That's the beauty of a monopoly—you don't have to listen to anyone and people will continue to buy your products.
Technically it's not a monopoly in the eyes of the law as long as they're so many competitors on the market. A company is never at fault because the competition can't come up with something better. If Adobe is a declared a monopoly, so is Google.
But I totally get what you're really saying.
Having a monopoly isn't about having or not having competitors, it's about leveraging your monopoly onto other markets. You could make the argument that every time Adobe adds another application into the CC packet, it's doing just that.
Adobe is dead to me. It just simply cannot keep up with the technology and needs of their users. Their tools don't help me do my job in a fast, effective and efficient manner. They feel like a piece of a terrible malware that come with a windows style installer.
I have completely switched away from Adobe a couple of years ago and could not be happier.
To people complaining about the fact that there are no alternatives on Windows: if you would be a good designer that has understanding for and appreciates great experience, you would not be using Windows. Period.
What software do you use instead? Sketch, affinity designer and affinity photo? And probably Zeplin, Atom, Dropbox or Google Drive?
Those are the tools I'm turning to instead of the Adobe creative suite. They feel fast and usable — even on my early 2011 MacBook Pro.
Sketch for UI design and wireframing (have done iOS, Android and Web polished projects with 100+ screens without any hiccups), Quartz Composer with Origami for prototyping and interaction design and Xcode for coding and prototyping.
When I need to edit pictures, I turn to Pixelmator as it's an awesome tool, not to mention that it is available for both OS X and iOS.
For storage I personally use iCloud Drive which works great, but we use Dropbox to share files with the team (their Web App works well for that).
Unfortunately, that's not a reality in countries where Apple products are too expensive. Some designers just can't afford a brand new mac... So, there's that.
Would these designers be able to afford the price of Adobe applications? Which is around $50/month in Australia.
Apple, not Adobe.
What I'm saying is that designers who cannot afford Mac laptops will also not be able to afford $600 per year for Adobe products
Or maybe he has to choose. Apple or Adobe. Since he can do the same with Adobe in a Windows he already own, he pays only Adobe. And this is the perfect world, where everybody pay for software. In reality, he will pay for an expensive Windows PC he can play games and crack CS6.
There's also the scenario here in Brazil, in which industrial products are 50% more expensive because of taxes, plus 3,5 to 1, dollar conversion to reais. It's perfectly "ok" to pay for Adobe service, but simply impossible to buy a new MacBook. It's almost half a popular car.
My designer friends in SE Asia are still using CS3.
Reminds me of when the guy who was the new exec in charge of photoshop said that "one day it will be used in hollywood movies" - completely ignorant of the history of the product he was now in charge of - This was only a few years back.
This headline confuses me. Are Adobe's executives somehow not considered part of Adobe?
Who cares, the result is the same…