Adobe's most expensive subscription tier is about to get even more expensive
Adobe will be giving its priciest subscription tier an AI-first rebrand—and adding an even higher price tag.
Adobe's Creative Cloud All Apps subscription, which includes access to more than 20 Adobe apps, will soon be known as 'Creative Cloud Pro,' the company announced last week. The renamed subscription plan will give users expanded access to Adobe's AI-powered tools and apps, but for a price: For subscribers on an annual plan, the cost will increase from $59.99 to $69.99 monthly, or from $659.88 to $779.99 annually.
Beginning on June 17th, any members of Creative Cloud All Apps will be automatically opted into Creative Cloud Pro. According to Adobe's announcement of the plan, Creative Cloud Pro pricing will be effective at your next renewal on or after June 17. Currently, these changes are only rolling out in North America.
This follows better-than-expected first quarter 2025 financial results for the software company, which reported a record revenue of $5.71 billion, equal to 10% year-over-year growth. Still, Adobe's shares dropped after the report, as several experts and investors noted concerns that the company might be falling behind competitors with its AI efforts.
Creative Cloud Pro appears to be the next step for Adobe to monetize its newly robust suite of AI tools by making them a mandatory investment for the company's most dedicated users, even as it rolls out 'made without generative AI' image labels. Here's what to know about the new plan.
What's new on Creative Cloud Pro?
To start, Creative Cloud Pro comes with all of the features that were included under the Creative All Apps umbrella. The plan includes a portfolio of more than 30,000 fonts, unlimited Creative Cloud libraries, millions of stock photos and videos, and 100GB of cloud storage.
In addition to these perks, the upgraded plan will include several new AI features. First, users will gain unlimited access to 'standard generative tools' like Photoshop's Generative Fill, which can essentially 'deep fake' anything within a composition, and Lightroom's Generative Remove, which eliminates unwanted details in a photo. Creative Cloud Pro users will also have 4,000 monthly credits to use for Adobe's class of 'premium generative features,' like Premiere Pro's Generative Extend, which uses AI to add frames to the beginning or end of any video.
The rebranded subscription also includes the most recent Firefly app, which Adobe bills as its 'one-stop shop for exploration and ideation with creative AI.' The app comes with Adobe's new text-to-image generator Image Model 4, as well as its Firefly Video Model, which first entered public beta last month. Another feature called Firefly Boards allows teams to do some Pinterest-style moodboard brainstorming.
For any Creative Cloud Pro users who have a different AI model of choice, they can also choose to import Google Imagen 3 and Veo 2, OpenAI image generation, or Flux 1.1 Pro into Firefly. More details on Creative Cloud Pro features are available here.
How much will it cost for different kinds of users?
Prices are set to rise across the board for all kinds of Creative Cloud All Apps users.
For rolling subscribers (those not on an annual plan), prices will rise from $89.99 to $104.99. For teams, prices will jump from $89.99 to $99.99 per month. And for student and teacher plans, renewal prices are set to increase from $34.99 to $39.99 monthly.
What if I don't want to join this new plan?
If you're a current Creative Cloud All Apps user but don't want to be automatically shuffled into Creative Cloud Pro, Adobe has created another subscription tier called 'Creative Cloud Standard.' This tier is the same price as the former Creative Cloud All Apps ($54.99/month for annual users), but it comes with a bit less value.
Whereas All Apps included 1,000 monthly credits for the aforementioned standard generative features, Creative Cloud Standard only includes 25 credits. It also limits access to premium features on mobile and web apps, and, of course, does not include premium generative features or Firefly.
While Adobe's webpage states that Creative Cloud Standard is 'only available to existing customers,' an Adobe spokesperson clarified that new users can actually join this tier by contacting customer support. It's a trade-off that essentially means you'll be paying the same amount for a subscription with fewer bonuses, but it might be the option that makes the most sense for users who have no interest in Adobe's AI features.
On Reddit, plenty of users have already expressed displeasure with the new plan. It's easy to see why. Adobe is automatically upgrading subscriptions to the more expensive Creative Cloud Pro tier, a UX pattern that makes it less likely for users to opt-out than if they had to make an active choice and tick a subscribe box, for instance.
Both this and the Creative Cloud Standard journey for new users could be seen as dark patterns, which are UX pathways that manipulate users into taking actions that they may not have intended but are in the business interests of the company. The U.S. sued Adobe over its hard-to-cancel subscriptions last year.
The goal of the auto upgrade, in combination with the decreased appeal of the Creative Cloud Standard tier due to its reduced features, seems to be to draw more daily active users into the company's existing AI products. That'd be in close keeping with its recent focus on monetizing gen AI tools following its last earnings report, anyway, which was plagued with fears that Adobe isn't staying ahead in the AI race.
An Adobe spokesperson declined to comment on the reasoning behind the subscription tier rebrand and whether users will be personally notified before the change takes place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Corbin Burnes needs Tommy John surgery. Prepare for aftershocks.
