system was working perfectly and my OS offered all the features I wanted and was Rock Solid. Even though I had a 2012 copy of Adobe Lightroom which I paid $129 for, I was forced to update my computer operating system to keep Pace with adobe's Breakneck pace of minor updates which offered me no real additional value so to those who think it's only $10 a month,no it's not it, is much more costly than that. If you WERE to make me sign up for Adobe CC today I'm pretty sure that my current computer set-up would be inadequate, and that I would need to spring for at least $2,000 or more in the way of a new computer. No thanks, I could buy something that would work and I would be money ahead in 6 months.

LET'S do a little math problem. 80 months * $60, that is $4,800 for the right to maintain my ability to edit my files. My first copy of Photoshop was version 2.5, which I got as partial payment from shooting a wedding in 1991... for well over a decade upgrades were priced at $199 and I upgraded from 2.5 to 4.0, then to 5, then to 6 and my last full version of grade was to Adobe Photoshop CS2.

For two years I paid Adobe $10 a month for what was basically the need to update my entire computer to an operating system that I did not want to have, just to be able to run their so-so software and to receive zero updates which were of any value to me.

And you will notice I have not brought up any hardware/software incompatibilities which happen quite frequently when one company is updating its software much more rapidly than its entire user base is updating its Hardware. It's a recipe for constant breakdowns.

I am quite frankly surprised by the number of people who seem to be unable or unwilling to see the real hidden cost of the subscription model. It's kind of like the people who said digital photography is free, and who overlooked the cost for Hardware. The last time I checked a really good camera was $3,499, and high-grade f/2.8 Zoom lenses are $2,000 apiece, or more, but the clicks are said to be free. Right

 

[Derrel]

I don't think Photoshop is worth $1,000. I got my first copy for what I considered to be $150, since I got a sealed boxed copy in trade as part of a wedding photography payment . Photoshop used to be $400, but then Adobe began bundling it with a bunch of crap in what they liked to call a suite of applications, which allowed them to jack the price up to over 1,000 dollars.

Photoshop upgrades used to be $199, and users were free to upgrade or not upgrade based upon their needs. Many people, myself included, noted that upgrades were often not needed, and so they chose to remain at the current version they were at. And then Adobe got the bright idea to soak its entire customer base for $50 a month, just for Photoshop. That was extremely tone deaf, but it shows quite well just what Adobe thought its users would put up with.


About 7 years ago I was going through some boxes and found a box full of old check stubs, and there they were-- $9.99 a month cable TV checks, and then there were checks for $14.99, for that long ago time when Starz and HBO were both together bundled for $5 a month. it was at about that time that I was paying $119 a month for cable TV and phone service from Comcast, and I called up Comcast and tried to renegotiate a better rate, such as the one that they were advertising for new customers. I told them that I had been a customer of theirs for almost 19 years, but they were unwilling to cut me a deal,and so I decided then and there well cut it off today all I want is high speed internet for $49 a month.... she was shocked. 25 years ago or so Bruce Springsteen sang in the song "500 channels and nothing on". Is it a really good deal to pay only $0.10 a month for 500 worthless channels when all you want is ESPN and the three over-the-air Networks? It turns out that cutting the cord was one of the best decisions I ever made.

 

[Tinstafl]

What about capture one as an alternative to LR

 

[Peeb]

I continue to use Adobe Photoshop, and pay them their monthly stipend, but every time I open that app, I swear I can hear Joan Jett singing "I Hate Myself for Loving You".

 

[floatingby]

Got my first version of Lightroom free with a piece of hardware(wacom tablet), I don't use Photoshop(even thought Adobe forces me to pay for it). Since version 2 to 6 I paid much less in upgrades than what I forked out paying monthly since. No question the monthly thing is much more costly in the long run.
But beyond cost, I need software to work when I need it, so software that is phoning home to make sure I'm not a thief, then cut my access if it cannot, even thought I paid for it, is a no go for me.

 

[Derrel]

Got my first version of Lightroom free with a piece of hardware(wacom tablet), I don't use Photoshop(even thought Adobe forces me to pay for it). Since version 2 to 6 I paid much less in upgrades than what I forked out paying monthly since. No question the monthly thing is much more costly in the long run.
But beyond cost, I need software to work when I need it, so software that is phoning home to make sure I'm not a thief, then cut my access if it cannot, even thought I paid for it, is a no go for me.

