Fantastic - thank you.
You can only buy Photoshop CS6 as a perpetual license product, not any higher versions. CS6 will not be updated, except for support for new cameras. It will not receive any of the new features like the subscriptions to CC and CC2014 will,
It's $700 for the standard version and $1,000 for the Extended version.
Go to the Adobe store:
Creative Suite 6 (<== click on this link), then scroll down to Photoshop CS6:
Station_two - You seem to be suggesting that Photoshop will not be updated (except for cameras) if we purchase it outright, yet it will be updated if it's rented? Is this correct? It sounds strange if true - Our business has made a corporate decision (globally) to not rent any software meaning if what you say is correct, we will probably be forced to move to a competing product.
It’s not strange that Adobe wants to get paid for their ongoing work on an ongoing basis.
Is your company’s business model to get paid once and then provide goods and services until your customer decides to pay, again?
Station_two - You seem to be suggesting that Photoshop will not be updated (except for cameras) if we purchase it outright, yet it will be updated if it's rented? Is this correct?…
That is EXACTLY what I am saying and EXACTLY what Adobe intends. The subscription models, Photoshop CC, CC2014 and so on will receive updates and upgrades
Personally, I'm sticking with CS13.0.6 forever, but I am not part of a firm. Not being up to date with the latest could be fatal for an active professional and even more so for a firm.
If you do find a suitable "competing product", please pass it on. Adobe couldn't care less.
BOILERPLATE TEXT extracted from the FAQ:
Remember, you are not addressing Adobe here in the user forums. You are requesting help from volunteers users just like you who give their time free of charge. No one has any obligation to answer your questions.
Station_two - You seem to be suggesting that Photoshop will not be updated (except for cameras) if we purchase it outright, yet it will be updated if it's rented? Is this correct?
Yes, that's correct.
It's now rental only from Adobe for all new versions of Photoshop (CC, CC 2014 and beyond).
ssprengel you seem to not understand the difference in these purchasing models - We purchase a great deal of software and regularly update to the latest versions so software manufacturers certainly 'get paid' - We do not however wish to rent software because from a corporate perspective there are substantial accounting differences between the two models; ie a software purchase is Capex and can be depreciated; a software rental is not - similarly a software purchase can be asset linked to a project whereas a rental agreement is not an asset and cannot be so linked. There are many more differences however these are not pertinent to my question - We choose to buy software, not to rent it. That is our choice.
Station_two writes: If you do find a suitable "competing product", please pass it on. Adobe couldn't care less.
There are many competing products however as always it is dependent on your application - We primarily use Photoshop for lens correction and while the contained algorithms are quite good, many other products contain similar algorithms and work equally as well. Even the Gimp can do the same with little tweaking (although we will not be moving to the Gimp). Photoshop is quite limited in other areas (3D modelling etc.) however for the price it is a useful tool providing we can purchase it outright and continue to be able to purchase updates, although if as you say we cannot do this, then its probably time to move to something else.
Telling ssprengel that he doesn't "understand the difference in these purchasing models" is about the dumbest thing you could have done, unless you don't mind embarrassing yourself in public.
Besides, arguing the point is ludicrous. That ship has sailed away—a long time4 ago.
This is the new reality. Take it or leave it. Adobe doesn't care, nor does anybody else at this point.
Interesting responses - there seems to be some passion here so at this point I will thank you all for your feedback and consider the question closed.
Kind regards to all and thanks again for your help.
It’s likely a bit cheaper to pay $10/month for PS+LR compared to purchasing an upgrade for $200-$300 every 12-18 months which is what was happening, before, with Photoshop. The only difference is that before you could choose not to keep paying but keep using the software, now you can’t, and the continued usage is tied to the continued paying.
Adobe, besides wanting people to pay for an upgrade every time, was needing a way to even out their cash-flow, so instead of it peaking just after a new update was released every 12-18 months, but their development costs continuing to remain constant, they now have a more constant revenue stream that more easily matches a more constant development cycle.
