Is Adobe Cc Worth It

[Faith Lienhard]

Ido not own a Adobe license yet. I just started a business degree and aim at graduating as an accountant. Do you believe learning how the Adobe suite works, espacially InDesign is worth it for a business student ?

I'd advise you to concentrate on successfully completing your business degree in accounting. When you've made your way in the world of business you'll be able to employ a professional designer. Remember, there's more to graphic design than just learning how to use the Creative Cloud Suite.

I assume you will graduate to look for employment in a larger company. They will not expect you to produce professional level promotional material, and would treat with suspicion any idea that you should. Rather they will expect you to produce slick reports and presentations. They will use Microsoft Office to do this, and will expect you to do the same. Many companies will REQUIRE this: it is often the case that in the company you do not choose the computer or software you use, and cannot install any extra software. The IT department make all these decisions on your behalf.

I have a photography plan and notice that it said Premeir Rush was part of my subscripiton plan when looking at all my apps. So I intstall it and now I have to subsribe if I want more than 3 exports. Why would it say its part of my subscription plan when cleary its not.

The Photography Plan includes the Premiere Rush Starter Plan - "Full functionality of Premiere Rush + 3 video exports + 2 GB cloud storage". This is presumably to give you a taste of the software and leave you wanting more

I upgraded my Rush plan but it still shows that export number has expired. Not sure what's up as I had Adobe even remote in and recreate the problem and look at my account and I'm paying for a Rush plan. I better not get charged for a plan I can even use fully.

Rendering pegs all 16 logical coresRendering does not use GPUNot only is Premiere Rush not worth paying for, it is not even worth the time it takes to install. Won't use your GPU. Even the Photos app that comes with Windows for free uses the GPU.

I read the message thread above, I understand that only 3 exports are included. Why indicate that the product is included in my package when it is not really? This limit is not indicated before downloading! In fact, it is a product limited to only three exports? Honestly we can not say that it is included in the subscription. This borders on false advertising!

Hi @Kartika - can you give an update on what the investigation is doing? I've also had an issue with Adobe Rush appearing to be a part of my photography plan ( see -rush/premier-rush/td-p/10942956?page=1 ), which is very misleading as it's not - it's only a trial.

Any updates on when we will get full upload functionality on Rush, on our Photography Plan, or if we don't, will you have it moved to where it belongs in the TRIALS section. This has been allowed to go on for too long now without a resolution or good reason.

I too see that 'RUSH' is part of my photography plan. It does not say 'Trial'. It says 'Download'. So I downloaded it and invested some time in the app. Now you say it's not part of the Photography plan? Misleading at best. The original post was 6 months ago and it seems you still have not addressed this.

I too am very diaspointed in Adobe for saying that Premier Rush is part of the photography plan. I invested time to learn it and really need more work on this video, but I exported it only to realize that I had only 2 more exports available. Either it's included or it isn't. Adobe, shame on you for false advertisement. I think those of us who downloadeded it, are now entitled to full use.

I'm also very disappointed with this! Only 3 exports in total, so I'm not going to explore this app. Why putting effort in it, while you only have 3 exports and i'm not going to pay that much for a few video's i want tot edit.

Since Adobe has done nothing to rectify this, either by removing Rush from the photography plan since its a trial only, or by adding it properly to the photography plan, I would recommend to anyone who needs a good, free, (open source), ad-free, well supported video editor to search for Shotcut. It's available paid on the Microsoft Store, but free to download and use on their website for Windows, Mac, and Linux. I use it now instead of Rush, since Adobe has messed us around with that.

I agree with the many others on this post. This is simply false advertising. There is no fine print to read. The Adobe Creative Cloud says Premiere Rush is included. I mainly use Lightroom Classic. Every once in a while I need to make simple edits to a video. Since Premiere Rush was "included", I thought "Great I will install it". I wasted two hours installing and learning the basics. I agree with Gezichtsveld "1-3 exports per month would do for me." Does anyone know if Photoshop, which is included, is also a trail version?

Yup, I fell for this misleading bs yeterday, wasted time and energy and data. And seeing how far back the original post goes I think Adobe needs to get their act together. It is a trial, and not included in the Photography Plan, advertise it as such.

I agree with the others. This is misleading and wasted a lot of my time learning to use it. I suggest anyone wanting a full package of video tools free get Davinci Resolve. The free version does almost everything the expensive paid one does and comes wiith a detailed manual. See

I agree, only 3 exports is WAYYYYYYYYYY too little for a reasonable person to use this for it's intended purpose; Making high quality videos for social media. if a person posts every week, or every day. they would have to pay because even per week is enough to lose the 3 quickly. 1-3 a month, as the other people said, is great. Adobe if you want to do this stuff, then just discontinue the free version. It's a useless thing with the 3 export limit. 1-3 a month is an alright ammount for people. Either make the entire thing paid, or make the 1-3 per month thing.

Part of the quoting process with Adobe they strongly suggest we work with an implementation partner. How necessary is that? What do we gain by working with an implementation partner? I don't have pricing yet, but if it is anything like the pricing I've seen from Google partners to implement GA4 360 I imagine it's going to be at least the price of a single year's license cost if not more. I'm trying to understand if the that cost can be justified especially since we have in-house resources.

The single year's licence cost that you mentioned applies to the cost of using GA360-the-product. It is not the cost of working with an implementation partner. The partner would normally have their own cost, and they would normally present the final GA360+partner cost to you.

Likewise for AA. AA-the-product has its own licence cost, and if you go with an implementation partner, then the partner would add on their cost too. However, whereas GA360-the-product has a fixed licence cost, AA-the-product can have a flexible licence cost that normally boils down to what kind of deal you can work out with the Adobe sales rep.

Unless you know AA backwards and forwards, I would strongly advise you to work with an implementation partner. This is because they can guide you properly to ensure that your business metrics are measured correctly (not just properly) in a manner that allows you to answer your business questions correctly.

Thanks for the feedback. I was aware that the partner pricing is separate from the licencing. Sorry if I didn't word that correctly. In case of GA4 260 the license is $50K (depending on traffic) and the partners I spoke with were charging between $40-$70K for that implementation. I imagine AA is going to be the same where the partner implementation is going to be, at least, around the cost of the license itself but I suspect it'll be significantly more and that is likely to be a real sticking point when it comes to budgeting. We have until the end of the year to get off our current platform which, I feel, gives me enough time to make the transition. Granted, it might not be as fast as using a partner, but there isn't the urgency that folks are facing with free UA going away on July 1.

From the implementation perspective it sounds like the service is more aligned with the goal of creating parity between the old analytics platform and AA? If that is the case I am not too worried about that. The old platform wasn't used to its potential and the sophistication of what was measured was relatively minimal. In other words, not much was done outside of the box of the default reporting. If it wasn't for the need features like data retention that exceeds the 14 month cap free GA4 has we could probably get away with GA4 for some time especially if exported to BigQuery and reported on from there which we actually have capabilities to do using an our enterprise-level ETL/dashboarding system.

I'd say that it depends on how that partner approaches the deal. Creating parity would be the low hanging fruit, because it would help your organisation's users get familiar with AA (or whatever analytics product you get) fairly quickly.

3a8082e126