New Adobe upgrade pricing policy

[KmH]

I know many amateurs have and use Photoshop CS5.

Current Adobe upgrade pricing policy is such that anyone having a registered copy of CS2, CS3 or CS4 qualifies for CS5 upgrade pricing ($199).

Adobes upgrade pricing policy will change when CS6 is released.

FAQ | Adobe Creative Suite 5.5

With the availability of Adobe CS6 solutions in 2012, Adobe will no longer offer upgrade pricing to customers who are on older versions of Creative Suite dating more than one version back. Customers on versions of Creative Suite CS4, CS3, CS2 and older will not be eligible for upgrade pricing for CS6 unless they have upgraded to CS5 or CS5.5 before CS6 is released.

To re-quote the quote, only CS5 owners willl qualify for CS6 upgrade pricing. Owners of CS2, CS3, and CS4 will have to pay full retail (CS5 is $699 full retail) to get CS6 (I suspect CS6 will cost more than $699.)

If you have CS2, CS3, or CS4 you may want to give serious consideration to upgrading to CS5 very soon, since the release of CS6 is not to far off.

Thanks go to all those software thieves out there using stolen Adobe software. Adobe estimates 1/3 of all the Adobe software in use on the planet is stolen software. Imagine 1/3 of all new laptop computers being stolen before they ever get to the store.

 

[thereyougo!]

Feel sorry for those outside the US who pay more for their software. Not only that Adobe rips people off if they download the software. Our VAT rate in the UK is 20% yet they charged me 22%. 6 emails have been ignored.

 

[KmH]

What in heavens name are you on about? Adobe has nothing to do with additional charges your government adds.

All professional grade software has a price, and Adobe's is some of the least expensive professional grade software available.

 

[Derrel]

Adobe's predatory pricing policies and constant upgrades are one of the reasons their software is pirated so often. Sorry KmH, but to me, your strong connection to Adobe, and Photoshop User magazine, and the Photoshop Professionals group make me question your loyalties and your judgement on all matters related to Adobe as a company. Adobe's power-hungry "Flash" grab is sickening. Adobe is the new Microsoft. I have absolutely, ZERO, sympathy for them. They have brought their problems on themselves. And yes, all my Adobe software is legal,licensed, etc. I've been using Photoshop since version 2.5--back when "images" were typically commercially-done scans, and digital cameras basically, did not exist...

Adobe has created a monster. Vampire bats have shown us that one can suck the blood out of a cow only a certain number of times, and then the cow dies of blood loss...Adobe does not seem to follow that line of thinking...

 

[Derrel]

Your post is a great example of Adobe's pricing policies. What you are telling people is this: If you have not yet upgraded from your perfectly fine,working,capable Photoshop version, DO SO NOW, and spend a few hundred dollars NOW, to upgrade...because if you do NOT do the upgrade, then be prepared to be raped on the next iteration of the software...

But thanks for the heads-up...

 

[KmH]

The same type of pricing policies happens with other professional grade software like AutoCAD and SolidWorks to name just 2.

 

[Buckster]

Adobe can price their products however they want, just like any other company out there, and I really don't see anything wrong with that. If they wanted to charge a million dollars per license for it, that's their business. I would simply have to use something else instead.

AutoCAD is a good example of a software that I really want but can't afford. The company I work for uses it extensively in another department, and I think that both the company and I could really benefit from me having it as well. But the company doesn't see it that way, so they won't buy the license to put it on my desktop, and I can't afford it, so that's that - no AutoCAD for me.

Sure, I wish it were less expensive. I wish the full Adobe creative suite were inexpensive enough for me to justify getting it. I wish Photoshop had cost me less than it initially did and that each upgrade were cheaper or, better yet, free. I wish I could buy a top of the line camera body for the price of a point and shoot too. I wish I could get a $10,000 lens for the price of a nifty fifty. I wish I could buy a top of the line vehicle for the price of a bargain-basement Yugo. And I wish I could live in a nice big mansion on a grand estate for the price of an apartment in a bad neighborhood.

But none of that makes a bit of difference to the reality that surrounds us all. If I want the best, I'm going to have to pay for it. If it's more than I can justify or afford, then I simply don't get to have it, and I'll have to settle for something else that I can afford.

Like vehicles or houses or cameras or lenses or photos or wedding packages or anything else, I don't in any way support or accept any excuse for those that steal stuff with the justification that it's because they can't or just won't pay the price the seller has established.

That's just the way I see it. YMMV

 

[thereyougo!]

What in heavens name are you on about? Adobe has nothing to do with additional charges your government adds.All professional grade software has a price, and Adobe's is some of the least expensive professional grade software available.

Two things- yes government sets the taxation. UK government has set it at 20%. Why then does Adobe charge me 22%? That is profiteering. And very much Adobe's fault. When tax was 15% Adobe charged me 20% when I chose to download CS4. Secondly Adobe charges UK customers the equivalent of $856 for CS5 in the uk. It's the same product at a 20% premium. This isn't uncommon. There is a phrase called Rip-off Britain for a reason. Levi jeans cost around $40 in the US it's around 3x that in the UK. The American parent companies hound out suppliers that try to sell it cheaper in the UK. My main beef is Adobe collecting more tax than they are legally allowed to do. In my book that is fraud. Yet they have repeatedly ignored my emails. That is indefensible

 

[Overread]

thereyougo! - are you quite sure that the tax is 20%? I know that whilst the VAT is 20%, there are also many specific exceptions to that rule which operate under lower or higher tax bands based on the product type.

