Adobe Concedes, Vows To Cut Some Australian Prices After Government Pressure

After the Australian government issued legal notices to Adobe, Apple and Microsoft yesterday to quiz them over gouging Australians, one of the major vendors in question has chosen to surrender. According to a statement, Adobe will drop prices in Australia after years of gouging.

Adobe today issued a statement saying that it would reduce the annual subscription cost of Adobe Creative Cloud to $49.99 per month.

That's great news, but it's not a complete victory. A report in the AFR says that Adobe will still charge exponentially higher prices to Australians for full software versions of Photoshop, Creative Suite and Premiere sold through physical retailers.


Comments

    Sureeee, start now! Now you have Creative Cloud which a lot of people will take a subscription on anyway so you'll still be making your quota even though you brought the price down. Us full version people still get shafted. No surprise there.

    A welcome move in the right direction, however a little too late.
    Bring down your full software prices to an acceptable level, then we'll talk.

    I request that the title of the article be amended to reflect the pathetic nature of this misdirection. Adobe owe a pound of flesh and they've given us a toenail clipping. It is the $1400 Australia tax that they charge on software that is at issue.

      +1.

      This isn't a win for anybody. Well, maybe for the very few people who haven't-yet-but-were-just-about-to sign up for creative cloud. For them, it represents a saving of a whopping $156 per year, bringing their annual commitment to Adobe to just under $600.

      For people who prefer to actually own the CS software upon which they rely, it's a big fat zero.

      Last edited 12/02/13 11:03 pm

        I agree,

        This price drop is an absolute insult, and smells like a bad pr stunt. Judging by the comments, it's had the opposite effect.

        You never "actually own" any of the software you buy, just a license to use it. As Adobe CS doesn't ship with manuals or help files or any remotely useful extras, I see absolutely no reason to buy a boxed copy at all. Nearly everyone I know who has upgraded to CS6 has taken the cloud option as it is ridiculously cheap ($30 a month now) and monthly subscription fees save you having to scramble for a grand or so to upgrade when a new version is released (assuming you want to stay current).

      Thank you. I accept click bait is an inevitable part of audience building, but its best to back it up with something other than complete bullshit.

    So will micro$oft and fapple follow suit?

      Not sure if it is still the case but Microsoft were reasonable in allowing me to purchase microsoft software from the US web site, just meant that I had to call the US if I needed any customer support. This is more than reasonable as you become a customer of Microsoft US opposed to AU.

    To call this surrender is a massive overstatement. I'll change my tune when it reduces its software prices.

      I don't understand why people are downvoting the above comment.

    And the piracy will continue, vicious cycle.

      The piracy will continue no matter what. High prices are just an excuse. If prices become reasonable, thieves will just find a different justiification, they will never buy something they can have for free. At the end of the day you are either honest or you are not.

    What I want to know is, how far is the government willing to go to ensure these companies (and the hundreds of other with similar practices) stop gouging us? Will they ban the sale of these companies' products? Do they even have the legal ability to embargo them in such a way without leaving us liable to civil suits?

    The real problem is, it's not just software - its just that companies can 'justify' charging us 3x as much for physical goods because we're a smaller market, or there's shipping costs, or localization costs, or legislation to comply with, or whatever other crap they want to invent.

      Why should the government do anything? They hav eno right to interfere with the legal conduct of a business. Companies charge what the market will bear. Given the deep, deep hole the US economy is in I imagine a lot of companies there have had to slash their margins to retain the sales volumes their businesses need. Many hav ealso slashed a lot of jonbs from those countries but far less so here. Would it be OK by you if someone lost their job so you could have cheaper software? What would be a reasonable trade off for you - one job, 5, 10, 50? If you're not happy wiht the prices, don't buy the product. That's the best way to ensure we all pay a reasonable price.

    some consistency between the sensationalist headlines and lack luster content would be great giz! thanks in advance...

    Hmmm - Gimp, Inkscape, Blender, PDF-XChange. I haven't needed or wanted an Adobe product for a really long time. It's a pity that they won't approach price parity but perhaps if their "Industry standard" stranglehold were loosened it really would not matter.

      Yeah, the Gimp doesn't compare to Photoshop. If you're just touching up a JPEG and want to do some simple layer masking, sure it's fine. It's not even slightly good enough for professional work though, mainly because it doesn't support non-destructive workflows.

        Agreed. Likewise, PDF-XChange is sub-par on many levels. There is a very good reason that Adobe's CS range reigns as industry standard. In this one instance, FOSS titles do not provide professionally viable alternatives.

        Absolute rubbish! The reason CS reigns is that the vast majority of so-called "professionals" have absolutely no idea what else is out there. e.g. What advantage does CS have over Xara Designer Pro? Xara provides one application with much of the functionality of Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver with speed Adobe users can only dream about. What makes After Effects better than Fusion? Its only advantage is in the massive range of 3rd party plugins available. The application itself is a nightmare of a thing to use and a massive disconnect from Photoshop.