But,but,but it is only $10 a month in perpetuity and after 4 years Adobe gets only $480 from you. And at $50 a month for internet access after 4 years you will have paid only 2400 dollars for Adobe to make sure you are not you are not a thief... so it's a great deal, only $3,000 or so every 4 years for the right to edit your images using an Adobe product in the way that Adobe has forced you to use it. We should all keep telling ourselves that it's only $10 a month. We could all be happy then, justifying being held hostage by a large corporation and telling ourselves that it's only three coffees worth a month. Forget the computer needed , and the software updates to said computer, and the need for a monthly always on internet account and being forced to use the software only on machines that can be pinged by Adobe.

 

[weepete]

It seems like some people here are forgetting the very Basics ...it's not $10 a month it's $60 a month, because Adobe forces you to have a live internet connection each month and in my area that is around $50 a month now, plus the Adobe tithe. No longer can a powerful workstation sit unattached to the internet.

I had Adobe CC for two years and got no valuable updates to the application, but was forced to spend $149 or so on a new Macintosh operating system to be able to run the new CC, when my system was working perfectly and my OS offered all the features I wanted and was Rock Solid. Even though I had a 2012 copy of Adobe Lightroom which I paid $129 for, I was forced to update my computer operating system to keep Pace with adobe's Breakneck pace of minor updates which offered me no real additional value so to those who think it's only $10 a month,no it's not it, is much more costly than that. If you WERE to make me sign up for Adobe CC today I'm pretty sure that my current computer set-up would be inadequate, and that I would need to spring for at least $2,000 or more in the way of a new computer. No thanks, I could buy something that would work and I would be money ahead in 6 months.

LET'S do a little math problem. 80 months * $60, that is $4,800 for the right to maintain my ability to edit my files. My first copy of Photoshop was version 2.5, which I got as partial payment from shooting a wedding in 1991... for well over a decade upgrades were priced at $199 and I upgraded from 2.5 to 4.0, then to 5, then to 6 and my last full version of grade was to Adobe Photoshop CS2.

For two years I paid Adobe $10 a month for what was basically the need to update my entire computer to an operating system that I did not want to have, just to be able to run their so-so software and to receive zero updates which were of any value to me.

And you will notice I have not brought up any hardware/software incompatibilities which happen quite frequently when one company is updating its software much more rapidly than its entire user base is updating its Hardware. It's a recipe for constant breakdowns.

I am quite frankly surprised by the number of people who seem to be unable or unwilling to see the real hidden cost of the subscription model. It's kind of like the people who said digital photography is free, and who overlooked the cost for Hardware. The last time I checked a really good camera was $3,499, and high-grade f/2.8 Zoom lenses are $2,000 apiece, or more, but the clicks are said to be free. Right

I only have 2 other software packages I can compare it to, AutoCAD and ArcGIS. AutoCAD costs $1610 per year for a single licence and ArcGIS is as far as I can tell $100 per month. In terms of usage CAD is pretty comparable (IMO) to Photoshop in terms of what it can do and the complexity of the software. Both are pretty much industy standards. So from my view it's much cheaper than other software I use in my industry.

You can't just bundle an internet subscription in to the cost. You are assuming you need one every day in your home just for CC and that the only thing you use the internet for is to verify your subscription status. Even still, $60 a month is way too high for a basic package, I can get one for £15. But if you pay upfront you only need to ping the server once every 99 days, which would be 4 times per year or you could get for free by connecting to any wifi connection (for example at a friends house, free wifi in places like McDonalds, hotels, or any ferry terminal in Orkney or Shetland). A half hour at an internet cafe is £1.80 and librarys quite often offer it for free. But you are sort of right, in that if you don't want to go to the hassle or can't get an internet connection then it's probably not the best option.

And it gets more complicated than that because your previous subscriptions were based on one computer. You had one licence for one device, whereas I can rock up and use any computer I like, login with my account and get into photos I have in the cloud or use the full version of classic to edit new shots on any comaptable computer.

I'm running both lightroom and photoshop on a computer build I did in 2015 and cost £400. In fact I can run both on my tablet (though not quickly) that cost me £200. I've had zero issues with my outdated hardware.

