Letter sent to Adobe on pricing

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.

You're still demonstrating very shallow thinking .. take it a few steps further and consider many other possiblities, like, that just one upgrade could cost Adobe a lot of time and money in research. Many other possible factors .. too .. place yourself in Adobe's shoes and challenge yourself to see how many you can think of, and you will realise how shallow your preliminary thinking is.

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.

You're still demonstrating very shallow thinking .. take it a few steps further and consider many other possiblities, like, that just one upgrade could cost Adobe a lot of time and money in research. Many other possible factors .. too .. place yourself in Adobe's shoes and challenge yourself to see how many you can think of, and you will realise how shallow your preliminary thinking is.

On the contrary.  Adobe itself is the one who has valued those improvements at the specified price.  Not me.

Lighthope

Pearls of Wisdom - If you have nothing to die for, then you have nothing to live for.

On the contrary.  Adobe itself is the one who has valued those improvements at the specified price.  Not me.

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'value'. Adobe are charging a specific price for an upgrade - you have been the one who's tried (quite incorrectly) to put some arbitrary numbers on the supposed quantity of improvements, and tried to construct some sort of argument about value out of it. 'Value' is something that customers will have to decide upon - it's not the same thing as price at all, and it's not something that Adobe could possibly estimate - they've priced it at what they think that the market will stand, regardless of the contents. The value will vary from individual to individual. For instance, if you make no use of any of the new features in the upgrade, then clearly it won't have any value for you. But if somebody else uses all of them, then for them it will have a far higher value.

This is why Adobe will effectively ignore your letter - the logic you use stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.

I've been hoping for midi recording capabilities in Audition for a long time, so this upgrade is just what I wanted, a nice, simple, easy to use, midi recording program. A simple sequencer = easy learning curve = easy to use = more brain waves devoted to creating music, not dealing with technical issues.

I've been hoping for midi recording capabilities in Audition for a long time, so this upgrade is just what I wanted, a nice, simple, easy to use, midi recording program. A simple sequencer = easy learning curve = easy to use = more brain waves devoted to creating music, not dealing with technical issues.

Perhaps we should wait and see what is actually delivered before we pronounce the new MIDI features as "nice, simple, easy to use".  The only people who actually know whether or not this feature has these characteristics can't tell us yet!  Remember how lots of people looked forward to the ASIO support, then once the product was released this became one of the most criticized features of AA2?

I've been hoping for midi recording capabilities in Audition for a long time, so this upgrade is just what I wanted, a nice, simple, easy to use, midi recording program. A simple sequencer = easy learning curve = easy to use = more brain waves devoted to creating music, not dealing with technical issues.

Perhaps we should wait and see what is actually delivered before we pronounce the new MIDI features as "nice, simple, easy to use".  The only people who actually know whether or not this feature has these characteristics can't tell us yet!  Remember how lots of people looked forward to the ASIO support, then once the product was released this became one of the most criticized features of AA2?

On the Audition 3 website there's a screenshot of the sequencer. I've been studying this screenshot. It looks simple to learn to me, in comparison to other sequencers I've worked with. It seems to have the basics that I need without a zillion other features that I'd never use anyhow. To give you an example, I already have Sonar Home Studio 6 XL, and it has a nice sequencer in it, but it also has a zillion other things you need to learn to operate the program, and the work flow is opposite of Audition, so it doesn't respond the way I feel it should. I'm used to Audition's workflow, so this should be a breeze for me.

On the Audition 3 website there's a screenshot of the sequencer. I've been studying this screenshot. It looks simple to learn to me, in comparison to other sequencers I've worked with. [...]

Whereas I am unwilling to draw any conclusions about usability based solely on a screenshot.  YMMV. 

On the Audition 3 website there's a screenshot of the sequencer. I've been studying this screenshot. It looks simple to learn to me, in comparison to other sequencers I've worked with. [...]

Whereas I am unwilling to draw any conclusions about usability based solely on a screenshot.  YMMV. 

Well take a close look at Sonar 7 that was just released yesterday, the screenshots of all the features available is overwhelming to me... Audition is keeping it simple. I know this may sound sound a little wierd, but I don't want a zillion bells and whistles thank you, an old dog like me likes to keep things simple.....the Audition 3 sequencer looks simple to me. I don't feel I'll need to take a college course to learn how to use it. Simplicity.

[(within the 90 day period)]

(within the 90 day period)

Great!!!!!!! As I bought Adobe 2.0 ~ July 2007 I have 90 days to refund my money - Oct 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just in time to get 3.0!~~~~~~~~~~

(which still won't work with Mona at 9632............)

Liquid Fusion do you know something we don't? Please let us know how you found out that AA 3 won't work with Mona at 3296?

Liquid Fusion do you know something we don't? Please let us know how you found out that AA 3 won't work with Mona at 3296?

I don't think he does - it's just that he's beginning to suspect that nothing will work with it at 3296!

No problem with the pricing policy as it relates to previous editions....

....but I now have another reason (besides petrol, wine, food and house prices) to be glad I moved to Australia five weeks ago!

The UK has a much worse deal than anywhere else I can find!

Bob

Determining individual value of an item based solely on unit cost is a retail way of thinking.  The 'value' of AA has to ultimately be based on how it interacts with the raw material you feed it. The cost is amortized as of function of that value over the time in which you use it.  You determine its value, not Adobe.

Worrying that someone got the tool at a lower unit price is, as has been pointed out, a bit childish.  Your loyalty reward from Adobe, in this model of doing business, is the product itself.


I did not 'upgrade' at 2's release, though cost of that was not a prime consideration.  While final decision has not been made I probably will upgrade two of the licenses though probably not the full complement.  Again price is not primary consideration.  (Though I'm cheap enough that I might not consider the 2nd License with even a slightly higher price, or penalizing upgrade schedule)  In all probability 3 will be the final upgrade, until I no longer own hardware on which it will run.  Yet again, this is not due primarily to price.  AA does not appear to be moving in directions that increase efficiency of workflow.  Having a long (in computer years roughly a Methuselah aged) relationship with Adobe this doesn't surprise me. 

Everyone's business model (as to how they use the software), workflow, needs and uses of AA will be variable enough that any decision on the software based primarily on $ is a reward of fashion over function.  Main point without extensive explicit detail is that while I missed 2, probably won't move beyond 3 I do consider myself as a 'loyal' CEP/AA client (client not customer).  I do not perceive price as 'reward' targeting me . . . but as a marketing strategy (& those who know me know how much I respect the marketeers club) whose success will be determined at some future meeting which we will not be invited to attend & to whose outcome we will not be made privy.

You determine the value of your relationship to Adobe and its products . . . if their pricing offends you: don't reward them. Take your dollars, go home, don't play!

I was an early Samplitude user, after Magix picked up the franchise I could no longer see benefit to it's cost . . . and in some ways Samplitude evolved in ways that are closer to how I work then Adobe did

There are options available and there is little in the published info on 3 that extends 2's functionality into areas not readily and cheaply available with other software options.  If you feel Adobe's been mean to you on price: don't buy, tell them why you won't . . . . just realize among those that actually use AA to make money you'll be in a relatively small camp (with regard to having your feelings bruised about their pricing).