 

[CCericola]

What in heavens name are you on about? Adobe has nothing to do with additional charges your government adds.All professional grade software has a price, and Adobe's is some of the least expensive professional grade software available.

Two things- yes government sets the taxation. UK government has set it at 20%. Why then does Adobe charge me 22%? That is profiteering. And very much Adobe's fault. When tax was 15% Adobe charged me 20% when I chose to download CS4. Secondly Adobe charges UK customers the equivalent of $856 for CS5 in the uk. It's the same product at a 20% premium. This isn't uncommon. There is a phrase called Rip-off Britain for a reason. Levi jeans cost around $40 in the US it's around 3x that in the UK. The American parent companies hound out suppliers that try to sell it cheaper in the UK. My main beef is Adobe collecting more tax than they are legally allowed to do. In my book that is fraud. Yet they have repeatedly ignored my emails. That is indefensible

Except you forget that the UK has over 14,000 classifications for Customs Duty and VAT tax. There is no one rate. That may be why they ignore your e-mails.

 

[unpopular]

Thanks go to all those software thieves out there using stolen Adobe software.

I know! I heard that they even had to commission the Salvation Army so that they could provide thanksgiving dinners to the executives. The software engineers we sent home with just a can of pees and an IOU slip for a paycheck.

...

The overwhelming majority of those stolen licenses would have never been paid for in the first place.

Piracy does not cost software companies anything. There is no expenses involved in this. They do not have distribution expenses. They do not have support expenses. Nine out of ten times, they do not even have lost revenue, because the pirate wouldn't have bought the software to start with.

Adobe can charge whatever they want for their software. But when they start complaining about lost sales due to piracy, a problem often created by their pricing choices, I have a hard time believing in an innocent victim.

Yes. If you want the best you have to pay for it, and I am not saying that adobe should just let everyone steal their software. But the belief that this is a result of piracy is just bogus. Adobe, as it always has been, is ripping us off.

 

[Buckster]

Adobe can price their products however they want, just like any other company out there, and I really don't see anything wrong with that. If they wanted to charge a million dollars per license for it, that's their business. I would simply have to use something else instead.

AutoCAD is a good example of a software that I really want but can't afford. The company I work for uses it extensively in another department, and I think that both the company and I could really benefit from me having it as well. But the company doesn't see it that way, so they won't buy the license to put it on my desktop, and I can't afford it, so that's that - no AutoCAD for me.

Sure, I wish it were less expensive. I wish the full Adobe creative suite were inexpensive enough for me to justify getting it. I wish Photoshop had cost me less than it initially did and that each upgrade were cheaper or, better yet, free. I wish I could buy a top of the line camera body for the price of a point and shoot too. I wish I could get a $10,000 lens for the price of a nifty fifty. I wish I could buy a top of the line vehicle for the price of a bargain-basement Yugo. And I wish I could live in a nice big mansion on a grand estate for the price of an apartment in a bad neighborhood.

But none of that makes a bit of difference to the reality that surrounds us all. If I want the best, I'm going to have to pay for it. If it's more than I can justify or afford, then I simply don't get to have it, and I'll have to settle for something else that I can afford.

Like vehicles or houses or cameras or lenses or photos or wedding packages or anything else, I don't in any way support or accept any excuse for those that steal stuff with the justification that it's because they can't or just won't pay the price the seller has established.

That's just the way I see it. YMMV

Adobe most certainly can price things however they want, but the argument that they price software the way they do to offset piracy is absurd.

Piracy does not cost software companies anything. There is no expenses involved in this. They do not have distribution expenses. They do not have support expenses. Nine out of ten times, they do not even have lost revenue, because the pirate wouldn't have bought the software to start with.

Adobe can charge whatever they want for their software. But when they start complaining about lost sales due to piracy, a problem often created by their pricing choices, I have a hard time believing in an innocent victim.

Yes. If you want the best you have to pay for it, and I am not saying that adobe should just let everyone steal their software. But the belief that this is a result of piracy is just bogus. Adobe, as it always has been, is ripping us off.

The same arguments can be made for photographs.

By the way, I don't recall reading anything from Adobe saying that their prices are high to try to combat piracy. Could you link me to that please?

 

[unpopular]

The same arguments can be made for photographs.

If you have read any of my views on the subject, I totally agree.

By the way, I don't recall reading anything from Adobe saying that their prices are high to try to combat piracy.

This was more in response to KMH. Got lost in my edits.

 

[Vtec44]

Ah, this reminds me why I rarely use Adobe products for post processing. I can't afford them! lol

 

[Buckster]

The same arguments can be made for photographs.

If you have read any of my views on the subject, I totally agree.

Sorry, I don't actually keep up with whatever you post like a dedicated fan would, so I've missed it.

In any case, do you think the copying of photos without permission is therefore a valid means of obtaining them for someone who doesn't want to pay?

By the way, I don't recall reading anything from Adobe saying that their prices are high to try to combat piracy.

This was more in response to KMH. Got lost in my edits.

No problem. But do they make that claim? It seemed like you were saying they do make that claim, but that it's really just an excuse to gouge us. So, I'm just trying to get it straight - do they make such claims as you seem to be inferring?