PetaPixel

Adobe Will Only Offer Photoshop CS6 Upgrade Price to CS5 Owners

If you’ve been waiting to upgrade Photoshop CS3 or CS4 to CS6 when it’s released sometime next year, here’s some bad news: the upgrade price won’t apply to you. Starting with CS6, Adobe will be enforcing a new upgrade policy:

[...] we are changing our policy for perpetual license customers. In order to qualify for upgrade pricing when CS6 releases, customers will need to be on the latest version of our software (either CS5 or CS5.5 editions). If our customers are not yet on those versions, we’re offering a 20% discount through December 31, 2011 which will qualify them for upgrade pricing when we release CS6.

The existing policy is that customers with software from three versions back quality for upgrade pricing. For example, owners of CS2, CS3, and CS4 and upgrade to CS5. Buying the full version of Photoshop CS5 right now costs nearly $500, while the upgrade is only priced at ~$150.

(via Adobe via PhotoWalkthrough)


Image credit: Adobe CS5 nude by pcsiteuk


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • http://twitter.com/therealmattymoo Matty

    GAH! Seriously Adobe?! You’re a bunch of crooks. 

  • Dnguyen

    This is crap! With that said… Thank goodness I have CS5…

  • http://twitter.com/Seshan Seshan

    This is common for most software upgrades.

  • Anonymous

    I bet if Adobe started charging $100-$200 per copy, more people would buy it. I think 9 out of 10 people buying something a $100 each is a lot better than 1 out of 10 buying it for $750 each…

  • Josh Zytkiewicz

    Last year I went from CS3 to CS5.  With a policy like this I don’t seem myself upgrading again for a long time.  If ever.  I don’t use Photoshop much anymore, Aperture does everything I need.

  • Michael

    Boycott Adobe!!!
    Back stabbers like what Steve Jobs said, :-)

  • Francois

    And for the fun of it, i encourage you to check the European prices… 
    Full ~1000€
    upgrade ~300€ 

    Knowing the euro/dollar parity (1€=1,3$), you guys have it for a rather cheap price in comparison…

  • http://www.betweenraindrops.com Jamie Weir

    Apple offered Snow Leopard at a cheap price for Leopard users as an upgrade option.  Tiger users were told to buy the “package” bundle which was around a hundred more.  The package wasn’t actually mandatory, but Apple did everything they could to try and imply that it was.

    No matter your interpretation of what Steve Jobs said, this practice is seen in a lot of areas, and I don’t see a huge deal.

    If you think 500 dollars is overpriced for a photo retouching program, you’re right.  But if you are trying to use photoshop as nothing but a photo retouching program, you’re bringing a bazooka to a knife fight.

    Photoshop is an insanely powerful program.  It has an absurd array of features and functionality inside of it, that a vast majority of users will never delve upon.  That doesn’t mean they are useless, it just means that this is one program that is able to function as the go-to application for many different fields.

    With everything it is capable of, and everything the developers have put into it, I consider 500 dollars to be a fair price.

    If you have been getting by with an older version than CS5, and it’s done all you need, then what’s your problem?  If you didn’t need CS5, you aren’t going to need CS6.  You just want to have it because it’s new, but you’re angry because they are charging realistic rates for what their products do.

    Besides, CS5 prices will drop down when this comes out, just as CS4 did.  It’s a cycle, and people that want to stay at the cutting edge of this cycle get discounts as a thanks from Adobe for their support.  It’s a gift, not an entitlement.  If people that held back and didn’t support Adobe on their new product wish to cash in on said gift, then they can follow the same steps as those that upgraded with each new version.

    Do any of you even know what new features are going to be included in CS6?  Yet no matter that, you’re still all butthurt over this.  You’re angry at Adobe because they are no longer giving the same constant-buyer deals to users that aren’t constant buyers.

  • Orly

    I’m out.

    I just can’t justify upgrading so often at those prices.
    I wonder how GIMP is looking these days.

