In all fairness, the software that you buy today is almost certainly going to stop working at some point in the future as you upgrade your OS etc. So, unless you can download data into some reasonably open format, you will eventually lose access anyway.
That said, I don't disagree with your basic point. In the case of Adobe, I use one of their programs fairly heavily. But most everything else is once in a blue moon. As a result, their Suite subscription doesn't work for me as I'm perfectly happy running something from a few versions back. Subscriptions only make sense for things you use pretty regularly.
Adobe is arguably the poster child for a software company for which subscription vs. one-time licenses is a particularly polarizing question among its user base. For companies, it arguably didn't matter much and access to the current versions of the entire portfolio was probably a win for many. At the same time, some Adobe software was and is widely, but often casually, used by a fairly wide range of consumers who were fine with running programs that were a couple versions old given the price to upgrade. (This described me for a fairly long period of time.)
That's really where subscriptions break down. You need to use something every now and then but you don't care if it's five years old as long as it still works.
Of course, one-time purchase alternatives like Photoshop Elements are one option these days as are free programs like The GIMP.
Most of them? If you stop paying for Creative Clouds, your Lightroom database is of no use anymore; you'll probably be able to open photoshop/illustrator files with other apps, but maybe not with all their subtleties.
On the other hand, non-subscription based software was only good as long as they were maintained for your current OS… So I don't care much if my software is subscription based or not, but I care a lot about them saving my data using open standards.
The case of Adobe is interesting. I think the move to a subscription model has been a hostile move for customers. The second you stop paying for the software, you lose the ability to open your old files.
This has allowed smaller software applications such as Sketch, The Affinity Suite and Capture One to grab marketshare. I think Sketch’s current business model is perfect. Customers pay for a year of updates. If a customer decides not to upgrade, they stay at the same version as when their license expires.
I’m certain Adobe has made a good amount of money in the short term, but they've forfeited a monopoly. I’m more skeptical about their long-term business.
That's the general issue with subscriptions too. I'm fine with paying Adobe a subscription for a program that I use on a regular basis. I'm not fine with paying Adobe a subscription for a program that I might pull out to do something with once or twice a year.
Agreed. I use some Adobe products on a daily basis. The features I use within the applications have been consistent for years, but the bloat of the software has been significant year after year. I don't need any of the bloat or extra features just stable consistent software.
Sometimes I think I'd be happier buying a legacy suite rather than paying the monthly subscription...
Yes there are alternatives, Affinity, Pixelmator, etc, but all that's being taught in educational institutions is Adobe, and it's what the industry uses.
Private/small business users are a very small part of their business, but one that requires as many (if not more) support resources as large customers, so if anything they're probably happy to see them go elsewhere.
And no, i haven't used Adobe since they introduced subscriptions. I'll subscribe to media and cloud storage just fine, but not pay annual fees for micro software increments that 99% of the time doesn't add anything i need.
If they had something like Jetbrains where your subscription also gives a perpetual usage license for that specific version, then i could subscribe and upgrade when they actually added something i needed, and i'd likely reconsider.
The problem is, Adobe never did this and abruptly forced everyone to switch to a subscription model if they wanted to upgrade. And existing versions only keep working for so long unless you keep the same hardware/operating system with them forever. So suddenly, thousands of people who rely on Adobe software daily are forced to switch to a subscription-only model.
Exactly. One of the arguments Adobe was making in professional circles about the subscription switch was that people will save money because they will be able to subscribe to each piece of software and for short periods of time when they need it.
Truth is that anything other than the full suite (and maybe the photographer plan) doesn't make sense financially. And then they killed the month by month subscription as you said.
Well yes and no. It is your problem if the only options for the software you want are subscription based. To some extent, Photoshop and Lightroom might be examples of this. If I'm not mistaken, Adobe stopped selling one-off licenses for these products quite a while ago. While there are a number of alternatives both paid and free, Adobe's products still capture a considerable portion of the market. Not because people like recurring payments, but because there's whole industries full of people who know how to use those products to produce and deliver quality work. To put another way, I fully understand that you want one upfront payment, it makes sense and I feel the same way, but what if there's no one willing to sell it to you?
And this is why I avoid Adobe products like the plague and why I paid the small once off payment for Affinity Photo for my photo editing needs instead. Fuck Adobe.
But really, this is why I avoid subscription software as much as possible. I will pay for streaming media (because I'm paying for the media not the software). If I buy software, I expect a once off payment to be able to use it forever (I'm ok with having to pay for a new version sometime down the line as long as my old version continues to run). I do sometimes use SaaS web products, but I do try to avoid it when I can.
Since most things are subscription these days, I don't buy much software and tend to stick to open source stuff where I can.
Right. I've been a subscriber to Adobe's Creative Cloud for almost 10 years now - which means I've paid them upwards of $6,000 by now - even though I only use 3 programs (Acrobat, Photoshop, Illustrator) and even then I only really use base-level functionality that's been present in those titles long before they became subscription-only: if it weren't for (normal and understandable) platform-obsolescence (high-DPI support, support for new formats/codecs, etc) then I'd still be happy with a boxed edition of Creative Suite I could have bought for $1200[1] back in 2013
Unfortunately for Adobe products the subscription is for a year, but your point stands. Office used to be hundreds of dollars, now you can start using it for $10/month and it includes cloud storage/syncing.
Maintenance. If you want new features and bug fixes, you will either pay upfront with a high sticker price or pay overtime via subscription.
Subscriptions also make software more affordable for those breaking into industries. I, along with many peers, pirated Photoshop for years. That’s not necessary when I can get Creative Suite for $10 per month. It’s actually been free for me for the past couple years because I upload stock photos.
Both Adobe and the consumer come out ahead in a world where the consumer doesn’t have to pirate software.
Non-business users will absolutely continue to pirate for as long as possible. Adobe products are basically unpiratable at this point, and the $20/mo subscription service is expensive, but reasonably affordable compared to the $600 or whatever the boxed software ran all those years ago.
Look at our old software from the past decades. Old archived documents sitting in some obscure presentation program like Harvard Graphics. Now imagine not being able to load that data at all, even though you have the save file and the program, because the licensing server literally no longer exists.
Now imaging a world 15 years from now where Adobe totally goes under due to competitors making much better programs. Their servers go away and now, and you can't even start your licensed software without running it through a debugger and trying to crack the license check.
Great article. One minor point of disagreement I have:
> For Adobe's subscribers, the lock-in is considerable as access to their existing bank of files and documents is contingent on continued payment.
Losing access to uploaded files isn't really a relevant factor in paying for an Adobe subscription. Their cloud storage is an afterthought, and they can all anyways be trivially exported. The lock-in comes from the software itself. We must have Photoshop, and there is no other way to get Photoshop than to pay Adobe every month till you die.
That said, I don't disagree with your basic point. In the case of Adobe, I use one of their programs fairly heavily. But most everything else is once in a blue moon. As a result, their Suite subscription doesn't work for me as I'm perfectly happy running something from a few versions back. Subscriptions only make sense for things you use pretty regularly.
reply