When Arizona Diamondbacks ace Corbin Burnes left a pitch up to CJ Abrams last Sunday and immediately motioned for trainers, everyone at Chase Field understood what it might mean. And when cameras caught Burnes appearing to express concern about his elbow, there was little reason to doubt his self-diagnosis. Burnes has been one of the game's most durable starters since the start of the 2021 season. He knew this would change that. Diamondbacks Manager Torey Lovullo on Friday confirmed what Burnes and others had already suspected: The ace to whom Arizona committed $210 million over the next six years will miss the rest of the 2025 season and most of 2026 because he needs Tommy John surgery. Burnes, 30, will have the procedure next week. All injuries spur ripples — sometimes through a team's active roster, sometimes deep into an organization's minor league depth. But an injury to Burnes, one of the game's preeminent starting pitchers anchoring the rotation of a would-be playoff team fighting for its life, will have aftershocks near and far. The first jolt, of course, will be felt in the desert, where the Diamondbacks are hovering around .500 while trying to steady a pitching staff that was disappointing even with Burnes. Their other ace, Zac Gallen, has been uncharacteristically mediocre. Promising righty Brandon Pfaadt has been getting pummeled and lefty Eduardo Rodriguez only returned from injury Friday, meaning the Diamondbacks cannot be sure what he will give them. As such, if they intend to contend, they will likely need to add a starter at or before the trade deadline. Demand was already high, and with several teams still weighing their commitment to 2025, supply remains limited. But the Burnes injury could also change more than just the Diamondbacks' 2025 calculus; Arizona's owner, Ken Kendrick, has invested in winning recently but could seize the whiff of mediocrity to balance his recently bloated budget. If the Diamondbacks fall out of contention — and without Burnes, the chances of that increase — they could seek trades for first baseman Josh Naylor (making $10.9 million this year), third baseman Eugenio Suarez ($15 million), Gallen ($13.5 million) and right-hander Merrill Kelly ($7 million), all of whom would represent significant savings even with just the post-deadline portions of their salaries gone. Any savings could be crucial, because Burnes's injury also complicates Arizona's offseason. Gallen will be a free agent for the first time, and he will almost certainly want to test the market. Kelly will be a free agent, too. So is Jordan Montgomery, who also underwent Tommy John surgery this year. That leaves Arizona with only three sure things in next year's rotation: Rodriguez, Pfaadt and Ryne Nelson, who was in Arizona's bullpen but has started three games for the Diamondbacks this year. They will need more to contend in the National League West, which means they might need to be major players in this year's offseason starting pitching market, even though they just gave Burnes the largest pitching contract in their history. Fortunately for anyone seeking starting pitching this winter, options abound. Gallen, Framber Valdez and Dylan Cease headline a class that will also include Ranger Suárez, Chris Bassitt and Zach Eflin, not to mention the dozen or so strong starters who could opt out of deals if they so choose. But one more team on the prowl increases demand this winter — just like one more seller changes the entire trade deadline a few months earlier. For that reason, the aftershocks of the Burnes injury will also be felt in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago and beyond. If the Diamondbacks do decide to sell, even an underperforming Gallen would be one of the more coveted assets available — a potential fate-alterer for any postseason team. Suarez, too, offers the kind of clubhouse pep and on-field power that would make him a highly sought after deadline option. The Yankees, for example, have been hunting for a third base solution all year. Naylor has plenty of pop and postseason experience, too. Kelly has proven himself to be as tough as they come. If the Diamondbacks sell, any one of those players could change a team's October trajectory, if the stars align. Arizona is currently one of several teams that expected to contend and are underachieving. The Boston Red Sox, Atlanta Braves, Baltimore Orioles and Texas Rangers are all hoping to stave off a deadline sale by rejuvenating their chances over the next two months. The more that do so, the higher demand for Arizona's assets will be. The Diamondbacks have not been ones to cave in recent years, in large part because few teams know better how quickly fates can change. In 2023, they found themselves two games under .500 on August 11. They ended up in the World Series. But rallies like those are hard to engineer even with an annual Cy Young contender in the rotation. Without one … well, the contending vultures are starting to gather in the desert.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?
It's never a good idea trying to second-guess the Oracle of Omaha. Warren Buffett sold a huge chunk of his Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock last year. It wasn't the first time he trimmed his position in the tech giant. Back in 2021, he admitted selling was 'probably a mistake'. But, amid recent share price weakness, I doubt he will repeat the same line this time. Recent soundings from Apple CEO Tim Cook seem to indicate he has taken a leaf out of Buffett's playbook. In a recent earnings call, he pushed investors to be patient as it attempts to roll out AI features in the iPhone. 'Not first, but best' was how he put it in an interview last year. In an investing landscape measured in quarterly earnings, though, many don't have much patience. In some respects, he is right. Three years into the generative AI revolution and not one consumer product has emerged, other than ChatGPT, of course. And that's despite the industry spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and with the might of the media hyping the technology on an almost daily basis. Recently, Jony Ive, the architect instrumental in the design of the iPhone, sold his company to OpenAI for $6.5bn. At the not-for-profit startup, he is working on what has been described as a 'screen-free' device. Some reports highlight that mass production could start as early as 2027. The threat is clearly on Apple's radar. During the ongoing Google anti-trust trial, one of Apple's senior executive stated: 'You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now, as crazy as that sounds.' Given the present state of hardware technology and the extremely vague statements that have come from Sam Altman regarding no-screen devices, I'm not willing to give much credence to these remarks. But, of course, that could change in the years ahead. Apple has a history of not rushing into a new technology, until its full potential is understood. It was a little-known company when General Magic invented the first smartphone. It didn't invent the music player, either. The biggest short-term risk to the stock is tariffs. Apple has undoubtedly been the biggest beneficiary of outsourcing manufacturing to China. It has certainly been a major contributor in pushing the valuation to $3trn. Trump's ambition of seeing the iPhone mass produced in the US is unlikely to ever happen, in my opinion. With consumers being squeezed from all directions these days, I don't believe they would ever stomach paying up to $3,000 for one. Tim Cook has already guided to expect $900m in additional costs over the next quarter. A tiny figure, yes, but I can't see it ending there. Without price increases, the frothy valuation looks unsustainable. As I just said, I'm not sure that consumers will be as obliging as in the past and accept such increases. As for Buffett, he still holds a significant chunk of Apple stock. But with a trailing price-to-earnings of 32, I'm not sure the risks are fully priced in. Therefore, I won't be investing. The post Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Andrew Mackie has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Guinea pigs share cucumber perfectly by splitting skin and core
All times eastern Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage
