Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

When we buy a car we expect to use it for a while and then when parts need ‘upgrading’ we either pay for the repairs or get a new car.
Alternatively we lease the car, upgrade it every couple of years and keep paying a lease charge.
BUT when we want a software package we expect the company to keep investing money to upgrade it and then supply us with the upgrades forever, free of charge. If that company decides that is not a way to keep their shareholders happy and wants to lease the packages with perpetual upgrades, we holler that is not fair and the company is greedy! Using that last thought process I should be able to pay a one time fee to my cable company and then get to use their services forever with no additional charges. I can give many more ludicrous examples however the point should be clear. There ain't no free lunch.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

The Photoshop/Lightroom package is cheaper than it used to be to pay for the upgrades.

retiredsgt Loc: Red Lion Pa.

As a Customer of Comcast, I can agree. Indeed there Ain't !

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Right...

Some car increase in value as time passes so resell is possible, not software...

(Pulling your chain here, I am not serious.)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

When you buy a car you pay ONE price, that price never changes, evev if you got a great discount. You get a deal from your cable company and your price doubles in one year. Not only that there are dozens of car companys and models from which to choose, There are only 2 or maybe 3 cable companys that service a given area. There are unlimited number of options when buying a car. cable companies only have a few packages of "options" The comparison of car compan ies and cable providers is not a good one.

flyguy Loc: Las Cruces, New Mexico

I agree wholeheartedly.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Many software updates are fault fixes or performance patches and they should be supplied without any extra cost. Additional functionality should require an upgrade fee but the user shouldn't have to pay for the functionality they already paid for.
Comparing software upgrades to hardware upgrades is like comparing apples to Clydesdales.
What I hate about the cable company, other than that they lie to us, is they charge for the service then they charge for a converter box so you can get their service, then they charge you for services you don't want or use.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

An analogy is not a comparison.

rrkazman

As a software writer, and user, and armature photographer, I would say that the leasing of mature product such as Adobe wants to do with Photo Shop, is done and has been done because the company felt that the market might be willing to pay the cost for the product and service. I for one have an old copy of that software, I don't need a new one I don't need up-dates, just like my 2008 car it works fine for me. That is what Abode has taken away, I can not buy a new one because it is not available. I bought my photo shop 10 years ago, I bought my car the same year. I can buy a new car and drive it for 10 years, I can not buy a new Photo Shop. As for cost of maintenance and support, they have spread the Kool-aid and many have consumed. It takes a ton of work to develop new software, granted, but what Adobe has spent on up-dates and support on PS is miniscule in compared to the profits the generate with this flag ship product. I have a friend who is a graphics artist he has 3 seats of the latest PS with all of the whistles and bells. I work for him from time to time as he has observed they have you over the barrel he used to buy the annual service for his product, that was a tenth the cost of the lease fee. Adobe like others knows their audience, we vote with our dollars. The sales of PS are down year over year as many of the users are like me using one of the last standalone offerings and not up-grading. So it is up to companies to run there business as they see best, as consumers if we are unhappy look for a product that will work for you. However my knowledge of software tells me this is a cash cow for Adobe, because the software is ageless in its need, so they can do a little and reap alot.

cuckoobob

Well, unlike you, and many others, apparently, when I find an OS and a piece of software that works as advertised, and does what I want, I do NOT want it "upgraded", which usually occasions things ceasing to function correctly! If it WORKS, DON'T FIX IT! For years, I used Microsoft XP, and liked it, but many (MOST) of the software I used with it no longer works, and I had to move up to WIN 7. Now they're attempting to do that with 7, so I'm moving to Linux! Enough is enough! Bill Gates is rich enough! No more from me!

CaptainBobBrown

In the software businesses I've been involved with we usually figured it cost us about 18% of the retail price per license for maintenance so over a 5+ year period the purchaser would need to pay about 100% of the original retail price...alternatively we could have charged double up front and provided "free maintenance" for up to 5 years. Everyone always picks 'pay as you go' instead of 'in-advance'. For consumer software the industry got off to a bad start by giving away software or only charging for it once up front and counting on making it up in volume. Hence, all the complaints about Microsoft trying to switch to a subscription basis or the relatively small part of the user base switching to Adobe's subscription program for LR+PS. It also is part of the explanation for why most people don't opt to install upgrades. The other part is that vendors aren't always honest about what's in an update because they think that if they admit to bug fixes they're admitting that their software has bugs. It used to drive my marketing people nuts if I would tell a customer that of course our software, and indeed all software has bugs so the best way to deal with it is to install upgrades. That's what the maintenance fee is paying for. Like the man says "there ain't no free lunch." Amen.

Motorbones Loc: Fair Oaks, CA

I have no problem paying for upgrades providing they have value and are affordable. Like cars, cameras, and other things that go bump in the night, a new version of something does not always translate into a better product. A good example is when windows did a couple of their so called upgrades, it was really more of a left hand turn into a bad neighborhood....

Rongnongno Loc: FL

One thing you forget to mention...

Adobe already rented the software. For an annual fee users were able to upgrade their version as needed. It has become generalized at a lower price to create a critical mass in order to increase their market share that was flagging at the time due to the cost of PhotoShop (PS) prior to the subscription model. Not everyone could afford PS, now everyone can. By the way only old version are still sold as stand alone. PS is not available other than in the subscription model. PS is on top of the food chain for good reasons: Low price and innovation.

PSE and LR are still sold as stand alone. I do not give long before LR fully disappears from the shelves.

The 'I don't need the upgrade' is a personal choice as is my 'I don't need stinking mobile'. It does not reflect the current market trend and the client wants. You are stuck in a rut as I am when it comes to mobiles.

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I am not aware of any automotive companies that turn your vehicle off after it reaches a certain age. When software is sunset (no longer supported by the company) , companies like Adobe no longer will validate their license keys and your software simply stops working. Additionally, you have a choice to either lease or purchase a vehicle. When purchasing a vehicle once the cost is covered, you retain all equity in the vehicle. When buying a new vehicle, if you don't want to the options that increase the price of the vehicle, you don't buy it. Other folks happily will spend $100 to get the heated radio knob warmers just to be able to say they have it. Software companies cannot always modularize their products in the same way but they add new user interface elements just to make it shiny and 'new'. That takes development $$ which I prefer not to pay for. (BTW - car companies are looking to subscriptionalize the software that runs the vehicle so we may soon be paying monthly fees for the rest of our lives ! Thats when my 68 Firebird again becomes my daily driver! )

The problem with software companies and their old revenue models (purchasing a perpetual license) is that they have to convince you the newest bells and whistles are worth you upgrading or else they get no new money from you. For many of us the software upgrade is not worth spending more money on since our equipment and workflow is usually unchanged for long periods of time. As a result the software company does not have a steady revenue stream when using the old pay-one-time revenue model. They needed to find other ways to generate income. To create a constant revenue stream, the software companies now often require you to pay every month for a subscription. This results in software that is not market driven and innovation suffers because if they were to spend millions in redesign or improvement they actually lose money since the revenue stream is unchanged.

*Edited to remove my useless rant* -- k --

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Very good point about fixing the bugs and weaknesses of the OS or Applications (otherwise known as software).

'Apps' What does that mean? It is for those stinky mobiles and tablets!!!