Return-Path: Received: from mail-yh0-f49.google.com ([209.85.213.49] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5479578 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Tue, 20 May 2014 04:14:58 +0200 Received: by mail-yh0-f49.google.com with SMTP id c41so7564191yho.22 for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 19:14:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:to; bh=tDshiQseFmaVdaL4UYc6aawesPwU7TnDPwljd5ydSRs=; b=dPQq93GBTgVS8Am3RKZhH29dw+m4+B8FmrMLzDZA2jNJwR4dYntAqZc9UU/DrBXuC+ alN3L+/MQo0a/cV+8UFVjJdnhoGMxCy5t/MOy2gWVOjEDrZMzc05KuDwtSscfybv4gKE H9AtxR78gB2M7bl7H67piuQ8IyM52qJHwvZLOPHf87OnaQMw+K8Ua8RFhJGwA/pYmYTq kjCyT61fdSTrpKdz12LrUNjaxV6bk9Ac33sLlhXzFHkgzFCL7JgNQGOnAM4a7ojCVesn RXp/oQVuc8CIYjwrIMZy2kFICCRsxvyD4w1bSFOUK9y1q41nP7Fn9vpUTcZ0qgMILgeH +q/w== X-Received: by 10.236.36.45 with SMTP id v33mr10575060yha.129.1400552096838; Mon, 19 May 2014 19:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [10.190.232.248] (211.sub-70-208-82.myvzw.com. [70.208.82.211]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s26sm27793188yhg.4.2014.05.19.19.14.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 19 May 2014 19:14:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Original-From: Rendernyc From: Rendernyc Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-E97F4616-B48D-4A36-9F77-E05F82D2C9B5 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [AE] CC subscription price increase Message-Id: <12317323-B9A6-4EB9-9FE5-8E67D7BCF5C8@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:14:53 -0400 References: In-Reply-To: To: After Effects Mail List X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D167) --Apple-Mail-E97F4616-B48D-4A36-9F77-E05F82D2C9B5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm guessing that ultimately they decided against that because everyone can p= ay the full price to get all the apps, and Adobe can maximize their earnings= per subscriber.=20 Because ultimately what choice does that customer really have.=20 > On May 19, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Greg Balint wrote= : >=20 > For what it's worth, >=20 > Before CC came into existence, I was given a survey to take which had a lo= t to do with pricing models and different package options. It asked whether I= would be more inclined to buy certain things or not, that sort of thing. >=20 > Some of the content in that survey was definitely asking if people would w= ant, say, a 4 or 5 app CC package at a discounted rate compared to a full ma= ster suite CC. I.e. a production CC, a web design CC and a photography and i= llustration CC. >=20 > It really seemed to me that we might begin to see those packages over time= , as 90% of the survey(which was probably 80 questions long) had to do with d= ifferent bundle styles for the upcoming CC. >=20 > I'm guessing that ultimately they decided against that to reduce clutter a= nd confusion and just offer a full library at one solid price. >=20 > ///Greg Balint > //Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer > /321.514.4839 > delRAZOR.com/ > =20 >=20 >> On May 19, 2014 9:47 PM, "Rendernyc" wrote: >> It sounds like you are a customer who has been properly marketed too and p= erhaps following along a bit closer than the person whose costs have gone up= from what they are used to and sees all this "stuff" that they will never u= se. Sure they can if they want to. And many may just bc hey they are paying f= or then so might as well. >>=20 >> To answer your important question... Are we better served... Well that de= pends in your point if view >>=20 >> Adobe now has a muxh more stable and strong earning stream from its softw= are business. Hopefully those dollars get turned more towards development an= d going into the coffer. The Adobe that we see, like Todd, feel that they c= an better serve us with this model. So that's good. >>=20 >> But ultimately Adobe is a publicly traded corporation with ultimate respo= nsibility is to the shareholders. There will always be people upset with pri= cing features etc. But as long as Adobe's numbers are good and continue to g= row I wouldn't expect any changes that favor us as consumers >>=20 >> > On May 19, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Brendan Bolles wro= te: >> > >> >> On May 17, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Jim Curtis wrote: >> >> >> >> Anyway=E2=80=A6 as I said, it's not outrageous at $600/year for all th= ose apps, even though that's about twice what I was used to paying to stay c= urrent with Production Premium CS. >> >> >> >> I'm also paying for a lot of apps that I don't use. That's like my he= alth insurance going up to cover people who use services I don't. I'm sure n= ot going to start building web sites just because the software to do it is a= vailable in my bundle. >> > >> > >> > I don't necessarily think of it as paying for apps you don't use so muc= h as Adobe throwing those apps in to make Creative Cloud seem more attractiv= e. If you were never going to pay for an app, doesn't cost them anything to= give it to you for free. >> > >> > The key figure is that you now pay twice as much as before to stay curr= ent. I bet that's true for the vast majority of Creative Suite users. That= 's a pretty steep price hike. >> > >> > Really what has happened here is new users used to pay a lot more to ge= t in the door, and existing users paid less for upgrades. Made sense becaus= e a new user just got thousands of features while an upgrade has maybe a hun= dred. But everyone pays the same now, so new users are getting a much bette= r deal and veterans are picking up the slack. >> > >> > The important question is: are we better served by this model? Does it= mean that Adobe gets to focus more on keeping existing users happy, or does= it mean that Adobe can sit back and get lazy because we keep paying them ev= en if they don't add anything we want? >> > >> > >> > Brendan >> > >> > >> > +---End of message---+ >> > To unsubscribe send any message to >>=20 >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to --Apple-Mail-E97F4616-B48D-4A36-9F77-E05F82D2C9B5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm guessing that ultimately they deci= ded against that because everyone can pay the full price to get all the apps= , and Adobe can maximize their earnings per subscriber. 

