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.)
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...