"Only" is a bit strong - in fact, I'd say "only" and "never" are often pretty reliable flags that the speaker is overlooking something.
I agree that subscription is a viable model for some projects; my company is going to use it for one of our games. However, there are very successful products that don't follow that model.
For example, look at Minecraft. You pay once, and play forever. Yet, it is in the running to become the most profitable and popular computer game in history. They continue to make money from it. How? Users buy the game for different platforms (PC, mobile, XBox), build awesome things, and in turn encourage other people to purchase the game. New users continue to age into the game, so there continues to be a demand. Yes, they also make money through an add-on subscription service, Realms, but Minecraft itself is pay-once-play-forever. Arguably, that is why they succeeded. The adoption would be much lower if the core game were subscription-only.
In a similar way, the subscription model is actually harmful to consumers in some cases, and in turn harms the product. As Microsoft Office switches to a subscription-only service, people have begun to migrate away to options they can afford: WPS (Kingsoft), Google Docs, and LibreOffice continue to take away huge chunks of Microsoft Office's user base. The subscription model is actively harming Office.
When a product is vital to someone's career - say, products from Adobe, Autodesk, or Intuit (or, again, Microsoft Office) - then a subscription model is viewed as a racket by many disgruntled users. Many people are dependent upon Photoshop, 3DSMax, QuickBooks, AutoCAD, and so on. By being forced to pay every month just to have what they need to work, the subscription models mentally translates to paying a mob syndicate for the right to work. This, in turn, fuels hatred for the company, which encourages other companies and entities to create alternatives that aren't subscription-based (possibly even open source).
Thus, in some cases, the subscription model isn't sustainable. Eventually Adobe, Autodesk, and Intuit will lose their place in the world, the same as many industry-standard monopolies of yesteryear. People will increasingly hesitate to buy into new products from these companies, because they know they're just being taken advantage of. By destroying the trust that users once had in them, these companies will be unable to pivot, and will die off. It's a pattern not exclusive to software: history is rife with examples of this.
In short, consider the effects of your model on your customers. Will subscription-based make sense for them? Will they actually come back, or feel jilted? Subscription-based can work in many cases, but others are reliably sustained by other means: paid support (Red Hat), add-ons and extensions, expanding the user base (Mojang), or a broad range of products (Rovio).
Very intereting point you make here! Even though Adobe CS subscription pricing is cheaper over the years than the old paid upgrades, now people are forced into it and cannot take the way of "save money for a while, buy once, update never." It's less choice, not just more awesomenes.
Adobe's subscription might be cheaper than upgrading every time was, but is it also cheaper if you decide "hey, I can't afford to upgrade right now, I'll get the update next time with more features"? Because a lot of people were doing exactly this. And what if one update requires a new version of Mac OS? Which in turn requires newer hardware, or is incompatible with another piece of software?
My point is: with a subscription, you take away customers' freedom to choose what's best - they're in on Adobe's terms, or they're out. And I guess for a lot of creators this means they'll be out - or, you know, running CS6.
This should open opportunities for other developers to fill a hole. Like Sketch for Mac is replacing Photoshop for UI design. Although it may be hard for full time designers to not have access to Adobe tools, just like you still cannot get past Microsoft Word in lots of jobs. (Office became subscription-only, too. Hmm!)
Legally, Adobe and The Soulmen have all rights to be picky about customers. If they prefer steady income over more customers, so be it. But then the ethics get twisted: from serving people to making profit. No point in denying that. But that's usually not how companies frame it :)
The problem is that, to use Adobe and Autodesk products, you bind yourself to proprietary formats. If you stop paying for, say, Illustrator or AutoCAD, you lose part or all of your work, since no other program supports the format 100%.
This is a problem for us customers/users who are now locked in. But it's not a morally bad move per se. It's shady. You know what they are up to. But it's hard to make an argument for opening up the format to the public when it's part of their business model.
Well, the fact that it's used to keep users in place is, inherently, dishonest and unethical. Short-term profitable, perhaps, but such shady practices always ultimately end badly for the company. ;) (Literally just wrote an article about it.)
"Only" is a bit strong - in fact, I'd say "only" and "never" are often pretty reliable flags that the speaker is overlooking something.