=
Because ultimately what choice does that  customer really ha= ve. 

On May 19, 2014, at 10:07 PM, Greg Balint <delrazoraelist@gmail.com> wrote= :

For what it's w= orth,

Before CC came into existence, I was given a survey to take w= hich had a lot to do with pricing models and different package options. It a= sked whether I would be more inclined to buy certain things or not, that sor= t of thing.

Some of the content in that survey was definitely asking if p= eople would want, say, a 4 or 5 app CC package at a discounted rate compared= to a full master suite CC.  I.e. a production CC, a web design CC and a= photography and illustration CC.

It really seemed to me that we might begin to see those packa= ges over time, as 90% of the survey(which was probably 80 questions long) ha= d to do with different bundle styles for the upcoming CC.

I'm guessing that ultimately they decided against that to red= uce clutter and confusion and just offer a full library at one solid price. <= /p>

///Greg Balint
//Art Director / Motion Graphics Designer
/321.514.4839
delRAZOR.com/
   

On May 19, 2014 9:47 PM, "Rendernyc" <rendernyc@gmail.com> wrote:
It sounds like you are a customer who has been properly marketed too and per= haps following along a bit closer than the person whose costs have gone up f= rom what they are used to and sees all this "stuff" that they will never use= . Sure they can if they want to. And many may just bc hey they are paying fo= r then so might as well.

To answer your important question... Are we better served... Well that depen= ds in your point if view

Adobe now has a muxh more stable and strong earning stream from its software= business. Hopefully those dollars get turned more towards development and g= oing into the coffer.  The Adobe that we see, like Todd, feel that they= can better serve us with this model. So that's good.

But ultimately Adobe is a publicly traded corporation with ultimate responsi= bility is to the shareholders. There will always be people upset with pricin= g features etc. But as long as Adobe's numbers are good and continue to grow= I wouldn't expect any changes that favor us as consumers

> On May 19, 2014, at 5:21 PM, Brendan Bolles <brendan@fnordware.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Jim Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Anyway=E2=80=A6 as I said, it's not outrageous at $600/year for all= those apps, even though that's about twice what I was used to paying to sta= y current with Production Premium CS.
>>
>> I'm also paying for a lot of apps that I don't use.  That's li= ke my health insurance going up to cover people who use services I don't. &n= bsp;I'm sure not going to start building web sites just because the software= to do it is available in my bundle.
>
>
> I don't necessarily think of it as paying for apps you don't use so muc= h as Adobe throwing those apps in to make Creative Cloud seem more attractiv= e.  If you were never going to pay for an app, doesn't cost them anythi= ng to give it to you for free.
>
> The key figure is that you now pay twice as much as before to stay curr= ent.  I bet that's true for the vast majority of Creative Suite users. &= nbsp;That's a pretty steep price hike.
>
> Really what has happened here is new users used to pay a lot more to ge= t in the door, and existing users paid less for upgrades.  Made sense b= ecause a new user just got thousands of features while an upgrade has maybe a= hundred.  But everyone pays the same now, so new users are getting a m= uch better deal and veterans are picking up the slack.
>
> The important question is: are we better served by this model?  Do= es it mean that Adobe gets to focus more on keeping existing users happy, or= does it mean that Adobe can sit back and get lazy because we keep paying th= em even if they don't add anything we want?
>
>
> Brendan
>
>
> +---End of message---+
> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>

+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>
= --Apple-Mail-E97F4616-B48D-4A36-9F77-E05F82D2C9B5--