What will keep Adobe working on improving and updating their software are things like Corel PaintShop Pro.

Adobe has been standing head and shoulders above any serious competition, and that in turn has put them in a near monopoly. However why would anyone assume that they're even dreaming of just sitting back and giving their competitors time to copy all their features and try and take the lead.

I've installed a dozen major updates across all the titles I've been playing with from CC in the few months I've had it, which have added some neat features that in the previous model I would have waited a year or two before the next 'major release' rolled out.

Subscription gives a stable, constant income that can be reasonably relied on. This means that they don't have to bank up as much money as they can from each major release cycle and hope that it holds them over for the development of the next. It makes business management so much easier, and companies more willing to take 'risks'.

It makes business management so much easier, and companies more willing to take 'risks'.

Indeed, but sometimes those risks end up being Windows 8. haha.

Good point though. I am seeing another angle on the subscription model, but only time will tell.

I once rented a car, but after I paid for it, the bastards said I had to give the damn car back...

I once rented a car, but after I paid for it, the bastards said I had to give the damn car back...

hahahaha! I laughed hard at that one.

The move to more subscription based services has a variety of advantages the most obvious is that it allows a company to make more money on a regular basis rather then trying to convince the their customers that their current software is obsolete and to upgrade when they release a new version.

But its also part of a movement I've been hearing bantered around for the last five years and that's "Software as a Service" The idea the software is about providing customers a service they can use rather then software being a packaged product. And part of that is regular improvements and new content, and also about not having to support legacy products anymore.

Even if it were a monthly fee, the buyer should retain ownership of a product they buy.

Thats your "problem" right there. Software is not, and has never been "a product you buy"

It's an immaterial service that you buy a license to use.

You never own any of the software you have licensed, even if it was just a one time license fee.

You might get a nice box, some medium and a manual included in your license fee, but you still did not buy the software.

Just a license to use it.

Even if it were a monthly fee, the buyer should retain ownership of a product they buy.

Thats your "problem" right there. Software is not, and has never been "a product you buy"
It's an immaterial service that you buy a license to use.
You never own any of the software you have licensed, even if it was just a one time license fee.

You might get a nice box, some medium and a manual included in your license fee, but you still did not buy the software.
Just a license to use it.

That makes sense because if i bought it and the price was $2,500, it would be a blessing. Autodesk bought Maya from its original creators, right?

I do know software can be bought, because Trimble bought Sketchup as Google bought it from its original creators. But in the sense we are talking, yeah I understand.

I do know software can be bought, because Trimble bought Sketchup as Google bought it from its original creators. But in the sense we are talking, yeah I understand.

There's a difference between buying a license to use the software (which is what you get when you buy software as a user, you may not like it but that's what you agreed tp when you rushed through the EULA screen and clicked "install") and, on the other hand, acquiring the copyright and intellectual property associated with a given piece of software. The two are on completely different levels.

I do know software can be bought, because Trimble bought Sketchup as Google bought it from its original creators. But in the sense we are talking, yeah I understand.

There's a difference between buying a license to use the software (which is what you get when you buy software as a user, you may not like it but that's what you agreed tp when you rushed through the EULA screen and clicked "install") and, on the other hand, acquiring the copyright and intellectual property associated with a given piece of software. The two are on completely different levels.

Generally I've already bought the software, by the time it tries to thrust a EUL onto me. So I don't think in any sense I can be said to have agreed to something when I bought it. I might as well say "If you reply to this post, it means yesterday you agreed to send me some money". :)