Return-Path: Received: from p3plwbeout04-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.218.226] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP id 5476001 for ae-list@media-motion.tv; Sat, 17 May 2014 21:05:21 +0200 Received: from localhost ([72.167.218.245]) by p3plwbeout04-05.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with bizsmtp id 375K1o0015JG3DC0175KUZ; Sat, 17 May 2014 12:05:19 -0700 X-SID: 375K1o0015JG3DC01 Received: (qmail 28611 invoked by uid 99); 17 May 2014 19:05:19 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Originating-IP: 142.129.187.88 User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 5.6.47 Message-Id: <20140517120518.89259f98f291d771214680e8971719cb.3b5fb39fb9.wbe@email04.secureserver.net> From: "Robert W. Walker" To: "After Effects Mail List" Subject: RE: [AE] CC subscription price increase Date: Sat, 17 May 2014 12:05:18 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 A good idea, Jim, but I'm not thinking Adobe is that magnanimous. The=0Afac= t is there is a huge user base that is not likely to switch to an=0Aalterna= tive (which would be what?) unless the price becomes outrageous.=0AWhat wou= ld be Adobe's incentive to implement tiered bundles/pricing?=0A=0ARobert W.= Walker=0AWalkerSound=0AWalker/Fitzgibbon TV & Film=0ALos Angeles CA USA=0A= =0A=0A> -------- Original Message --------=0A> Subject: Re: [AE] CC subscri= ption price increase=0A> From: Jim Curtis =0A> Date: Sat, = May 17, 2014 2:35 pm=0A> To: "After Effects Mail List" =0A> =0A> =0A> I wasn't aware of that, Todd. I didn't pay attention t= o what others were paying. Perhaps I got a special rate for being a long t= erm customer.=0A> =0A> Anyway=E2=80=A6 as I said, it's not outrageous at $6= 00/year for all those apps, even though that's about twice what I was used = to paying to stay current with Production Premium CS. =0A> =0A> I'm also p= aying for a lot of apps that I don't use. That's like my health insurance = going up to cover people who use services I don't. I'm sure not going to s= tart building web sites just because the software to do it is available in = my bundle.=0A> =0A> If it's not unrealistic, I'd rather Adobe offered tiere= d services, and had a bundle like Production Premium at a lesser rate. Or,= some sort of pro-rata pricing that's based on the software I use on a regu= lar basis. I just counted 14 apps I don't think I'll ever use.=0A> =0A> = =0A> =0A> =0A> On May 17, 2014, at 1:22 PM, Todd Kopriva wrote:=0A> =0A> > Jim, the $29.99/month was an introductory rate for the = first year for some=0A> > folks, apparently including you. $49.99/month has= always been the regular=0A> > price for an annual commitment.=0A> > =0A> >= There is no price increase.=0A> > =0A> > =0A> > On 17/05/2014 10:04, "Jim = Curtis" wrote:=0A> > =0A> >> I knew the first year was an= introductory rate, but I got notice today my=0A> >> monthly rate was going= to increase to $49.99/mo. from $29.99.=0A> >> =0A> >> That's a pretty stee= p hike. I was expecting more along the lines of=0A> >> $39.99, maybe witho= ut good reasons for it.=0A> >> =0A> >> So, this puts the annual rate at $60= 0. I was used to paying that every=0A> >> other year as an upgrade to the = Production Premium bundle.=0A> >> =0A> >> I still don't think that's an out= rageous price, and it's deductible to=0A> >> me, but I think this plays int= o some fears that some people had when=0A> >> Adobe announced their subscri= ption model. After all, you can still buy a=0A> >> permanent license of Mo= tion, Compressor and FCP for $400, and upgrades=0A> >> are included.=0A> >>= =0A> >> What do you think?=0A> >> =0A> >> =0A> >> =0A> >> .=0A> >> =0A> >>= +---End of message---+=0A> >> To unsubscribe send any message to =0A> > =0A> > =0A> > +---End of message---+=0A> > To un= subscribe send any message to =0A> =0A> =0A> += ---End of message---+=0A> To unsubscribe send any message to