Adobe subscription-based

This is old news, but I just discovered Adobe is doing away with the perpetual license and have switched to a subscription-based license. Ok... but is it worth it? Turns out it's a lot more expensive than upgrading every two years (approximate release cycle) in the long run.

Using Creative Suite Master Collection as an example:
The cost of buying the software ($2350-$2600) itself is treated as sunk cost, and can be spread out over many years. Assuming a 2 year release cycle, you either pay $1200 bi-annually or $435-$525 per upgrade. Don't forget prices tend to depreciate over time with perpetual licenses, not so with annual licenses. This is a hidden price hike! Adobe claims the consumers love it. I don't know if that's BS or if the consumers are blind-sided by the cheaper "upfront" cost. These are folks who probably think rent is cheaper than buying a home in the long run.

If you want the software that badly then take out a damn loan to pay for the sunk cost. You'll recoup your cost (assuming you upgrade all the time) on the 4th generation. In order for the subscription-based model to work is if it's cheaper than the upgrade price or the release cycle is shortened. But the way Adobe has it is outrageous.

I hope Windows OS doesn't become like Adobe. On a 3 year release cycle, which is better: $93 (Pro edition upgrade) or $3.33/mo? While $3.33/mo may seem cheap, it's in fact a $26.88 price hike on the retail upgrade price! Unfortunately not many average joes understand what "sunk cost" means. You don't get emotional over the price you paid for Windows XP or 7 in the past and use that as a justifiable excuse why you shouldn't go for a perpetual license. Have people forgotten how to budget their expenses!? If you want to save up for the next Windows upgrade ($93), then set aside $2.59-$3.00/mo for 3 years, which is better than Microsoft holding your hand and making you pay $3.33/mo! I guess this "hand-holding" thing adds to the cost

[/rant]

 

That's why if you got the media based CS verison keep those...and download the updates just in case Adobe decides to remove those update. They were trying to make money from the users why else go subscription based usage...it's all about making money......

 

Every company is about making money. If they want to hike their prices, it's their decision to do so, and I'll respect their decision. It's the use of deceit that irks me. I can't stick with CS6 forever just as I didn't stick with Microsoft Word 95. Adobe Audition CS6 does not support 64 bit. It is in Adobe Audition CC so you can probably see my dilemma.

The problem is that Adobe has taken away the option to buy a perpetual license. They COULD have offered both an annual/monthly fee or a perpetual fee plus the optional monthly service fee, but they chose not to. Is it due to piracy?

Saying consumers preferred the new business model and then using that as a justification for taking away the perpetual license is full of deceit. There's some ulterior motive going on behind the scenes. Imagine if the government banned home-ownerships because they found consumers preferred renting homes! Luckily we have the option to rent or buy.

Autodesk's business model is a win-win solution. They offer both the annual and perpetual license. If you go with a perpetual license and upgrade every time a new version comes out, it'll cost you more than the subscription-based license; these are mainly for the consumers who choose not to upgrade often. Those who want to keep up with the latest version should go with the subscription-based license. As a bonus, you get services unlike the perpetual license.

 

NO, in the end it's about their bottom line. Most users of Adobe know that and their own line isn't flying. If they did a CS7 trust me people will buy those discs suite that isn't rocket science to know. It's all about their share holder and making more money for them. Subscription based the users loose in the end and Adobe makes the money. That's the straight trust of it.