There are some technical issues, sure. With computers you can't expect things to keep working indefinatley as you upgrade your hardware and expect things to keep working. There's also additional cost with making things multi device and keeping that up to date.

Saying that, subscriptions will end up biting some companies on the behind. Piracy is on the rise again because of that model and realistically there's only room at the top for a few players.

A lot of these threads are looking to me like your grandad complaining that back in his day milk was thruppence and a ha'penny bit where nowadays it's the mighty sum of 56p a pint.

 

[Derrel]

I cannot imagine what a $400 home built computer is like. I'm not used to that level of performance. It seems that you still have internet cafes where you live, but I don't know of any within 250 miles of me. We do have Wi-Fi in many locations where I live, but I find it kind of inconvenient to lug my 27 pound tower and its 30 lb or so Apple Cinema display into McDonald's . The fact remains quite simply that before we had ownership, and now we are nothing but poor tenants, at the whim of whatever Adobe decides that is good for us. I had Photoshop before I had a computer that could run it efficiently. Way back in the day of the early 1990s computers were a far cry from what they are today. I wish you luck with your $200 tablet. I'm sure that you and the internet cafe and tablet will get along swell in the next decade, which will be here before we know it.

My hope is that the Adobe gets bitten in its corporate ass, and that more people start examining alternatives to paying 10 or 15 or $20 or $60 a month for the right to not own anything, but to merely be a user suspected constantly of being a thief.

As the original poster stated, he had 30 hours without connection to the internet and the software that he thought he had a right to use would not allow him to access his pictures and to work on them. That sounds a lot to me like big brother, and I think there are a lot of features in the newer $49 to $69 software applications which would satisfy a lot of people. My hope is to see Adobe lose its near-monopoly position as a result of their own greed. After the crap that Adobe pulled with Flash, trying to worm its way into everyone's internet all over the world, I lost all respect for Adobe as a corporation. I wish them absolutely no success.

Remember, Adobe initially announced that Photoshop would be $50 a month and that they would be ending sales, and moving to a monthly tax. If everyone of us were bootlickers, we would all be paying $50 a month for the right to be able to edit our photos. But because millions upon millions of people like me said, " NO f****** way!" they were forced to extort us for a lot less and to add in Lightroom to the bundle, with a two-year commitment and a cancellation fee. And anyway you slice it, Adobe causes Millions upon Millions honest citizens to pay far more than $10 a month for the right to work on their files. Comparing Photoshop with AutoCAD is a fool's errand, kind of like comparing a Bentley with a Kia. I mean both are cars, are they not? AutoCAD has a very small number of high-dollar professionals who use it. I would wager that Photoshop is at least 100 times more popular than any AutoCAD software ever designed, and it has a much wider user base. A Bentley and a Kia are both cars, and I think my analogy is quite similar to the comparison you pulled out of the air. AutoCAD software $1,600 per year.... it's kind of like a Bentley.... but when you deliver a $5,000 or $10,000 building plan then it's certainly worth it. But in case you have not noticed the vast majority of Photoshop users are hobbyists who get absolutely no income from taking photos. Photoshop is a Kia, in car terms

Because a Rolex might cost $30,000, then a Timex that costs $10,000 must be great value right? These threads have nothing to do with our grandparents complaining about Rising prices, but about the ability to buy a product and get it to work and keep it working, as opposed to being forced to subscribe for 2 years of service at $10 a month and a $50 cancellation fee for who knows what updates and so-called upgrades... upgrades that one user has reported five or six times have caused his system problems. Adobe cannot possibly verify the compatibility of its constant tinkerings with Hardware that is actually out there in use. Not only have we been reduced to sharecropper status, but we are now beta testers for Adobe.

 

[Duke51]

So, I've got 30 hours aboard a ferry crossing the Mediterranean, stuck on a boat with no internet, absolute best time to edit travel photos, right? I thought so, but Adobe had other ideas!
I use AFFINITY by Serif. Does much more than I need and does it well. You download and own the software. Excellent on-line tutorials. Good travels!

Thankfully, I had another piece of software to use, one from another vendor that didn't use a subscription model. Still I'm paying Adobe to be inconvenienced?

No, just no.

 

[Warhorse]

In my case, it's only $10 month. I have been paying for internet service for many years now, just recently (within months} have I subscribed to PS/LR. My old version of Elements just did not cut it anymore, I would have had to upgrade anyways.