I dont know if the same principle applies but the upgrades for the CS1 and CS2 suites to CS4 have a discount which brings the prices down to the same as the CS3 to CS4 upgrade. This ends at the end of March so the Photoshop upgrade prices may change then also.
This is just crazy.
Why? Do you want Adobe to force you to upgrade every version, like Quark does (or did, when I used it). I like to skip alternate versions, as many users do. Basically, I don’t buy a new computer every 18 months, and running new software on an older computer is problematic.
I do not understand why giving a better discount to your best customers would force anyone to upgrade. That is ridiculous. It rewards them for upgrading. But this was not my main point in the first place. My point was that people who shelled out more for CS3 Extended last year have to shell out the same amount as those that never went that extra mile. The fact that the price is the same to upgrade from 3 versions ago is secondary to my complaint about the people who paid extra for extended last time having to again pay extra.
I also fail to understand why someone who only upgrades every 2 versions would complain if someone who did not gets a better discount as you will still pay the same amount regardless. No one is saying that you should pay more, only that others should pay less.
coming soon to a company near you: tiered upgrade pricing!
It’s that way all over. Lower introductory pricing to get you in and hopefully keep you there.
Look at the cable and telephone companies. All types of come ons to get you to sign up. Why do new customers get better deals than long time customers?
So, while it may not seem fair, it’s the way many industries operate.
Bob
I also fail to understand why someone who only upgrades every 2 versions would complain if someone who did not gets a better discount as you will still pay the same amount regardless.
Well, if there is no price benefit to skipping an upgrade, then I wouldn’t do it. (As was the case with Quark.) So a tiered pricing scheme would force me to spend more money.
Why are you wanting me to have to pay more? Surely you don’t think that Adobe would charge you less if they had tiered pricing. That isn’t the way they think.
Well, if there is no price benefit to skipping an upgrade, then I wouldn’t do it. (As was the case with Quark.) So a tiered pricing scheme would force me to spend more money.
I still have no idea what you are talking about and I have no experience with Quark pricing. I am not talking about skipping new release upgrades. I am talking about feature upgrades. I do have experience with AE when they had two versions, pro and regular. Once you purchased the Pro version the new release versions cost less than a new release + upgrade from standard to pro. I was expecting to see the same strategy for Photoshop Extended as they used to have with After Effects. Furthermore, Adobe’s stance on upgrading price from two versions ago being the same as the the past version has not changed in some time and it was not unexpected to me. But the pricing to get from extended to extended is brand new and thus was surprising to me.
On my second machine, I do not have Extended, just CS3. With this scheme that extended cost more every time you upgrade, I will never upgrade to expended. Adobe is telling me that I will have to pay more year after year for extended. This is why I thought it might be a mistake as the incentive is for me to keep using the basic version. I’d expect that after one makes the added expense of extended that new release upgrades from extended to extended would be the same price as regular to regular, or at least less than regular old to extended new. I am not sure why this concept is difficult to grasp. But what it means for me is that going to extended will never happen on my second machine.