Interesting responses - there seems to be some passion here so…
No, there's no "passion" here; just resignation to reality and unending boredom with seeing this rehashed over and over and over… …and perhaps a little irritation with folks that have been living on the moon and are hearing this for the first time.
Thanks again ssprengel - I understand the costing model from Adobe's perspective however (hopefully equally understandably), my concern is for the costing model from our perspective :-) - It does sound as though Adobe's rental model is probably advantageous for SMO's trying to save a few dollars, however for a large corporate the inability to classify software as an asset linked to a project means the purchasing model is really not viable for us. This is nothing against Photoshop as I personally think its a good product however we have also stopped doing business with other vendors who moved to a rental model because it does not suit our business - I will approach Adobe directly and see if anything can be done. Thanks again.
> and perhaps a little irritation with folks that have been living on the moon and are hearing this for the first time
LOL - OK Station_two I understand your frustration so please accept my apologies, and I probably have been living on the moon as far as Adobe is concerned... in my defence, the machinations of Adobe are a long, long way from the top of my priority list :-)
I’m not an accountant so cannot guess what insurmountable obstacle your company has in an ongoing charge rather than a one-time charge for the privilege of using Adobe software has always been licensed not owned.
There are several pricing models for using Adobe software:
The old way you paid once, and then could use it as long as you wanted but didn’t expect support forever.
The new individual license that is for one year and you can pay either annually or monthly.
The new individual license that is for one month of use at a time. This is 1.5x the rate of the annual monthly amount but you don’t pay for the months you don’t use it.
There is Adobe CC for Teams where you can add and subtract a license per an AdobeID so if there is someone working on a project for a specific amount of time you can allocate that cost for that seat for that time, and then deallocate that seat afterwards.
I would suggest you get ahold of someone at Adobe sales that deals with enterprise-sized customers and see what they suggest as a way to pay for your usage of Adobe software. Maybe it’s time for new accountanting or legal team rather than new software.
> Maybe it’s time for new accountanting or legal team rather than new software.
LOL, I respect your high regard for the product however you boys certainly are Adobe evangelists!! Anyway I thank you for your input however I do think tis time for me to unsub from this forum :-)
So the reason not to use Adobe software cost-based or legal/accounting-based or merely philosophical-based?
I don’t much like renting software, either, but my cost-savings overrode my distaste for renting and now I’m happily using the most current versions of LR and PS, which is all I ever purchased from Adobe, in the first place.
Just to clarify: I am never subscribing to any of the Adobe models—ever.
The point here is that this new path is well established by now and there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to convince Adobe to change it. They have publicly declared that their model takes into account the probability that thousands of their former customers will not become subscribers.
Hence the futility of harping on this at this point in time. If I can take it, anybody else can. Just take it elsewhere.
ssprengel asks: "So the reason not to use Adobe software cost-based or legal/accounting-based or merely philosophical-based?"
A legitimate question - As I mentioned previously, as a large corporate business we have made a business choice not to rent software (we are more than three times the size of the Adobe corporation and as such, have many potential users). Our choice is to purchase software because software (to us) is a registrable asset, not a consumable or temporary purchase, and to legally register an asset one must actually buy it outright. Further, we depreciate assets as part of normal tax practices, another essential business task that cannot be done with rented software. That this also equates to a 'reason not to use Adobe software' is simply an outcome of Adobe's choice in the matter. I am not in any way criticising Adobe for this choice - their business is their business - please remember I simply asked if we could purchase the software outright. Other posters have made this some sort of issue beyond this simple question.
The truth is, there are many vendors who provide imaging software that meets our needs (even though I am personally a fan of Photoshop having used it since the early nineties on a Mac, but not so much of a fan that I wouldn't swap it for something more suited to our business, or resort to station_two's levels of sarcasm on a forum such as this :-) .. I do however thank Station_two for advising me that I will not be able to buy updates for Photoshop after purchase, meaning it's probably not worth our while to consider further.
Anyway we all undoubtedly have more pressing issues to deal with so once again I thank you for your assistance, and for your curiosity as to why I asked this question. I hope I have provided you with a reasonable answer.