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.

Think you have that last statement backwards ; there are alot more amateur photographers than professional, and alot of older ( like myself ) that are going back to photography or starting because of loss of mobility .

I feel we just want Adobe to give us an opinion, like from my previous post below.

The best summation of this for me is if you are in the photography business for profit Adobe subscription not a problem. Taking photos for enjoyment and not for sell and all the bells & whistles not needed subscription not so much. Personally I would like to purchase the product rather than subscribe. What would be nice for me is to purchase Photoshop and LR get free updates for keeping software safe from hacking & to purchase bell and whistle updates that I may want.

They are selling FAR more software via the subscription model than they ever did with packaged, perpetual licensing. People can afford a low monthly or annual fee more easily than a $700 initial purchase and $300 version upgrades (for single seats of Photoshop).

Adobe’s target customers are professionals in the creative content development fields. While they are happy to have amateurs use their products, they target those who need to use the latest tools to make a living.

Many business accountants would rather see a low monthly fee than an occasional high dollar charge.

The lab where I worked had 24 seats of Photoshop CS2... Even with a professional license agreement, the upgrade to CS3 was over $6000. The original cost was around $15,000. We would have *loved* the subscription model!

Think you have that last statement backwards ; there are alot more amateur photographers than professional, and alot of older ( like myself ) that are going back to photography or starting because of loss of mobility .

I feel we just want Adobe to give us an opinion, like from my previous post below.

The best summation of this for me is if you are in the photography business for profit Adobe subscription not a problem. Taking photos for enjoyment and not for sell and all the bells & whistles not needed subscription not so much. Personally I would like to purchase the product rather than subscribe. What would be nice for me is to purchase Photoshop and LR get free updates for keeping software safe from hacking & to purchase bell and whistle updates that I may want.

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.

Low payments are a marketing tool that works. You can save stray dogs and cats for 63 cents a day. Help disabled veterans for 79 cents a day. Feed every starving baby in Africa for 99 cents a day. It works for Adobe and others will follow.

What cracks me up is that we hear all the time that it's not the camera it's the person behind the camera. But the same people who say that think you need what they perceive as the best software. Maybe they should get better cameras so they can get by with less post processing.

--

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.

Low payments are a marketing tool that works. You can save stray dogs and cats for 63 cents a day. Help disabled veterans for 79 cents a day. Feed every starving baby in Africa for 99 cents a day. It works for Adobe and others will follow.

What cracks me up is that we hear all the time that it's not the camera it's the person behind the camera. But the same people who say that think you need what they perceive as the best software. Maybe they should get better cameras so they can get by with less post processing.

--

I don't think it is professionals they are targeting also the cost of cc at $10 a month x 24 seats is $2,880 so your still left with nearly $6,000 to upgrade every couple of years. If you were upgrading over 3 years then your actually paying more.

If anything are amateurs subsidising business users? I can't find a break down but from UUH it seems more Amateur users than Pro. If you consider the hike in users since switching models the majority of those new subscribers are going to be amateurs, Pro users would have mostly been using the standalone versions prior to that.

You could say pro's have a vested interest in promoting Adobes products to amateurs.

It will work out sooner or later, Adobes model has increased sales for other companies, Affinity Photo is currently no 4 in top grossing no 12 in best sellers.