What's new

Subscription licenses scare me

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
The main reason is that I've been through some tough times when I couldn't have afforded to pay the subscription fee. Not being able to use software tools I rely on would be *bad toilet* (to quote the late Koko the gorilla).

If you're a commercial facility then it's totally different - you want all the updates "deployed." Or if you need to use something once it makes sense.

But this is not good at all:

https://gizmodo.com/adobe-warns-using-old-creative-cloud-apps-might-get-you-1834730149?fbclid=IwAR1YhrCfzQFZmg1yZeYoD-OQ-a6yBjqDwEAG97mMT7NBqVXKPXuSqc3vrEc
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
In the end, the money will all work out the same in my opinion, if you tend to keep up with updates...then you will probably spend the same amount of money either way. What I don't like about subscription though is that if you ever decide you want to slow down, not update anything and just keep making music..you won't be able to. that's the first thing...but my main beef with subscription model is this:

With the subscription model we the consumer are paying the developer an ongoing fee before they have delivered a single update. The inverse of that would be, vendor updates software and we the consumer decide if its worth the cost to upgrade it and if so, then we pay them money for it. Vendor assumes the risk to develop the software and after they develop something and put their intelligence into making sure its good enough that people will pay for it, then we the consumer can be presented with something to see if we want to buy it. That relationship is critical for free enterprise to work as intended.

The subscription model is more like socialism. Everyone just pay into it the same amount and trust the government to continue delivering services. No thanks.
 
OP
Nick Batzdorf

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
I have no problem with socialism. My objection is to time-bombed software licenses - which is really how I should have framed this, rather than to the subscription model in general.

Subscriptions to software updates are fine as long as the old software doesn't stop working if you don't pay.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
the very nature of the subscription model is that you have to keep paying if you want to keep using it. It just has a much lower barrier cost of entry.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
I wasn't involved there so I believe you. What I meant is that let's say Adobe used a different approach, in the long run you would have paid let's say $1000 for the software and they would have tried to get another $1000 out of you over time in upgrades...etc.. if you keep with the updates, you would have paid and they would have made the revenue they need to get.

But the cash grab you speak of...that is exactly the problem with a socialist model like this. They want the money up front while the consumer is supposed to trust the vendor to deliver later. That can easily turn into a cash grab that delivers nothing. IN order to keep vendors honest...don't ever give them money until they present something worth the price to you.

Now look at Steven Slate, his subscription model is, frankly speaking, quite cost effective. You can still buy his products outright for thousands of dollars, or for $100-200/year you can use them all. If you need them all, its a bargain, even if he never updates anything at all in the future, you get a lot of value. Then it becomes a question of whether you will want to keep using his products in 10 years from now even if he goes out of business or whatever... Its good value because you get a lot of product for a low cost of entry. But eventually...you will spend more then if you bought it outright...UNLESS he continues to update and add to the collection in ways that make it continue to be worth it in the long run... and that is the problem...you're the one taking the risk in that relationship as the consumer.
 

Land of Missing Parts

No Time for Honky-Tonk
I have no problem with socialism. My objection is to time-bombed software licenses - which is really how I should have framed this, rather than to the subscription model in general.

Subscriptions to software updates are fine as long as the old software doesn't stop working if you don't pay.
Affinity Designer will open .psd, .ai, .eps and bunch of other Adobe formats. And you get to keep it. :grin:
 

Manuel Stumpf

Active Member
Subscription models can be a good idea for trying out products, when a developer has many. Also in case I want to use many of their products :). At least as long as I as a user have the ability to decide when, how and if to update my tools.
The biggest downside is the developer can stop/update/remove/change products to their liking whenever they think the timing is right :eek:.
Which means they might render the software useless just at the moment when you are in the middle of your most important project ever. And they will not care. Thank you very much :thumbsdown:.

Sadly the truth often is (with few exceptions):
Formerly I paid 300 bucks for a perpetual software license I use 5+ years, until I decide to upgrade to a new version if I find it useful.
Now with subscription I pay 300 bucks per year subscription for exactly the same thing o_O.
And the most craziest thing is: Do they fix their flaws and bugs? Nope. But I pay subscription for bugfixing. Instead you get many fancy updates you never wanted, which break your workflow all the time.
Not even thinking what happens when a company goes suddenly out of business :blush:.
 

Shiirai

Resident Crow
I think socialism is fine. What Adobe does isn't socialism though, for many reasons. The main reason is that they've become increasingly greedy. Their subscription model *should* scare you, it's pretty terrible. Not every subscription is backed by an awful company, however.

I've long switched over to Clip Studio Paint, and I hear good things about Affinity.
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
The problem is again, if you are trusting the company after feeding them first, then they will never deliver what you hoped. that is capitalism 101.
 

ism

Senior Member
These are all capitalist models. Subscriptions are more like the capitalist who rents you a room at a rate per month vs the capitalist who sells you a 10 year lease.

There's an argument for open source models being more like socialism, but I'd argue that even this understand the actual flows of capital involved. There may be kind of libertarianism involved, but it's more the Ayn Rand kind of libertarianism than the Noam Chomsky variety.
 
Last edited:

Dewdman42

Senior Member
well all of you socialists should love Adobe then! That is what socialism brings you. Socialism depends on trusting the government to give you all what they think you need and you the consumer have to just trust them to do it. Sorry to use that word now as it is just getting us a bit into the weeds. Use any language you want.. If you are going to trust Adobe to continue to bring you up[dates and value while paying them ahead of time...well that is the subscription model. The non subscription model forces them to deliver features you will consider to purchase. Call it whatever you want to call it.
 

Shiirai

Resident Crow
well all of you socialists should love Adobe then! That is what socialism brings you. Socialism depends on trusting the government to give you all what they think you need and you the consumer have to just trust them to do it. Sorry to use that word now as it is just getting us a bit into the weeds. Use any language you want.. If you are going to trust Adobe to continue to bring you up[dates and value while paying them ahead of time...well that is the subscription model. The non subscription model forces them to deliver features you will consider to purchase. Call it whatever you want to call it.
Not every government is corrupt. Adobe certainly is a corrupt government in this example.

EDIT: ANYWAY. Let's leave the political metaphors for now.

Adobe is awful. Stay away. Go for Affinity or Clip Studio instead.
 

ism

Senior Member
I'm with you on the subscription model often not being good for consumers.

But it's also clearly, literally, and like, literal in the most completely literal sense of the word 'literal', a thoroughly capitalist model of recognizing revenue.


Companies use subscription models to increase their revenues. Not because the want to help the poor.
 
OP
Nick Batzdorf

Nick Batzdorf

Moderator
Moderator
the very nature of the subscription model is that you have to keep paying if you want to keep using it
I believe Waves has or had an option to pay an annual fee for all their updates - not just to your software but to new plug-ins they came out with.

But I could be wrong.
 
Top Bottom