Letter sent to Adobe on pricing

Okay, some people will probably be upset, but I sent the following letter to Adobe about what I consider to be an unfair disregard to users of Audition 2.0 when it comes to upgrading.  I will let you know what response, if any, I get.

Please forward this to the appropriate department.

Please accept this letter as my discontent with the upgrade pricing policy for the new Adobe Audition programme.

I have been a loyal supporter of Audition since it was taken over by Adobe.  I have purchased versions 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0.

My problem stems from the fact that every single version can upgrade to 3.0 for the same price of $99.

I feel that my loyalty has not been rewarded.  If I had known that I could have upgraded to 3.0 for the same price, I would have stayed with 1.5 rather than pay an additional $129 to upgrade to 2.0.

I realise that it is somewhat selfish of me to demand that people with lower versions pay more money, but that seems only fair to me.  And again, I feel my investment of continual upgrades has not been received by Adobe with any regard.  Yes, I got to use the 2.0 programme for a year.  But $129 is a lot of money to me, and an additional $99 for another upgrade seems to me a waste.

I admit that I find myself questioning whether I will upgrade to 3.0.  After all, when 4.0 comes out, I can probably upgrade for the same price even if I don't buy 3.0.

I hope you will either change your pricing structure or at least reward those of us who have kept current with the latest upgrades and offer us a further discount.



Pearls of Wisdom - Re: Gambling - If you can't afford to lose, you can't afford to win. - The Mighty Gazam (The Flintstones)

You speak for yourself. If you think $99 for the new update is waste, then simply just don't buy it, and you won't get the midi and VSTi support. I'm also a 2.0 user, and have no problem with other people getting the upgrade at the same price as me, in fact I welcome it as it will only expand Auditions level of use in the marketplace.... they are now competing with Sonar, Steinberg, Pro-Tools ect...and they are doing it at a very affordable level for most people. And your complaining ? Are you afraid somebody might get a really good deal, or you just trying to hustle a free upgrade ?? Like you said, you had a year to work with 2.0, isn't that worth anything to you ?? Again I'll say, if the $99 is too much for you, then simply don't buy it....as for me, I'm pre-ordering my upgrade this week, I WANT the midi and VSTi support.

I guess that if this upgrade had cost more than the last, it wouldn't be possible to complain that it would have been cheaper not to get the last upgrade.  For my part, I am happy that this upgrade is as cheap as it is.

Paul

It works both ways - some folks can't afford to upgrade with every version, but are no less loyal than yourself.  Why penalize those folks who may have been using AA/CEP for MANY years but just now feel the new version has the right mix of features.

I'm afraid your letter totally misses the point - you've had the enjoyment of the improved version (2.0) for an unspecified period of time, and that's what you paid for.  If you argued that what you paid for did not work (within the 90 day period) or if you said that you'd only paid last week (which might evoke sympathy) so that the use you'd get from version 2.0 would be very short-lived perhaps you'd might get a response, but the way you've worded your letter makes no case whatever as far as I can see.

And I speak of one who has written similarly when caught be this kind of upgrade deal, and got nowhere!

Actually, what's more "wrong" I think is the price setting for customers outside of the US. There's quite a difference there which seems less fair than the upgrading policy mentioned.

If I was Adobe I know what my response to this kind of rubbish would be!

From memory version 1.0 was a free upgrade from CEP, so who's the mug who purchased it, unless that's when you came 'on board'?

And wasn't 1.0 to 1.5 also a free upgrade? (My memory's a big vague on this one, I must admit.)

Either way your attitude stinks. You want to penalise others simply because they made a different decision to you. You feel aggrieved because the upgrade price has come down. What kind of a selfish "f*** you" attitude to you have in life?

For my part I have 2.0 but never use it - in my business it simply didn't add anything I really needed on a regular basis, and the new interface I found unpleasant to use. Very occasionally I've used its lasso tool in spectral view, and it's helped me out of a few holes in that way, but that's about it. So I will effectively be upgrading from 1.5, because I see a whole lot of stuff in 3.0 which will definitely be of use to me.

In fact, don't tell Adobe this, but I think the program is vastly underpriced in its marketplace, as is the upgrade. But will I be writing a stupid letter to them to say this?

