There's no choice.
They will settle. Pay some money. Change the wording on their subscription to make it clearer. But they will go on making lot of money with the subscription model. Why? The subscription model is overwhelmingly supported by their customers. They couldn't make it without the customers support.
I was perfectly comfortable with upgrading every 24 months or so to "modernize" my work environment, but when that was no longer possible thanks to Adobe's business model changing, I was obligated to submit to a "pay and pay and pay some more" model or lose access to the tools (and my work). If some people can't understand why I feel resentful for being held hostage in this manner, so be it. But I have difficulty understanding how some here - in an analog photography community - want to defend what Adobe does to its customers.
There's no choice.
Vote with your wallet. Stop being their customer.
I have raged for hours about lack of control over which version I keep. That update argument therefore sounds like unadulterated cancer to my ears.
"Security" as a Boogeyman.
As if losing me as a customer will have any effect. The only REAL impact will be on me, when I lose the ability to work with 10 years worth of files.
I've no doubt that the cost to Adobe of supporting non-professional users was far higher for non-subscription products than for subscription products.
Having to deal with supporting lots of customers with non-standard or semi-obsolete operating systems, as well as customers of widely varying skills, experience and knowledge whose update purchase frequency is inconsistent and often extremely delayed, makes for very high costs and the need to have all sorts of resources devoted to legacy system/user support.
Photoshop is not designed for users of widely varying skills, experience and knowledge - it is designed for users who make their living with it, plus a relatively small number of people whose use is based on wanting to use a graphics program with capacities far greater than the users need.
A subscription model forces customers to keep up to date, which in turn makes it much easier to support a business' customers, which lowers costs and, as a result, improves profits.
If it also improves consistency of cash flow, than that is good too.
So in that way, I expect the "bean counter" reference is at least partially correct. But it isn't because of "increased prices".
Cars are even moving to subscription services.
Which allows manufacturers to install heated seats in every car, and in turn allows customers to either choose to enable them, or choose not to enable them, based on need, geography and the time of year.
It would be great if Adobe could do something similar for Photoshop and Lightroom, rather than trying to market Elements as an alternative.
Than we could have whole threads on which functions to turn on/pay for.
And for those who complain about being "forced" to pay in the way that Adobe mandates, I would suggest that is because they either are resistant to switching to the competition, or because Adobe's products are so much more useful to them than the products offered by the competitor.
In either case, is that a problem with what Adobe has done?
The bottom line is that Adobe offered - for YEARS - an excellent product that you could buy ONCE and use for years, and it was a use case that ideally suited "non-professionals". And then, they took that option away and demanded more money in a continuous stream of payments. You don't think we have reason to complain about their decision to milk us for more $$?
It is quite possible that Adobe realized that the old way of doing business was not sustainable. They seem to have discovered a business model that allows the company survive and thrive. I'm sure the employees and the vast majority of users prefer the latter.
Which allows manufacturers to install heated seats in every car, and in turn allows customers to either choose to enable them, or choose not to enable them, based on need, geography and the time of year.
It would be great if Adobe could do something similar for Photoshop and Lightroom, rather than trying to market Elements as an alternative.
Than we could have whole threads on which functions to turn on/pay for.
And for those who complain about being "forced" to pay in the way that Adobe mandates, I would suggest that is because they either are resistant to switching to the competition, or because Adobe's products are so much more useful to them than the products offered by the competitor.
In either case, is that a problem with what Adobe has done?
And with every update, more and more cancerous AI implementation is inserted, like it or not. All in the name of keeping my software safe and secure. It’s a Trojan Horse effect.
I partially agree. What you say is true, but I believe other factors also contribute significantly.
One thing many products do (not just Adobe) is reach a point of functionality that is fine for most customers, and subsequent improvements don't add much value. The customer hits the point of diminishing returns on their expenditure.
There is less impetus to buy the latest version if what people have already meets their needs - thus revenue falls for the vendor. In the case of software, a customer may only buy again when the software no longer functions on a newer piece of hardware/OS that they have, when they used to (re)buy it whenever a new feature truly advanced their abilities.
There is nothing wrong with a company wanting to preserve or increase it's revenue. One route is to truly innovate (new and needed ideas/products, or updates that are "game-changers"). Another is to continue to sell the same old thing in a new dress (incremental changes that don't value-add much).
We see the same thing in planned obsolescence of so many non-computer items, or unnecessary computerization of them. Cars are even moving to subscription services.
It is called "renting software."
The problem with renting software in this case is that it was only after Adobe captured the market with the sale of their software, that they turned the screws on their existing customers forcing them to the subscription or die option.
The problem with renting software in this case is that it was only after Adobe captured the market with the sale of their software, that they turned the screws on their existing customers forcing them to the subscription or die option.
All commonly used software is rented, not owned.
The subscription model is probably the only practical way to build, market and support software as complex and powerful as Photoshop/Lightroom, and still make a profit. Perhaps Adobe could offer a prepaid permanent subscription, but I don't think people here would be happy with what it would have to cost.
Sort of like the market that auto repair businesses are in. A few years ago (in the Canadian market) if you wanted to run a car repair business capable of servicing all makes, the only way to keep up to date was to lease a full featured analyzer with all the necessary software and updates - at a price of ~$100,000.00 CDN per year.
I expect the current price is considerably higher.
It isn't all that different really than the photo enthusiasts who currently buy high end digital cameras, and replace them regularly with the latest model.
Or alternatively, in years gone buy, similar enthusiasts with their Hasselblads or Leicas.
or the people
But software are not normally rent. You pay for the license and although you don't own the software you are entitled to use it for as long as you want although it's not waranteed that the software will work with future OS, hardware etc..
All commonly used software is rented, not owned.
The subscription model is probably the only practical way to build, market and support software as complex and powerful as Photoshop/Lightroom, and still make a profit. Perhaps Adobe could offer a prepaid permanent subscription, but I don't think people here would be happy with what it would have to cost.
Sort of like the market that auto repair businesses are in. A few years ago (in the Canadian market) if you wanted to run a car repair business capable of servicing all makes, the only way to keep up to date was to lease a full featured analyzer with all the necessary software and updates - at a price of ~$100,000.00 CDN per year.
I expect the current price is considerably higher.
It isn't all that different really than the photo enthusiasts who currently buy high end digital cameras, and replace them regularly with the latest model.
Or alternatively, in years gone buy, similar enthusiasts with their Hasselblads or Leicas.
or the people
I'm sure they did the math, and predict a certain percentage will pay for those seats. However, what if nobody subscribed? I seriously doubt they would lose money in that situation. The hardware is already in the price of the car, whether one subscribes or not.Which allows manufacturers to install heated seats in every car, and in turn allows customers to either choose to enable them, or choose not to enable them, based on need, geography and the time of year.
It would be great if Adobe could do something similar for Photoshop and Lightroom, rather than trying to market Elements as an alternative.
Than we could have whole threads on which functions to turn on/pay for.
And for those who complain about being "forced" to pay in the way that Adobe mandates, I would suggest that is because they either are resistant to switching to the competition, or because Adobe's products are so much more useful to them than the products offered by the competitor.
In either case, is that a problem with what Adobe has done?
Leasing a spouse?
You ignored my point:
The problem with renting software in this case is that it was only after Adobe captured the market with the sale of their software, that they turned the screws on their existing customers forcing them to the subscription or die option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?