  • Kevin

    All those on versions below CS5 need to get your life in order. If you purchase software that you use in your hobby or business it is your obligation to stay current. Why would you not, economic reasons?? I’ll buy that but
    if so then when your economic situation improves then upgrade via the rules. Adobe spends thousands of $$$$ to give use a tool that exceeds our expectations. I know it’s a hard bullet to bit but if companies like Adobe continue a give away program then you won’t have to worry about how you are going to pay for the next upgrade…….there won’t be one.

    You can bitch at me if you want, that’s your freedom, but I speak reality.

  • Anybody

    I hear you, but for a lot of people, forking out $999 for a marginal upgrade of software they already own is a hard pill to swallow. It is an UPGRADE, not a new piece of software they have never owned. Sure it has improvements, but it is essentially the same software, and i think its fare to offer upgrades for a reduced price. It also is hard to take when we in Australia pay 50% more for the same software for no good reason. PSCS5Ex is $999ex tax in the US store but $1550 ex tax in Australia. 
    Would YOU pay $1550 for and upgrade from say CS4 to CS5? I doubt it.

  • Gazzer B

    Frankly many of the updates are not worth the money and not everyone needs the miniscule extras offered with each upgrade.

    Adobe are actually punishing people for not upgrading.

    Seems to me they are trying to claw in as much money as possible before Flash bites the dust and to force people onto their rubbish subscription model.

    Long live the third party guys !

  • http://www.creativaguides.com Phoenix Photographer

    Money grab. I have CS4 which I got just before they came out with CS5; not going to upgrade.

    Why not a tiered program? Make the upgrade from CS4 a little less attractive than the one from CS5?

  • http://twitter.com/angusbooker Angus

    A typical daft monopolistic pricing policy. Essentially what it does, is delays people’s buying decision even further. Instead of charging me $500 – $600 a year, they instead make me think twice about upgrading. With this policy, i think i’ll just hold off until CS7, 8 or 9 and make do with what i’ve got. If i’m going to buy it completely from scratch i may as well hold off as many years as i can.

    Instead of trying to induce me into upgrading, they are now pretty well locking me out as a customer. And forcing me to become a new customer again.  And they can do this, as they pretty well bought out all the competition and now have a monopolistic position in the high-end tools market. 

    For those wishing to escape the Adobe ecosystem of fudge.. I can’t recommend Pixelmator enough !!(mac only) This product for $30 is nothing short of incredible. Might not have the tippity-top features of Photoshop, it is damn powerful, stable, fast and easy to use.. 

    I still need illustrator, but Pixelmator is one incredible (and insanely priced) competitor to Photoshop.. 

  • http://twitter.com/angusbooker Angus

    check out Pixelmator.. it is a serious and fantastic alternative for photoshop for 90% of people’s requirements.. for about 1/50th of the cost.. 

  • Dave

    I remember when you could make money with photography. Now, any profit you make goes to upgrading software and hardware…..all of which is being designed to be obsolete in the near future (you need to have a certain OS to run a certain version of Photoshop, you need a certain version of Photoshop to read the RAW file of your new dslr etc).

  • Anonymous

    Yeah but if you want to process files from newer cameras with ACR you need to upgrade, so they’re going to force users hands.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s something I think about:

    Why is it that we don’t complain nearly as much about hardware and camera costs?

    My guess is because they are non-negotiable.  Or perhaps because we get something we can hold in our hands?

    You want that new L lens, or that cool new pocket camera, you go get it.  And you’re never going to do much better than B&H’s price.

    With software, you can either pay for it, or steal it.  I can’t tell you the amount of professional photographers I know, (most of whom make over $200k a year,) that don’t own legitimate copies of photoshop.  They all think it’s too expensive, but are completely reliant on it for their work.

    I think it just seems like a lot for something that isn’t “real.”  But the reality is that for a working professional, it is a reasonable expense.

    Of course I too would rather it cost less, but I’m assuming Adobe has worked the numbers and can remain profitable with the huge amount of theft.  Imagine they think the $100-200 crowd will buy Lightroom.

