So, that fact, the more realistic comparison of, 'Would you rather spend $600 now, or risk having to spend $960 over the next 2 years or $1,440 over the next 3 years?' is whispering in our ears as we hear the spin. In a situation like this, comparing spending $600 for a product purchase with spending 'only' $40 per month for a year sounds innocuous, only within the 'box' of the year containment scenario as it essentially is asking the narrow question, 'Would you rather spend $600 or just '$480?' But, people like me will use a product for at least 2 years, perhaps 3 years before getting another upgrade. I will buy something like Photoshop, or Dreamweaver out of necessity or because there is increased value and upgrades that I must have to do what I want to do or need to do. I use the products in a very small business, mostly in photography and associated websites, with a few clients mixed in for good measure. But, is it really? I, and I would guess many others, are not 'power users' who use many Adobe products and are constantly buying upgrades whenever they come out. Talking about how much we, the buyer, can save over the course of a year, makes this sales pitch seem more palatable. Corporations generally (or always) make their decisions based upon increasing profits but always use the spin of benefits to the buyer.

I realize this is a late post for this thread, but am at this state of mind and dilemma at this time.

Adobe after effects cs6 vs cc