        What can you do in Photoshop that you can't do in GIMP? I was using GIMP at work in 2000, when my bosses were too cheap to buy us Photoshop, and I found it excellent - all the same tools and a much better workflow.

        I use Adobe CS every day at work. I also have it installed at home but because I can choose what I use at home, SoundBooth is about the only CS application that ever gets a run.

        Last edited 13/02/13 10:03 am

          "What can you do in Photoshop that you can't do in GIMP?"

          Umm. Adjustment layers, Content aware fill, Smart Objects..? And that's just quickly off the top of my head of stuff I use every day. Does The Gimp do liquify yet? Oh, and Adobe Camera RAW is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better then dcraw or ufraw.

          Xara Designer IS pretty cool though. Still not 'quite' at Photoshop level, but very close. You're right in my case and I didn't know about it until it was too late and had already purchased CS5.

          But really, people need to stop comparing The Gimp to Photoshop. It's not even close.

          Most of my time is spent in Lightroom 4 though, which really isn't that expensive, but if anyone knows of an alternative I'd be happy to try it out.

            You mention 3 things that I reckon are completely useless in Photoshop, thus proving my point. Content-aware stuff works for me about one time in five, adjustment layers only work for a ridiculously tiny number of tools, most of whcih are easily reversible anyway, and the workflow involved in using smart objects is perhaps the worst workflow in the entire history of computing. Even so, those tools do not allow you to achieve anything you cannot also achieve in GIMP so my point still stands. i.e. I asked what you can "do", not what tools each has. The clone tool can "do" what content-aware fills do, and both adjustment layers and smart objects only work with existing tools, in a failed attempt to paper over the massive workflow holes in Photoshop.

              So you missed the bit where I said I use them every day? ie: they're not useless to me. You're entitled to your opinion. But you are one person. Personally, I process about 800 photos a day and having those tools there, ready to go is MUCH better than fart-arsing about in The Gimp trying to get the same result in 8 moves instead of 1. Time is money, my friend. (side note, CA fill works very well when you know how to use it. )

              You still have no come back for RAW processing. Under The Gimp, quite frankly, it sucks, which is a deal breaker for me.

                I am also forced to use them every day, doesn't mean I can't work faster without 'em. As I said, I asked what you can do, not what tools you have, and none of those tools allow you to do anything you cannot achieve by other means. Yes, it might take longer to do some of the things those tools are designed for in GIMP but chances are you will have saved so much time elsewhere that you will have the time for them.

                If you are processing 800 photos a day, you'd probably be better off with a Script-Fu in GIMP to automate the process, although I can't image you do anything with them given those volumes. i.e. that's 100 photos an hour, assuming a normal working day, or one photo every 36 seconds. I don't think I could open a file, make a useful selection and navigate to the Content-Aware Fill in 36 seconds in Photoshop, much less make creative and/or technical decisions about what to do with it.

                As for knwing how to use Content-Aware Fill, I was using much better tools using similar algorithms years before it appeared in Photoshop. These kinds of things - http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/furnace/

                I have no comeback for RAW processing because it didn't exist last time I used GIMP (2001 or thereabouts). I imagine it has come a long way since then but I have no idea exactly what has been added. But it is not something I could ever envisage a use for so I really don't care.

                  Wow, you are arrogant. You don't use it, therefore it shouldn't matter to anyone else? RAW is important to me and EVERY OTHER PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE WORLD. A lot of the time, the ONLY processing I do is in Camera RAW, or more importantly, Lightroom, which is really just CR and Bridge in one.

                  In fact, I do process about 800 photos a day. That's not uncommon in my industry. Thanks for doing the calculations, but you really are missing the point. It's not like I spend exactly 36 seconds on every photo. Sometimes I spend an hour on a photo. Other times I will edit one photo in about 2 minutes then apply the same changes automatically across about 50 other photos from the same scene/sequence, which means I processed 51 photos in 121 seconds. Or if I were to apply your methods, that's 2.42 seconds per photo!!!!

                  At the end of the day, Photoshop is indeed a better program than The Gimp. Mainly because it's been around longer and had millions of $$$ poured into it's development, so it should be. And I'm not saying that the Gimp is bad as I still use it today when I'm booted into Linux. But in my opinion anyone that thinks The Gimp is better is either delusional or just grumpy about Photoshop for some reason.

                  Thanks for the personal attack on the quality of my work, too. I'm sure everything you do all day is shit as well.

    "...after years of gauging."

    Gouging, I think is the term. #corrections

    Until they cut the price for their more widely used products, Australian's will continue to simply torrent stuff, no skin off their back.

    Years of gauging?

    Its a step in the right direction, but still a long way to go yet.

    Adobe need some serious competition.

    If the prices were fair I would have never pirate their software. I'm not going to stop now.

    Pig to tower, pig to tower, ready for for take off !

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now