  • http://www.betweenraindrops.com Jamie Weir

    That seems like an act made by the newer camera makers, not Adobe.

    Do these cameras not come bundled with software that is capable of processing the files they make?  Mine did.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah but if you want to take full advantage of the creative suite you work within it, and use ACR in Bridge or Lightroom. And its Adobe that adds the raw compatibility, not the manufacturer. Have you used Capture NX or Silkypix? Those programs are garbage.

  • http://www.betweenraindrops.com Jamie Weir

    Every Nikon I’ve seen and owned has come with a copy of Nikon Transfer and View NX.  These programs let you read the RAW file of your new dslr.  I don’t see that as a valid gripe.  If you’ve been thinking of upgrading photoshop specifically for that function, you’re definitely going overkill on your software.

    Nikon (again, as an example) also has Capture NX 2, their photo editing software.  It serves pretty much all the needs of someone that only needs a product for photo manipulation.  It’s only half the price of photoshop, but also considerably less than half the functionality.  

    For another 250, one could get Photoshop which adds things like 3D work, animation, all kinds of filters and plugins, smart objects/vector objects, and more.  If these aren’t of interest to you, you definitely shouldn’t be complaining about this whole thing, because you probably could be using a different program that will get you the results you are looking for.

    I remember when people made amazing pictures many years ago.  Those pictures are still amazing today, even though they didn’t use the latest hardware and software of today.  Pretty weird, how they were capable of that…

    If you are hung up on needing better hardware/software in terms of a newer camera body or newer version of Photoshop to make your pictures better, you aren’t approaching this properly.

  • http://www.betweenraindrops.com Jamie Weir

    Photoshop + Camera = raw compatibility.
    Photoshop + New Camera = raw incompatibility.

    The variable that changed in those two equations wasn’t Adobe’s.

    Exactly my point on Capture NX.  If those 250 dollar programs are garbage, then something that is leaps and bounds ahead of them in performance and capability is likely going to cost more money.

  • Anonymous

    Well put. While I agree with the logic of what you said, I firmly believe software should be regularly updated to stay current, but because almost nothing goes into manufacturing a copy of software, they could (in theory) charge $20 and still make money.

    Hardware, on the other hand, is different. You can’t copy a camera or a computer by pressing ctrl+c/ctrl+v. It requires real materials. I would never get into photography if it was common practice to upgrade my hardware every year.

    I understand charging a high price for professional software, but I don’t think Adobe should charge the full price for returning customers. Many would have happily upgraded at the fair upgrade price, but now they won’t. Adobe shot themselves in the foot.

  • Anonymous

    Actually a fair bit of cost goes into creating software: employees, facilities, etc.

    Adobe has roughly 9000 employees BTW.

    Software is just as much of a product as hardware is.

  • Anonymous

    I understand, but my point is I think they would make more in the long run if they sold more for less. I can sell 100 $.99 songs on iTunes faster than I can sell 1 for $100. 

    Google has over 20,000 employees and offers their product for free (yes, I know… ads), but it still makes enough money to build a big empire.

  • Anonymous

    You’d like an ad supported version of Photoshop?

    Adobe is under no obligation to keep your product current.  Nor is Toyota.

    Does Toyota give you a discount when you want another of their cars?

    A product is a product.

    If you don’t like their business model, you don’t have to do business with them.

  • Anonymous

    I wouldn’t mind ads, but I’m not arguing that. I simply mentioned it before used it as fodder to shoot me down. I understand Google makes money from ads and Adobe does not. But I also understand Google built an empire out of their software and far surpassed Adobe’s empire. Adobe needs to be somewhere between Google’s free approach and their current greedy strategy. That’s all.

    Also Toyota makes cars. One cannot uninstall a car and reinstall one with slightly more features. No one buys a new car every year and no one would take their car to the dealer to add the newer features… and even if they could, Toyota would not charge them the full price of a car to “upgrade” their system. That argument is invalid.

  • Anonymous

    Adobe doesn’t NEED to do anything.  They could stop making Photoshop if they wanted to.  You may WISH they would charge less, but they decide.

