From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:23:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <181220172123331231%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <p19er6$101g$> <> <p19rj5$1fqt$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="4bb30daa75e7ebefbd763552a97210ff";
logging-data="16977"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19y+Uve9zv0xCxXQUOmmR+h"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/KoeDJe/KvAf/vhJnvt8DOrwJfo=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <p19rj5$1fqt$>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "Eric Stevens"<> wrote
> | I don't make money out of Photoshop and for what it costs to rent CC I
> | find I save money.
>    I'm curious. Presumably you had the last version
> of CS before it went online. And now you pay.....
> $12/month or something like that? $120-$150/year?
> What do you find added to the online version that's
> worth so much?

$10/mo is $120/yr for *both* photoshop & lightroom, versus $600ish plus
$150ish every 2 years or so.

one of those is a lot less than the other. 

it's also possible to activate a cc app on a month to month basis
(although not for $10), so for sporadic use cases, it could be *much*
less than $120/yr.

> Why is it worthwhile to always
> update to new versions? Are the handful of new features
> really so critical in what you do? Even people using
> it fulltime for work typically skip a version. 

if they're using it full time for work, they can easily justify the
upgrade, as it will pay for itself very quickly. 

it's the casual users who often skip a version, mostly to save money. 

however, even if someone skips a version, it would be $120/year versus
$750ish every 3-4 years or so. still a savings, just not as much, and
users will be up to date with the latest and greatest features.

> That's a
> big part of why Adobe went to the rental model.
> They make a bit less than if they sold each version,
> but they weren't selling each version to most people.
> Rental makes more money than selling only every other
> version.

actually, the big part is because their cash flow was in bursts, with a
shitload of revenue around the time of the release of a new version,
then trickling off to nothing just before the next version is expected
to be released. with the subscription model, revenue is steadier.

> And they're not under pressure to cook up
> a snazzy update every year.

instead, they release features when they're done rather than wait for a
full release cycle, which was typically 18-24 months.

from a user's perspective, they get new features on a continual basis.

>     I repeatedly see
> conversations here where it's clear that people are
> spending a small fortune to rent CS as well as buying
> all sorts of expensive, adjunct tools. I don't get it.

true, you don't get it.

> Unless the main thing you like to do is cutting edge
> special effects, like airbrushing skin or stitching scenes
> together seamlessly.

many people do that and more.

> Most of the basic editing functionality
> has been around for 20 years.

those who only need basic editing functionality only need to spend $50
or so for photoshop elements (which you *still* refuse to admit exists)
or they can use the built in editing tools, such as apple photos or
google photos, entirely for free. 

nobody is forcing anyone to pay adobe.