I love the subscription services. Previously products like Adobe CS and unreal Engine were prohibitively expensive. Now they are extremely affordable and constantly providing me with the latest versions at no extra fee. These services are the best things to come to my work and hobbies in a decade.

Might want to check your numbers. Adobe CS6 (Which you can still buy outright, but there won't be a CS7 or any real upgrades) costs around $600

You might want to check, yourself - try $2600 for the full suite ($2500 if you get it from Amazon).

Photoshop alone is $699 - CS6

Might want to check your numbers. Adobe CS6 (Which you can still buy outright, but there won't be a CS7 or any real upgrades) costs around $600

You might want to check, yourself - try $2600 for the full suite ($2500 if you get it from Amazon).

Photoshop alone is $699 - CS6

So you disagree that $699, given that it can often be on sale for as low as $450ish and accounting for international currency fluctuations, is around $600?

His post specifically says PHOTOSHOP, as in a single application. Not Adobe Creative Suite 6 Master Collection, which contains

And a single app costs around $240 a year. Except photoshop which is on a sale that has already been extended by over six months, and which independent market research suggests is probably at the point that it will sell the best. If all you really want is Photoshop, then is rather hard to beat at $10 a month. I spend more than that on coffee alone.

Adobe Creative Suite 6 Master Collection, which contains

Premiere Pro CS6
After Effects CS6
Photoshop Extended CS6
Illustrator CS6 & InDesign CS6
SpeedGrade CS6, Prelude CS6
Flash Professional CS6 & Flash Builder
Acrobat X Pro
Audition CS6
Fireworks CS6 & Dreamweaver CS6
Encore, Bridge, Media Encoder CS6

All that, for just $2,500, and Maya/3ds costs ~$4000?! :o

Personally, I see their move to subscription-only as a way for them to ensure that they no longer need to improve the software enough to convince people to buy upgrades--they just sit there and exploit their near-monopoly market position, raking in money without ever lifting a finger. Meanwhile, the technology stagnates--they no longer have any motivation to make advancements. I'd bet money that if anyone tries to come along and make those advancements in an attempt to compete, they'll be either bought or sued away. All in all, a bad situation for everyone but the very top of the corporate ladder.

Add to that the fact that the "you can't own property, only rent it from us" scheme is the oldest class warfare tactic in the book and you've got a seriously scary trend as more businesses move in this direction. We'll be serfs in no time if more people don't get upset about dirty business practices like this.

Exactly Sasquach. I doubt it would promote useful updates, but rather slow down useful updates in the way you describe.

The only selling point for an upgrade in the old model was the "new features," and sometimes "fixed stuff."

I have used some software that didn't have much broken, and the only things needed were more or better features.

But under the new model, what incintive does a company have to make a useful upgrade?

It is the same predicament many PC users find themselves in. Microsoft can make a flop of an OS and not even bat an eye, because they know they have that market locked in. No matter how much people hate Windows 8, it will come pre-installed on every new PC sold at your local retailer.

So yes, I know I can escape to Ubuntu 10.10(last version I would prefer to use). And I wouldn't even suggest a Mac for the same "lock in" reason.

The thing is though, there are many people who depend on Photoshop for work, so they are sort of forced into the subscrition model. It is this type of policy that is going to entrap people before they know it. (Remember that stunt Netflix tried to pull, and the backlash that followed)?

But I can do without Netflix, as there are so many other options.

Exactly Sasquach. I doubt it would promote useful updates, but rather slow down useful updates in the way you describe.
It is the same predicament many PC users find themselves in. Microsoft can make a flop of an OS and not even bat an eye, because they know they have that market locked in. No matter how much people hate Windows 8, it will come pre-installed on every new PC sold at your local retailer.

So yes, I know I can escape to Ubuntu 10.10(last version I would prefer to use).

You must be seeing things from a light year's view away from mine. 'Escape from Windows to ubuntu'?
The way i see it is that open source software isn't as regularly updated as paid software, afterall, it's mostly hobby projects.

Exactly Sasquach. I doubt it would promote useful updates, but rather slow down useful updates in the way you describe.
It is the same predicament many PC users find themselves in. Microsoft can make a flop of an OS and not even bat an eye, because they know they have that market locked in. No matter how much people hate Windows 8, it will come pre-installed on every new PC sold at your local retailer.

So yes, I know I can escape to Ubuntu 10.10(last version I would prefer to use).

You must be seeing things from a light year's view away from mine. 'Escape from Windows to ubuntu'?
The way i see it is that open source software isn't as regularly updated as paid software, afterall, it's mostly hobby projects.

My wife recently started working as an e-book and print-on-demand paperback formatter, offering her services to authors wishing to publish on Amazon and other e-book distributors. As part of her workflow, she routinely uses Adobe InDesign and Photoshop. It would have been quite difficult, given our current situation with kids and mortgage and car payments and insurance and other factors, to afford to purchase everything up-front. The subscription model has made all the difference in her getting started now as opposed to her getting started in some nebulous future when we could (hopefully) drop a few thousand bucks up-front on a risky business proposition.

Really, it just comes down to a question of capital. If you have the capital for an up-front seat license without causing yourself any hardship, then great. Fine. Have at it. But if you do not have the capital, then a subscription plan can help you to amortize the business costs throughout the year. It is true that at some point you cross the line over to paying more for the subscription than you would have for the up-front license plus subsequent upgrades, but if you don't have the capital then there is not much you can do about that. Additionally, if the business fails before then, you reduce your losses to only the months that you were in business, a risk mitigation that can be very attractive to small businesses just starting up and working on limited capital.

The subscription model has made all the difference in her getting started now as opposed to her getting started in some nebulous future when we could (hopefully) drop a few thousand bucks up-front on a risky business proposition.

Great case! Hmm. I hadn't seen it from that point of view.

If the cost of a 1 year subscription was a third of the price of an up-front fee, that would make something like 3DsMax affordable for at least a year, and if that was all I needed it for, I wouldn't be contracted to 3 years, nor would I have to spend the full amount I would have had to pay.

I do wonder if that was the intent of the model now.

Now my idea sounds like a money making scheme if anything. Haha.

Great conversation.