    When you buy software or a car, you are buying it with the features it has.  There is no future obligation from either manufacturer.

    All you are saying is that you don’t value the upgrades to the software as much as you do a new engine or a new car.  This has been my point.

    People see software differently than hardware, while the manufacturers of both have real costs to bring their respective products to the market.

    Do you get a discount when the new Grand Theft Auto comes out?  It’s the same game, just different maps right?

    (Actually GTA IV took 1000 people 3.5 years to create, at a cost of approx $100 million.)

  • Anonymous

    Ok… This conversation is heading south. I’m out. Before I go… I understood your points, but I don’t think you understood what I’m saying. We keep coming back where we started. All I know is Adobe charges a very high price for updating. Using your car analogy, it’s like paying the price of a new car for replacing the engine. It’s like paying the price of a new house for building a room over the garage.

    The upgrade price seemed fair because you’re really only buying a new version of the same thing you already have. Who the hell wants to spend close to $1000 on a couple new features they could probably do without? Adobe can do whatever they want, but I know piracy will go up as they lose old customers. So much for customer loyalty…

    And for the record, each GTA game is a whole new experience. It’s not like each edition of Photoshop is completely reassembled in a new way. It’s just code on top of code… but it’s not like Rockstar is charging $750 per game. They know they’ll sell more if the price is lower. 

  • Anonymous

    I understand you.  You’d rather pay less.  I’d also rather pay less.

    While it was definitely a better deal before, we don’t have a choice now.

    I’m just saying people don’t value time in a product like they do materials.

    What if the new car engine doesn’t fit in last years model?  :)

    Also the “very high price” is subjective.

    What would you say if I thought $60 was too expensive for a video game?

    Night.

  • Michael

    Funny, I shoot mostly film now, I started off with digital then went into film just for fun of it.  Some people say digital is cheaper but seeing how the hardware and software companies are trying milk out money from us by updating new and different formats to adopt giving us no choice to upgrade for more dollars seems to me that the old way is still way cheaper. 

    As soon as I buy a new camera with the latest modification something new will be in the market less than a month or two making my camera depreciate in value as well as its latest technology was at the time.  Everything is like an artificial product now.  Leica M analogue will always be Leica as well as Large format will always will have it’s place in the photography world.  Plus a lot of great analogue gears like darkroom supplies and enlargers is more affordable than ever especially whenever someone wants to get rid of it fast :-).  

    Anyway I am not a pro, I don’t even have flickr or any other photo sharing site, just an amateur having fun with my own time shooting and developing getting rewarded not with instant satisfaction but rather “Deferred Gratification”.  I hold my own gallery show with friends at local wine bars and its pretty damn fun then waiting for someone to comment them on flickr.  Btw the art of printing is pretty damn awsome satisfaction too.

    Also I think these professional grade software with extreme pricing will fail due to competitive edge with more affordable apps created by professionals who can develop a niche products that will engage towards between the needs of pros and amateurs thanks to Steve Jobs even though he was against it at first, lol.  The learning curve on photoshop is pretty damn steep anyways, I would rather be out shooting photos and have fun.

    Peace.

  • Dave

    You have stated that you are not a pro etc so your comment of film being cheaper than digital can be excused. I shot film for 25yrs and digital for the last 6 yrs. All I need to do is look at my tax returns (expenses) to know that digital is FAR cheaper than film.

  • Dave

    The work I do revolves around digital image processing and archiving. My workflow has been built around Adobe Photoshop. Nikon software can not compare to the Adobe products…..at all. I do not want a workflow that involves launching and going back and forth between two completely different kinds of software.

    This latest move by Adobe is just an example of a huge company that has gotten greedy. I believe upgrades to software that you have already paid $700 for should of course come with a cost, but not in the hundreds. Most upgrades offer a few changes but also have moved around some of their legacy tools to different locations just to make the user feel like they have actually paid for something. In the past I contacted Adobe about upgrading my CS3 to CS5. They wanted $350. Half of the original cost. That is ridiculous.

