BebuLamar

A lot of software now have gone into the subscription model so that the users will have to pay a monthly (or yearly) fee to use the software. The users would always have the latest version of the software and a lot of people like that.
Now are the software company obligated to update the software ever so often? Or the update must have some kind of meaningful improvements?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Why would they have to upgrade/update the software? Although most companies will.
One agrees to pay yearly for the use of the software, that's it.
Do it or don't.

BebuLamar

If so the argument that developers have to eat doesn't have merit. When they developed the software and sold it for the first time they made the money then they should go on and develop something else to make more money. They can't expect to make one product and have enough to eat their whole life.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

When I built my most recent computer, I bought an old copy of Adobe CS6 - runs fine on Win11.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-779437-1.html
I also bought a copy of MS Office Pro LTSC 2021 Pro Plus (Long-Term Servicing Channel)
It is a fixed version with no feature updates - but is a great value if you can find it.
I still have a computer that runs Win 3.11 (well - it's in the closet).
I also have a computer that runs Win7. I built that in ? 2007 and HAVE to keep it running, as software I use to reprogram my Pronto Pro (TSU 7000) will not work (no drivers) on any more recent microsxxit OS.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

No merit in my book.

They can if people like it and keep paying the "rent".
Like I said, most companies improve, add to, enhance their software, to ensure people coming back.
"Look at these new neat things it can do!".

No rent for my 2007 Quicken. It does what I need, works just fine under Win 11, don't need the "improvements" that are in the new stuff. (It's available only by subscription now also.)
Same with WS-FTP '95, works great under Win 11!

Oh, and Spider Pad, an old excellent HTML editor.

HOHIMER

I think they view the investment of developing a piece of software like building a house.
When you build a house, you can sell it or rent it out.
If you sell it you get a lump sum and are no longer responsible for maintenance or repair.
If you rent it out you get a cash flow over a long period of time but you must maintain the asset.
I think software companies have discovered they can make more return on the asset (ROA) by
changing the way they market the asset. So, they have changed from outright selling software to renting software, because it provides a greater return on their investments. And enhances long term company stability through cash flow. The gift that keeps on giving!
It also provides them maximum control over the asset while it is in the hands of the customer. They can turn it off or on and control features at will.
I believe the next step will be the ‘pay-to-play’ algorithm. Where you must log on to their site to use the software. The site will check to see if you are up to date on your monthly payments before you will be allowed to run the software and the results of your usage will be stored on their server, with a monthly storage fee based on gigabits used.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

I guess we'll just have to vote with our wallets then.
Don't buy or 'upgrade' into a rental software arrangement.
Find a product you can purchase and be done with it. There are PLENTY such out there!

BebuLamar

Certainly they can't do nothing unless they have the votes from the consumers but the votes are overwhelmingly for the rental.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Most likely because the user will always have the latest and greatest,
which is very important to many people.
(I never voted for it.)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If a company produces a piece of software and markets it using the subscription model, it's in their interest to provide free updates. If they do not, there will be a lot of users dropping the subscription.

The model helps the software company manage their cash flow, leading to more efficient development of the software. That benefits users by enabling more frequent updates. Updates can include both technical updates and security updates.

Of course if a user is not interested in updates, the subscription model does not provide as much benefit. Security updates benefit users who are not interested in the technical updates.

I have software that involves both models. I use the Adobe Photography plan, a subscription plan. I am happy using it as the cost is modest (and cheaper than it was when I was buying updates before the subscription model began). I use the software almost daily and I enjoy the newer features. OTOH, I use Adobe Dreamweaver CS4, for which I purchased a license more than a decade ago. I have not updated it and it still works. It is not something I use more than a few times a year so it is a different degree of interest than the Photography Plan.

There will come a time when the Dreamweaver CS4 will not work with a system update. Even now, I can only load it on my Windows laptop. My MacBook will not load it. When it is no longer compatible with any machine I have, then I will have to either switch to a subscription version (standalone no longer available for Dreamweaver as far as I can tell) or I will have to find an alternative.

The subscription model is not in itself something to be avoided. It is up to the user to determine the value of that software in their workflow. Presently there are alternatives available but not all of them have equivalent features. So it's up to the user to determine how valuable the features are to them. Everyone is different and some of us are more different.

I don't always need the 'latest and greatest', but there are new features that have value to me and my income is sufficient to enjoy those features. $120/year (plus tax) is small compared to other random expenses I encounter. I probably spend 3-5 times that on toll roads. If golf or fishing or going to sports games were things I do, those expenses are far above the small subscription sum for my photo processing endeavours.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

I'm much happier with the $$$ in my pocket and being in the minority.
But that'$ the price they'll have to pay if they want to "keep up with the Joneses"
For minimal increase in functions and/or useable capabilities.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

No argument from me.

Having a moderate level of CDO (like OCD, but in alphabetical order, as it should be), the features are important to me. But I'm not you (and you're probably lucky for that).

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

Even better, find a product that is open source and be done with it...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Better is subjective.
It would certainly be cheaper.
And you'd be done with it unless your operating system changed.

Nigel7 Loc: Worcestershire. UK.

The change to subscription by Adobe was driven by the dishonesty of the vast majority of hobby users who were using pirated copies of the software. However the subscription is much cheaper than buying and updating the old versions. I have never understood the resistance to subscription by Hoggers who would have spent freely on film in the old days. Many also enjoy relating the huge sums of money they spend on numerous bodies, lenses, etc. Adobe CS subscription is surely the cheapest.part.of our hobby.