Lightrope, there isn't any logic to your argument, only anger, at what we can only guess at, and the reason is simply that your model of argument is only 1-dimensional. Take a proper look at the other sides for the true picture.

Hmm... if you take the logical extension of the quote at the bottom of his post:

Pearls of Wisdom - Re: Gambling - If you can't afford to lose, you can't afford to win. - The Mighty Gazam (The Flintstones)

and...

But $129 is a lot of money to me, and an additional $99 for another upgrade seems to me a waste.

It strikes me that he's got this back to front, and turned the gun on himself!

And I find it rather hard to believe that in comparison with the cost of everything else he would need to make Audition work sensibly and usefully (computer, monitors, sound card, whatever), that this much of an ongoing investment in what could only be regarded as a key part of the system could be that significant. Come to that, how do you survive on a day-to-day basis, and cope with even the slightest crisis if you can't afford (or get somebody else to pay for) a low-cost upgrade? Compared to the cost of the hardware, Audition is cheap - even if you have to pay for every upgrade going.

This is the real world; software doesn't upgrade itself for nothing. And if they have even a shred of sense, Adobe will file all that rubbish above in the filing bin. OTOH, AMSG's point is  completely valid.

There is a way that you can get back at Adobe...

Since you are clearly unhappy at having to pay for an upgrade again, why not just keep using 2.0? You did, after all, pay for it in good faith and now you have the use of it for as long as you wish. If you don't fall into the upgrade trap that Adobe has so cleverly laid for you, you'll have the last laugh!

If, however, you see something in 3.0 that will be useful and profitable, or if you merely have pangs of desire for the latest product, then you should pay Adobe for the time and effort they expended in development. Oh, and it is advisable that they make a profit from the rest of us too. (the horror!) I'd like to see them around to provide support for their product in all those years to come in which you'll be using 2.0.

Seems a simple enough concept...

-Phil

I think it would have been a more interesting (and powerful) letter if it had been along the lines of: "I would like Adobe to implement a '90-day free upgrade policy', whereby customers who purchased Version 2.0 within 90 days of the official announcement of the release of Version 3.0 would receive the latest release at no additional cost."

Adobe would be smart to do this.  First of all, that policy is honored with other companies, right?  Second, it's fair to the point of being generous, and that scores tons of points with consumers.  Third, Version 3 is a cheaper update than Version 2 was, presumably significantly better as well, and therefore it's *bound* to tick people off if they've just paid MORE for something that does LESS so close to the time when, if they had just waited another three months, they could have kept money in their pocket.

Adobe would be smart to do this cuz it would keep its users sweet.  Reaper really is a viable alternative for so many Audition users.  In my 'field' (home recording) I know a lot of people who have migrated from big-company softwares to Reaper.  I think Adobe would do well to try to keep the home recording crowd on board.  I might be mistaken.  Perhaps radio station budgets are numerous enough to keep the R&D people at Adobe in work for the foreseeable future.

I'm going to try something with Adobe today.  If it turns out interesting, I'll let you know.

The main problem is this:

Assume there have been 500 improvements between Cool Edit and Audition 3.0.  Adobe has valued these upgrades at $99.

Assume that there are only 100 upgrades between 2.0 and 3.0.  Adobe has valued these also at $99.

So people who bought 2.0 are paying more per improvement than someone who stayed with 1.5 or even 1.0.

Adobe has the right to do that, and I have the right not to like it.

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - The United States is one of the last countries not to adopt the metric system.  However, they have a lot of nukes, so no one really complains.

Ya so ?? For every guy like you that's griping there's a bunch more who are appreciative of the pricing structure.

The United States is one of the last countries not to adopt the metric system.  However, they have a lot of nukes, so no one really complains.

The EU has recently announced that it is stopping trying to persuade Britain to go metric.  (Well, it's as interesting as an analysis of the pricing structure of upgrades in the computer industry...)

Paul

The main problem is this:

Assume there have been 500 improvements between Cool Edit and Audition 3.0.... etc 

This is so childish that I'm not going to bother to point out the flaws in it.

Okay, some people will probably be upset

No, not particularly. The only real mystery remaining, probably as far as all of us is concerned, is why on earth you've bothered to post all this utter crap your 'considered opinions' here in the first place....