     I know many of the people in my line of work will skip an upgrade simply because a couple new features is not worth the $150 ding. Now Adobe has found a way to squeeze even more $$$ from their loyal customers. Because Photoshop has no equal, they are able to get away with monopolizing behavior such as this.

    I recently bought a new camera. My version of PS was not able to read the RAW file. In the past they offered a plugin for the new camera protocol in ACR. Now they want you to upgrade to a newer version of PS because the hundreds (thousands?) you have given them over the years is not enough. Sell me the plugin for $20. Or better yet, do as you have always done and realize your product is more valuable if it works with all cameras and give the damn thing away.

    This comment of yours is interesting: “I remember when people made amazing pictures many years ago.  Those
    pictures are still amazing today, even though they didn’t use the latest
    hardware and software of today.  Pretty weird, how they were capable of
    that…”

    Of course there have always been beautiful images made for eons. Film images do not compete in professional photography today. Not only is image quality far better, but imaging techniques have all but obsoleted a pure film workflow. So even if you WANTED to shoot only film, you are competing with photographers that use the very software and hardware I mention in my original comment, and they, WE, will win.

    The software and hardware used today are necessary if you make your living with photography. My original comment, which is true, only pointed out the fact that there once was a time when a photographer could make a living without giving it all to hardware and software companies. Re-read the comment if you need to. And think about how often you are forced to upgrade anything nowadays, not because it is nicer, but because things will quit working if you don’t.

  • John R

    NX is vastly superior to ACR.  The NEF file with all its editing stages intact for adjustment and under 20meg.  The output is incredible, just a slightly different workflow, I’ve bought Photoshop from version 2.5 to CS5, but for fast quality output NX and DXO are always preferred to CS5.  Despite owning the CS5 production bundle I have just bought the Elements Photoshop/Premier Bundle, I suspect it will be more than adequate.

  • http://www.ddw.ca DDW Calgary Web Designer

    Apple OS X Lion is a case in point. Lower the price in order to entice high volume sales.

    Picking a price point is a strategic decision that Jimmy has understood and addressed correctly. If you miss the mark by pricing too high, you risk damaging sales in the long-run. 

    Anyway, this policy stinks. Many professional users purposely skip a generation and wait for the next one so that they can spread out the painful costs of constant upgrades.

  • Anonymous

    Until there is a viable competitor, Adobe may price it as high as they wish.

  • Anonymous

    I think one problem is maintaining compatibility without having to ask the person on the other end to resave the file as an older format.  Generally, the new features are nice, but to ask full price for someone that’s only a couple years behind is a bit much.

  • Anonymous

    The more I think about it, perhaps Adobe wants to switch everyone to the subscription model.

    This move seems to suggest it.

    Also, it would benefit them to have people look at software as a service, rather than a product with upgrades.

  • HellZiggy

    This definitely helps me decide what to do about my Adobe purchases. I have the Creative Suite Design Premium, and while I use many of the programs, especially InDesign & Illustrator, Photoshop is the one I get the most use out of. Unfortunately since I’ve got the Creative Suite I can’t upgrade just one program. It is all or none. 

    With an upgrade from CS4 to CD5.5 running $649 for the suite it seems the logical choice for me is to just purchase a separate copy of Photoshop for $699 and then just do the upgrades on that for less than $200 each. 

  • bill

    On the one hand, this is Adobe’s right. It costs money to develop software and they’re responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits. They enjoy a near-monopoly, and have this luxury.

    On the other hand, i wonder if this move will maximize short-term profits but cause significant erosion of their customer base in the long term. There aren’t many (or any) alternatives to Adobe products, but this looks like an opening for new (or stronger) competitors.

    Personally, i’m an engineer, and not sure i can continue upgrading at this pace for my personal use. It’s crazy. I recently upgraded from CS3 to CS5 to save a little money (tiered upgrade prices even then), but have been a loyal customer since the mid-1990s. Hope someone comes along with a usable alternative (which rules out GIMP).

