4 ms·

Looks like this is to focus on their subscription model or something along those lines. Haven't tried Autodesk's subscription, but I will say that I (unlike ma

• pixl97 11y ago
  >General mistrust of the business model? When your company requires the software to do its daily business, any misstep by the software company is a serious liability. When you 'buy' a copy of the software it is yours to run, and if the parent goes out of business you may not be able to reactivate it, at least it still runs. With the rental model, you are in much the same boat as a person who rents a house, when the landlord wants to charge more you pay it or get evicted.
  • justinclift 11y ago
    Exactly. Does anyone believe Autodesk won't pull an Oracle once they've transitioned their products to be Cloud only. I don't. :( Hopefully I'm wrong. :)
  • Silhouette 11y ago
    With the rental model, you are in much the same boat as a person who rents a house, when the landlord wants to charge more you pay it or get evicted. Except that in the case of software, if either your data is locked up in some proprietary way or there is no competing software with a similar feature set anyway, you get evicted and there's no other landlord offering you an alternative place to live.
• blue1 11y ago
  For me, the hate is about several things: (a) CC's price make sense only when compared to the price of upgrading the Creative Suite at every release (under the old model). But I did not do that; I used to upgrade every two/three releases: the Suite is mature software and in most cases there is no need to be on the cutting edge. By the way, I work in the design industry and this was standard practice. So for a lot of people the subscription model is much more expensive. (b) With perpetual licenses, one can stop upgrading and he will still be able to open the old files in the future if a need arises. With the subscription model, you are locked out of your own files. (Ironically, it has been noted, cracked software is more reliable, as it lasts forever). (c) Generally, then, this policy is clearly about Adobe's monopolistic greed and nothing else. There was no regard for the wish of users, as perpetual licensing was suppressed after CS6. Because of all this, I have put Adobe in my personal blacklist. I discourage people from using their products when possible.
  • dangerlibrary 11y ago
    You're right - for a professional it is more expensive and it absolutely was a move by Adobe to capture more of the value of their products (read: increase profit). The flip side of the argument, of course, is that more profitable companies have more room to innovate and experiment (Bell Labs, Kodak, Google, etc.) and Adobe isn't exactly resting on its laurels and allowing their products to stagnate. There is a valid argument about the additional engineering time being devoted to the necessary anti-circumvention and subscription services instead of better products for customers, but I'm not sure those criticisms stick in this particular case. I don't do much design work, so I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that Adobe products are the industry standard because they are unquestionably the best tools to accomplish most tasks.
    • Silhouette 11y ago
      ...Adobe isn't exactly resting on its laurels and allowing their products to stagnate. The thing is, if Adobe had been consistently developing valuable new functionality and making it available in newer versions, their customers would have been paying them to upgrade in the previous model as well. The fact that so many people didn't see enough added value to buy each major upgrade suggests objectively that the products were stagnating. Contrary to your argument, it therefore seems that having customers locked into the subscription model so the money is coming in anyway is a disincentive for Adobe to do better now, at least as long as the industry momentum and relative lack of competition keep customers signed up. I don't do much design work, so I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that Adobe products are the industry standard because they are unquestionably the best tools to accomplish most tasks. How Adobe products came to dominate parts of the industry is, as usual, a combination of actually being good at what they do and other, more commercial factors. However, the switch to a subscription model has opened up interesting and viable opportunities for disruption in the market. Credible competition is starting to appear and apparently do quite well in some niches previously dominated by Adobe's big titles, so that "unquestionably" is looking more questionable by the day.
      • rdudek 11y ago
• aikah 11y ago
  > am extremely happy with Photoshop CC CC got a lot of heat when it was introduced, a lot customers complained, but one just has to look at the numbers to see why it was the right move for Adobe, the profits literally exploded! It's no surprise every other vendor would want to move to a subscription model. But Adobe was able to pull it off BECAUSE they have a monopoly and people in the industry are stuck with Photoshop and Illustrator. There is some competition but it's nowhere near 25 years of tech contained in Photoshop. On the other hand if one is using a product and Adobe decide to discontinue that CC product, one is kind of, f..cked, because one doesn't own the software anymore. > Looks like this is to focus on their subscription model or something along those lines. It also mean they might discontinue some products, which is never good for the customer. That's what bother me with these monopolies, and Autodesk kind of own every relevant 3D software in the industry.
• agumonkey 11y ago
  I thought it was way more expensive. The European website says 12e/month. I see a lot of people who could benefit from just one month of use and 10 bucks is nothing. Although it works in the case that person already knows the software. Now I wonder how much learning material they sold since the subscription model is on.