Glenn Fleishman has a good article about this:
Boy, you've really drunk the Kool-Aid. I'd rather pay for my tools one time and use them until they wear out, but if you keep encouraging these corporations, you're going to eliminate choice for people who understand that software is a tool, not a service.
Well, good luck with that.
So what? All that matters is the value proposition. How much it costs, what I get for the money. You seem to think that subscriptions cost more, and they don't.
You can still buy a perpetual licence for Lightroom. Adobe doesn't make it very easy to find, but it is still an option. But I agree that the Photographers subscription is a much better deal.
That's a straw man argument. I'm willing to pay. I want to always have the choice to buy rather than to rent. I will pay a higher price if it means I am offered the option to not rent.
The cost doesn't concern me. What I object to is not ending up with something I can keep and continue to use without paying every month for the privilege. I will not grant a corporation the right or the power to reach into my computer and disable what I paid for, which is what you do when you agree that software is a service rather than a product, and sign the rental contract.
I've never been one to upgrade to every new version. Old versions of Photoshop do most of what the CC version does, and more than anybody needs it to do, and continue to work even if you never pay Adobe another cent. They don't need to ping Adobe's servers for permission or be authorized. That seems to me a more sensible model than the rental model which hands all leverage to Adobe and gives them the power to raise prices and disable your software at any time.
Your assumption that I object to the cost is incorrect, and your conclusion is ridiculous.
You don't buy software. You only ever get a licence to use it. It's not property which you own, it's something you have the right to use. You're paying for a licence to use it.
This is also completely true of a paid-up 'perpetual' software licence if you don't abide by the terms and conditions of the licence you agreed.
I'm pretty sure that people do use new features in Photoshop. Otherwise, we'd all be using version 1, wouldn't we?
Your position is ridiculous as you don't understand what you're paying for with software.
I'm not going to bother reading past this textbook douche response. You can argue semantics and the meaning of software licenses until the end of the time. It doesn't change the fact that I have software which I paid for once, can't be disabled remotely if I refuse to pay again, and which legally belongs to me insomuch as it matters to a rationally thinking mind. Just understand that when you endorse the subscription model, you make it harder for other, saner people to avoid your sad fate.
It's a shame that you didn't read any further.
The lesson that the Aperture debacle teaches us is Never rely on Apple software for anything important.
I agree the "right to use it" argument is obtuse, at best. If that really was the purchase model then what does the user get back from the software company the day the user decides he/she no longer wants to use it? Answer... nothing.
I guess "textbook douche" means "factual." You may not wanna be bothered with those pesky EULA or all the registration you do with software, but Gareth is right. A perpetual license is sort of like a subscription for life. And there are other restrictions, like transferring the license. One can certainly rue how software came to use this model and how it is treated as intellectual property, but we all have to live within the law.
Really? You use a Mac? You don't think you rely OS X?
Sure, those are good points but they've been addressed long ago. If I buy a book, I can't copy it and send it to all of my friends. OTOH, that doesn't mean I have to send the publisher a check every month that it sits unread on my bookshelf.
I understand how that's a good deal for your usage. What about the person who uses Graphic Converter once every year and doesn't care about upgrades? The subscription model forces them to pay just as much as the person using it eight hours every day. This is why I think it works against developers in the long run. Too many people who otherwise would have bought it will say "I don't need it if it costs me every month".
Here is the correct analogy:
So maybe they can subscribe for a month at a time when they need it? Depends on the developer and the deal, doesn't it?