    Adobe, you’re burning a lot of goodwill.

  • Liron

    Toyota receives my old car at very good value when I want to upgrade to the new model, no matter how many versions have passed. I don’t have to upgrade the car to the new model every year for them to receive my old car either.

    And I would LOVE and ad-supported version of Photoshop, if that would lower the cost of upgrading all our seats. Just 4 years ago I wouldn’t, but in this economy… yes!

    The number of employees that went into making the software is irrelevant, just like the number of engineers who designed the car is irrelevant. You can pay those employees just as easily by selling many low-priced copies as by selling a few high-priced copies. Those are costs that have to be covered by the total production run. It’s totally different from a bill-of-materials for a car that has to be covered by each unit produced. The only per-unit cost of software is the cost of the bandwidth the customer uses to DL it, which should be less than $1.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, Toyota pays you less than your trade-in is worth, so they can resell it with a profit.

    The only favor they do you, is saving you the time and aggravation of selling it yourself.

    Per unit cost includes labor, materials, and overhead.

  • Joe

    The difference is that with the physical object, you can eventually resell it, or give it away once its obsolete. With software that’s not the case, licenses make transferring your ownership quite difficult. Take video games for example, you can pirate both PC and xbox games, the PC games are hard to sell after registering the game to yourself, while the xbox game you can sell the disc like any other hardware, guess which one more people end up pirating? Make the software able to be moved as easily as a tangible good, and people will be more willing to pay for it.
    Same thing works for media, people are more likely to buy a CD that they can lend and resell than buy a digital album which is as single serve as downloading a pirated copy.

  • Eddie

    They should take a leaf out of the computer software render industry. Such amazing customer support from some vendors that even the lead developers post in the forums, listen to the community, apply bugfixes in a matter of days and have faith that people will eventually upgrade thus you can upgrade from a couple versions behind. Old products are still supported and bugfixed. 

    While not on the scale of Adobe, there is still a considerably big user base in the thousands. I think the point is that Adobe should treat their users better

  • Jeff

    Adobe is operating now as the monopoly it is. Adobe is pretty much immune to the healthy and normal capitalist market forces that would force them to consider their pricing structure and the fair market value of not only their software, but their customer service and customer relationship. Considering the way they’ve treated us these last few years (their customer service sucks IMO) combined with this new heavy-handed upgrade tyranny, the minute another company emerges that adequately competes with Adobe, a lot of us are going to be jumping the Adobe ship.

    I understand Adobe needs to make a profit, and they need to pay their people, and commit money to research and development, but I also know I’ve spent a lot of money on Adobe products over the years in order to attempt to stay current, and I feel I deserve something like tiered pricing for my loyalty. However, now my loyalty has been mistaken by Adobe for devotion. I see no problem now waiting multiple versions for an upgrade rather than the normal 1 or 2. It’s Adobe’s right to price their product as they see fit, but it’s also our right not to buy it.

    For me, piracy isn’t an option – and it shouldn’t be for any of us because it’s stealing. Remember this: the same corruption that causes ‘corporate greed’ also turns people into thieves. Two wrongs do not make a right, and you can’t blame Adobe for your own corrupt behavior. That being said, the problems I’ve had with transferring licenses makes it very difficult to play by the rules, even when I want to. This needs to be fixed to give Adobe’s customers the simple option of reselling their old versions in order to ease the cost of upgrading.

  • Bill-lewis

    I have been using elements for some time and find that if I want to do something there is usually a free plug-in that adds the capability and often the plug in will do a better job than photoshop. For a few there is a charge but often it is a small fee on the honor system the one big item I got was Perfect Portrait which is many times easier than using Photoshop to do the image and a friend of my wife paid for it so I could remove a few freckles from her face and arms. An upgrade for elements is around $65 but I am thinking of upgrading to Lightroom as the plugins will also work with it. I am looking at Green screen for portraiture and I would need a plug in for photoshop to do it easily. I expect that everything I really need to do can be done in Elements but Lightrom will organize my thousands of photographs and that would be worth the extra $100 that Lightroom 3 would cost $150 full copy on Ebay. I have read in some of the forums that many pro’s say they can do 95% of their work in lightroom so I expect it would be 100% for me with a few plug-ins.

