# Record Adobe earnings



## PhilBurton (Dec 26, 2019)

https://www.dpreview.com/news/92380...-q4-with-annual-revenue-of-11-billion-in-2019


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Dec 26, 2019)

I liked Fstopper's headline (I didn't actually read the article): "If Everyone Hates Adobe, Why Is It Pulling in Record Profits?"

Just took for granted the premise.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Dec 27, 2019)

Yeah, like I said in another thread: everybody is complaining that "Adobe does not listen to its customers", but these earnings show that they must be doing _something_ right...


----------



## PhilBurton (Dec 27, 2019)

Johan Elzenga said:


> Yeah, like I said in another thread: everybody is complaining that "Adobe does not listen to its customers", but these earnings show that they must be doing _something_ right...


Agree.  While Adobe certainly has made decisions that take advantage of their brand reputation and market share, such as charging more than the competition does for the "same" set of features, they do deliver quality products with real value.  And,  Adobe is definitely NOT "evil"and trying to make money by exploiting people's private data, unlike some other well-known tech companies who shall not be named here.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 28, 2019)

PhilBurton said:


> ...such as charging more than the competition does for the "same" set of features


I'm just curious, Phil....which competitor's products do you see which have the same set of features and cost less than, say, the 20GB Photography Plan. I've always regarded that particular plan as being a bargain in cost terms, so I'm wondering which other products you had in mind.


----------



## PhilBurton (Dec 28, 2019)

Jim Wilde said:


> I'm just curious, Phil....which competitor's products do you see which have the same set of features and cost less than, say, the 20GB Photography Plan. I've always regarded that particular plan as being a bargain in cost terms, so I'm wondering which other products you had in mind.


Jim,

I haven't investigated alternatives in detail, but there have been a number of comments here about people looking at alternatives, for at least the RAW editor part of Lightroom.  CaptureOne comes to mind.  Also Luminar and OnOne.   I'm sure that Lightroom has many features that the others don't have, but I'm also sure that the others have sufficient functionality for many people.  

A while back I was interested in custom metadata fields, so I actually bought Photo Supreme, and also looked briefly at Damimian and iMatch.  Photo Supreme is indeed a powerful photo-based DAM, but I didn't see any compelling reason to  use it in tandem with Lightroom, and there is much to recommend against using it as an alternative to Lightroom, price aside.  Daminian is not as good as Lightroom for a DAM.  However, both Photo Supreme and Daminian have multi-user versions.  iMatch seemed to be a clone of Photo Supreme.  To be clear, these impressions date about to about 2016.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 29, 2019)

Thanks Phil, but that didn't answer my question. I was particularly referring to your statement that "Adobe charges more than the competition does", and was looking for some details to support that statement.


----------



## PhilBurton (Dec 30, 2019)

Jim Wilde said:


> Thanks Phil, but that didn't answer my question. I was particularly referring to your statement that "Adobe charges more than the competition does", and was looking for some details to support that statement.



All perpetual licenses
CaptureOne -  $220.  (less than two years of LR subscription)
Luminar - $89 (nine months)
OnOne - $99 (ten months)

If you want a full-on DAM:
iMatch - $110, perpetual license
Photo Supreme - $129, perpetual license

With Windows 10 continuing on for the foreseeable future, if you use Windows, you may never be forced to upgrade due to an OS compatibility issue.  For a MacOS system, I don't know enough to comment.

Phil


----------



## Linwood Ferguson (Dec 30, 2019)

I wonder if these are fair comparisons considering that all of LR Classic, Cloudy and Photoshop and (limited) storage are in the $10/mo.  I get that if you do not use anything but LR that's mildly moot, but nonetheless true (and honestly, most photographers would benefit from learning some Photoshop, it's a heck of a tool). 

I too find Adobe very expensive -- but for everything else.  Consider Acrobat, which I need about 3 or 4 times a year, briefly.  It's $15/mo by itself ($13 for the limited version).  To edit a public domain format file.  

Or when I wanted to process some old sVHS tapes into videos for my family; I used (free) Davinci Resolve because Premier Pro was $21/mo, and didn't include After Effects for another $21/mo.  Resolve is probably a better tool, but huge learning curve in comparison (or so I am told). 