I agree that subscription is a viable model for some projects; my company is going to use it for one of our games. However, there are very successful products that don't follow that model.
For example, look at Minecraft. You pay once, and play forever. Yet, it is in the running to become the most profitable and popular computer game in history. They continue to make money from it. How? Users buy the game for different platforms (PC, mobile, XBox), build awesome things, and in turn encourage other people to purchase the game. New users continue to age into the game, so there continues to be a demand. Yes, they also make money through an add-on subscription service, Realms, but Minecraft itself is pay-once-play-forever. Arguably, that is why they succeeded. The adoption would be much lower if the core game were subscription-only.
In a similar way, the subscription model is actually harmful to consumers in some cases, and in turn harms the product. As Microsoft Office switches to a subscription-only service, people have begun to migrate away to options they can afford: WPS (Kingsoft), Google Docs, and LibreOffice continue to take away huge chunks of Microsoft Office's user base. The subscription model is actively harming Office.
When a product is vital to someone's career - say, products from Adobe, Autodesk, or Intuit (or, again, Microsoft Office) - then a subscription model is viewed as a racket by many disgruntled users. Many people are dependent upon Photoshop, 3DSMax, QuickBooks, AutoCAD, and so on. By being forced to pay every month just to have what they need to work, the subscription models mentally translates to paying a mob syndicate for the right to work. This, in turn, fuels hatred for the company, which encourages other companies and entities to create alternatives that aren't subscription-based (possibly even open source).
Thus, in some cases, the subscription model isn't sustainable. Eventually Adobe, Autodesk, and Intuit will lose their place in the world, the same as many industry-standard monopolies of yesteryear. People will increasingly hesitate to buy into new products from these companies, because they know they're just being taken advantage of. By destroying the trust that users once had in them, these companies will be unable to pivot, and will die off. It's a pattern not exclusive to software: history is rife with examples of this.
In short, consider the effects of your model on your customers. Will subscription-based make sense for them? Will they actually come back, or feel jilted? Subscription-based can work in many cases, but others are reliably sustained by other means: paid support (Red Hat), add-ons and extensions, expanding the user base (Mojang), or a broad range of products (Rovio).
Very intereting point you make here! Even though Adobe CS subscription pricing is cheaper over the years than the old paid upgrades, now people are forced into it and cannot take the way of "save money for a while, buy once, update never." It's less choice, not just more awesomenes.
Adobe's subscription might be cheaper than upgrading every time was, but is it also cheaper if you decide "hey, I can't afford to upgrade right now, I'll get the update next time with more features"? Because a lot of people were doing exactly this. And what if one update requires a new version of Mac OS? Which in turn requires newer hardware, or is incompatible with another piece of software?
My point is: with a subscription, you take away customers' freedom to choose what's best - they're in on Adobe's terms, or they're out. And I guess for a lot of creators this means they'll be out - or, you know, running CS6.
I totally agree.
This should open opportunities for other developers to fill a hole. Like Sketch for Mac is replacing Photoshop for UI design. Although it may be hard for full time designers to not have access to Adobe tools, just like you still cannot get past Microsoft Word in lots of jobs. (Office became subscription-only, too. Hmm!)
Legally, Adobe and The Soulmen have all rights to be picky about customers. If they prefer steady income over more customers, so be it. But then the ethics get twisted: from serving people to making profit. No point in denying that. But that's usually not how companies frame it :)
The problem is that, to use Adobe and Autodesk products, you bind yourself to proprietary formats. If you stop paying for, say, Illustrator or AutoCAD, you lose part or all of your work, since no other program supports the format 100%.
This is a problem for us customers/users who are now locked in. But it's not a morally bad move per se. It's shady. You know what they are up to. But it's hard to make an argument for opening up the format to the public when it's part of their business model.
Well, the fact that it's used to keep users in place is, inherently, dishonest and unethical. Short-term profitable, perhaps, but such shady practices always ultimately end badly for the company. ;) (Literally just wrote an article about it.)
I'd like to think so, for the sake of ultimate justice and all 👍 :) What's the URL of your article?
Here you go: dev.to/codemouse92/the-other-ranso...