TMcL

If this statement were true Adobe would offer both purchase as well as cloud options, since they would make the same money. (In fact they would make more money with the purchase option since they receive the entire purchase price up front.) Since Adobe only offers the cloud option, they obviously make more money from that.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

First of all I grew up saving to buy and subsequently own whatever it was that I fancied. I don't see software any differently, it's a tool and if the tool does the job then buy it.

That's not to say I have never rented. When I travel I sometimes rent a car for a week or two. When I am renovating my house I sometimes rent a machine to simplify the project. In this case I only wanted something temporarily and I was quite prepared to give it back at the end.

I have fifteen and twenty year old software that meets my needs perfectly. I bought it as a tool and I use it as I would any tool. I also bought it to keep it since I'd be using it likely forever.

So I don't rent Photoshop or MS Office. I use the ones I originally bought. And one thing that's nice about this is that this software always works too. The rented software only works as long as you're paying your dues all the time. Thankfully with Photoshop there's JPG so if the software stops working you can still access your images with other software. But that's not always the case with all software, sometimes you're doomed to have to now rent the software or lose your files.

I have no problem seeing Adobe make a lot of money, that's good since it might get us better software in the longer term, however I am not going to contribute to those profits by constantly paying to use what I already have on my computer.

Personally I think software should go the way of the car. I have a choice there. I can buy my car and use it for a decade or two until it falls apart. Or I can lease the car for a certain number of years usually four or so, and then give it back after that time and buy a new one to replace it. The lease is usually cheaper than the purchase so you get a break when you lease.

Alas Microsoft and Adobe don't give you that option, they force you to rent and they don't allow you to own. That is why a lot of people like me are upset about their rental offerings.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

I agree!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Funny. I saw an Indian comedian who spoke the King’s English. Part of his routine was a sketch in which the call center trainer tries to get him to speak with an indecipherable Indian accent.

anotherview Loc: California

Popular misconception: "purchasing software." A user of software does not buy the software itself, only a license to use the software. The maker of the software keeps ownership of the software.

The subscription method of buying the use of a license stretches out the cost of this purchase over time, in installments easier for most others to bear.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

cochese

With so many quality free open source programs available, including operating systems I don't understand why anyone pays for any software.

anotherview Loc: California

So far as I know, not any of them top or compare with Adobe Photoshop.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

I totally agree.

anotherview Loc: California

Apparently, you prefer a freebie. Software costs monty to develop, maintain, support, improve, distribute, advertize, and retail. From what I gather, other photographers see the small monthly rental fee for the package of Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom together as a bargain and readily pay it.

As well, if you want the best of anything, as with Adobe Photoshop, then you have to pay for it.

Legally speaking, you did not buy your software, only bought a license to use it. The software-maker owns the software and then licenses it to users.

Of course, if you content yourself with outmoded software (and likely outmoded hardware, too), then good for you. Nobody can argue with that approach.

Yet as always, technology applied to photography has conduced both to change and to improvement in the methods of doing photography. I'd say as a rule, photographers soon enough adopt the new methods and adapt their craft accordingly.

The older methods still endure and a few continue to use them to do their photography.

The field of photography has room for all practioners of it.

Quantus5

There is no misconception -- almost everyone on this Forum understands that it's "perpetual use license" versus a "subscription license", not owning versus renting.

For almost all intensive purposes a "perpetual use license" is like owning and a "subscription license" is like renting. It's a simple comparison model that can be used for discussion purposes and that's why people make the analogy, even though it's not 100% precise.

With a "perpetual license" like the name implies you have purchased a license to use the software in perpetuity. You are correct, you don't own the software but you have the rights to use it forever as long as you don't break the terms of the use license. That is very similar to owning. In fact, unless you break the terms of the license -- no one is going to ask for the license back. ;-) That's the main reason "perpetual use license" exists -- mainly so you don't go breaking the terms of the use license.

In the end -- as this thread proves there are a huge number of people that dislike the subscription model, and many that are ok with it. In the case of PP software, a subscription doesn't have to be more expensive, but in Adobe's case it is, in fact, very much so. My take on it is if you think you're getting your money's worth out of Adobe go for it -- just don't fool yourself -- it is a lot more expensive than almost all the other PP alternatives that are out there. If you're a professional and can write off the cost -- I get it, but if you're an amateur photogropher, or an enthusiast like I am I really don't.

And for those that try to rationalize it -- by saying that it is just two cups of coffee a month, or whatever. Hey, if you think it's worth two cups of coffee go for it. The argument can easily also go the other way -- where many of us would rather save our money and have the two cups of coffee. Given the choice - let me see -- two cups of Peets or Starbucks coffee or the Adobe $10 a month subscription -- My choice is for the two cups of coffee.

Quantus5

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, however the term "Best" when it comes to software is a very subjective statement.

If you want to make a more precise statement you can say that Adobe is the Market Leader, which is true, although that still doesn't prove objectively that Adobe's PP software the "best".

The example I always like to use is MacDonalds. They are #1 in fast food burgers in terms of market share. Does that mean they make the "best" hamburgers?

Best -- is really relative to the needs and wants of each customer.

TMcL

Unfair comparison. Nobody is asking Adobe to give away its software for free. Why will they not give you the option to buy? The only logical answer is that they stand to make more money by forcing you to pay for it monthly.

Paul Sr Loc: Colorado Springs, CO

The main reason that I dislike the subscription model goes back to a philosophical problem I have with "It's ONLY $10 a month". I think this is a generational question. If I don't have the "cash" to buy something, I wait until I do! By minimizing the cost to "X/mo" many (probably, mostly younger consumers) are lured into building debt aggrigations greater than they either understand or can sustain.

If I need PP software I look around and see what is available and affordable. For years, I used Corel, and then it seemed that it got rather expensive. I am an 80 year old retiree(who worked at both the highest and lowest governmental/industrial Photographic technology levels)

Guess what? GIMP and other "open source" systems work AS WELL OR BETTER!

Just beware of "easy monthly payments"!!!

anotherview Loc: California

A misconception exists among some users of Adobe software, that they own it as their property because they once paid good money to obtain it. These select users fail to make the clear distinction between ownership and license.

Yes, so far as use goes, owning and licensing may in practice seem alike. Yet this seeming alikeness does not confer software ownership rights at all. I believe a bright line exists here between owning and licensing.

I believe, argumentatively, that part of the dislike of the Adobe software subscription model arises from a misunderstanding of this difference between owning and licensing.

As to cost, one can argue until the cows come home. To me, paying rent of $9.99 per month for a license to use both Photoshop and Lightroom seems near trivial, especially when taking into account the included periodic updates and upgrades at no extra cost. I also welcome that these improvements happen nearly seamlessly via the Internet.

From what I gather, the users who object to the Adobe subscription model find themselves among a tiny but vocal minority. The bulk of users have subscribed and then moved on.