To amplify a bit on this, and take it in a slightly different direction... my methodology is that if the software I am currently using does what I need it to do, I feel no compelling reason to change or upgrade it. If someone's current version of CS 5.5 (or whatever) has been doing the job for the past year and the job itself hasn't changed drastically, why would anyone want to start paying a monthly/yearly fee in order to do what has already been paid for? If there were some truly compelling new capabilities in the new software, then he might evaluate whether that single capability were worth the cost. It's hard to imagine what that capability might be.

I upgraded from Microsoft Office 2002 to 2010, because (1) I got the upgrade at a fantastically good price; and more importantly (2) my son, who knows more about Excel than anybody I have ever met convinced me that the new Ribbon Interface and logical structuring of the user interface was greatly superior to the old. I trusted his judgment and upgraded... and hated the ribbon interface. Until, that is, I had spent about six hours with it and understood it, and (as he promised) I would never, ever consider changing back. This rambling discourse is just to point out that yes, sometimes an upgrade is worth the money even if it doesn't increase the capabilities... but I don't think Adobe's "upgrade" (upgrade to their pricing structure, that is) is worth it.

But then, what do I know?

tanstaafl.