Adobe is VERY expensive.  But the photography plan seems to fall into a completely different category.  If they revert to Adobe's usual pricing model, I'm gone in an instant.  But ... at $10/mo... it's quite a good value, IMO.


----------



## PhilBurton (Dec 30, 2019)

Ferguson said:


> I wonder if these are fair comparisons considering that all of LR Classic, Cloudy and Photoshop and (limited) storage are in the $10/mo.  I get that if you do not use anything but LR that's mildly moot, but nonetheless true (and honestly, most photographers would benefit from learning some Photoshop, it's a heck of a tool).
> 
> I too find Adobe very expensive -- but for everything else.  Consider Acrobat, which I need about 3 or 4 times a year, briefly.  It's $15/mo by itself ($13 for the limited version).  To edit a public domain format file.
> 
> ...


I also think it's a good deal, but if I was very price-conscious, I would go for one of the alternatives.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Dec 31, 2019)

PhilBurton said:


> I also think it's a good deal, but if I was very price-conscious, I would go for one of the alternatives.


But do any of those alternatives offer the "same set of features" that are available in the Classic version of the Photography Plan, which is what your original post suggested? I'm not saying they don't, I simply don't know....but I suspect that few, if any, of them do.

Setting aside the chasm that exists between subscription and perpetual license models, one's attitide to the Adobe subscription price is likely to be coloured by the extent to which the various products in the plan are utilised. If you only use Classic then you are paying the $10 per month just for that, which might make it more expensive than the competition in your eyes.....but if like me you use the full range of the complete plan, i.e. Classic, Photoshop (albeit not extensively), Lightroom Desktop, Lightroom mobile on 3 x devices, Lightroom web, and Portfolio, the attitude to the $10 per month would likely be different.


----------



## PhilBurton (Dec 31, 2019)

Jim Wilde said:


> But do any of those alternatives offer the "same set of features" that are available in the Classic version of the Photography Plan, which is what your original post suggested? I'm not saying they don't, I simply don't know....but I suspect that few, if any, of them do.
> 
> Setting aside the chasm that exists between subscription and perpetual license models, one's attitide to the Adobe subscription price is likely to be coloured by the extent to which the various products in the plan are utilised. If you only use Classic then you are paying the $10 per month just for that, which might make it more expensive than the competition in your eyes.....but if like me you use the full range of the complete plan, i.e. Classic, Photoshop (albeit not extensively), Lightroom Desktop, Lightroom mobile on 3 x devices, Lightroom web, and Portfolio, the attitude to the $10 per month would likely be different.


Jim,

I can't disagree.  Personally I use (at present) mainly Lightroom, with occasional use of Photoshop.  But  I also (somewhat reluctantly) made the switch from Lightroom 6.14 to subscription-based Lightroom 7, because it was worth it to me, and I have continued my subscription for that reason.  

Your message only points out the complexities involved in pricing.  Putting on my "day job" hat in software product management, the hardest part of that job role, by far, is pricing. 

Phil


----------



## Zenon (Jan 1, 2020)

You also have to consider a personal website that is integrated wth LR if important to you. I was paying quite a bit for Zenfolio every year which was overkill. Not sure how much the least expensive personal website including domaine name is out there. 

I like to upgrade. I always did since getting PS in 2006 and LR on 2012. Capture One would be $450 in the first year and they don't list any one of my telephoto lenses. Also there was a challenge on another site and LR does better at extreme crops which is important to me.                           

DXO PL is a good developer but no Dam and not even a temporary stack to tell me what I've done. It has nice IQ  and Prime. Hey Adobe. How is my Noise Reduction Sensei request coming along?        

 On 1, etc and other free ones that offer some sort of DAM would have to be looked at.

I have read about the Evil Adobe lots of times. They are making money and they are good at it. Doesn't bother me as long as I get what I need. The problem with our world is no matter how good you do the next year you have to do better and often wth less resources.

I'm OK with it the plan . The negative things I see for me is they pull the 20G plan or Cloudy gets good enough to drop Classic. Personally I can't see not having a desktop option to save files for the foreseeable future but some day that will be common. I'm prepared for and I'm OK with  an inevitable moderate increase even though Adobe said the more that join the easier it will be to keep pricing down. Not sure if they said no increases but I doubt they would have. If I get an undesirable increase I'm  gone. I don't do event editing anymore so  could live without it.


----------