  • DonM

    The beauty of capitolism and an entrepreneurial business model is that decisions that are made by the owners and officers of large businesses directly affect the bottom line of their profits. If this current policy change results in a higher profit margin then Adobe will embrace the new policy and institutionalize it.  But if it loses Adobe significant numbers of customers and thus profits, then they will most likely dump it.  And for those of you who think that the salaries expended on program development by Adobe employees and contractors is incidental to their overhead costs. .  and thus not part of the equation. . you need to think again.  I managed a few software development programs in my last life and can tell you that the programming and development and testing hours and costs were the bulk of it. There are a lot of hidden costs in maintaining an innovative and cutting edge group of people, not the least of it being health benefits, training, employee taxes, unemployment insurance mandates, etc. . . .   

  • David

    I’m really glad I use Capture One C1 Pro to process all my RAW images as it means I get regular updates for Raw Image converters and is a fantastic piece of software producing excellent conversions – so I’m not reliant on Adobe upgrades for this process.

    I will upgrade to CS6 Photoshop from CS3 next time around but if Adobe are going to bully me into getting CS5 first then I’m sure I can manage with CS3 for many more years to come. 

    I think Adobe should look at the economy and and have a very hard think if this is the right move to make – if indeed it is true. A brave move or a foolish one? Adobe must realise that loyal customers support them even in many other ways even if they do only upgrade every 3 versions. They love Photoshop, they tell all their friends who are not professional photographers to buy Photoshop Elements. At the moment they have a great relationship.

    Adobe I think a lot of CS3 owners (that’s the ones that bought it) are waiting for CS6 Photoshop so I’m guessing you will have lots of orders and money come in if you do not change your policy. Is your upgrade so good that every CS5 owner is really going to have to have it and every CS3 and CS4 owner will be happy to pay you the full price yet again ? Is that new sharpening tool and platform so great ?  If the above is true I’m guessing at the boardroom presentation this must have sounded great. Bold but wow all those extra $$$$$ flashing before your eyes. Time will tell but give a few months after launch and the same bright spark that came up with this one will surely have someone knocking on their door with some pretty awful sales figures saying – and what now?

  • Anonymous

    Adobe has milked Photoshop and Illustrator like no other company in history has ever milked a piece of software. The last big upgrade for Illustrator was transparency which was introduced like 10 years ago. The only other major change was the unified UI, which has been the same since about 2005. 

    The CS bundling was a stroke of marketing genius. Now they can “upgrade” the suite by adding a couple worthless apps, leave the major apps exactly the same, and charge the same ridiculous prices all over again.

    There’s no reason to upgrade half of Adobe’s apps most of the time. CS 5.5 doesn’t even include 5.5 versions of Photoshop or Illustrator, it’s an absurd joke that we would want to pay twice for that software when not even Adobe can come up with an excuse to make it a new version.

  • BOB

    I agree with a lot of people on here, it is just not worth the expense to buy a new one.

    Like I’m in college and I can’t afford to fork out over 500 to buy an editing program. I do photography and graphic design in college and rely fully on their facilities in the buildings but when we have a project to do at home, I find myself spending more time installing and un-installing the free trial versions every month or so rather than doing the actual work needed.

    I rely on my Internet skills to search for other editing programs like “fotoflexer” and “lunapic” but they are only good if your looking to put (lets say) photos on facebook!

    I’m not saying that their not great, like they are brilliant – just not for the professional type of imagery.

    I would love to own a type of PS that is more affordable and less hassle with the new version coming out.

    At the start I had PS CS2 installed and now that I have ‘tried’ the CS5 one it is basically the same with minor differences.

    I think there’s no point in spending all that money on new versions of PS if all they are going to do is tweak a couple of things and not reinvent the layout/more controls for your photographs.