3 ms·
I can see both sides of that coin. Yes, the thought of adding another recurring subscription can be a barrier. But I think people are becoming increasingly mor
by nucleardog 9y ago
I can see both sides of that coin.
Yes, the thought of adding another recurring subscription can be a barrier. But I think people are becoming increasingly more comfortable with that (Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc, etc, have all opened that door).
And when you get into the more expensive software, I would imagine that the subscription model makes it a lot more accessible and increases the number of people actually paying.
Previously, I'd have had to pay $230 for Microsoft Office and $1300 for the Adobe "Design Standard" collection. $1,530 to get up and running is something no non-business user is ever going to swallow. Even if I plan to make money off of the software, $1530 is just a lot of money to come up with at one time.
Under the subscription model, you're just agreeing to have $60 charged to your credit card every month. Anyone who actually needs the software probably won't think twice about that.
- nhtoe78hnt 9y agoI don't know. I used to make money off of Photoshop and was happy to pay the up-front fee. It's no longer a money-maker for me, but I still have and use CS5. I think it's been something like 5 or 6 years and I haven't needed any of the new features since then. If I were still making money at it, then yeah, it might be worth it. But it's nice to know that if cashflow gets tight, I don't have to keep paying a fee. I can stay at the version I have now and continue to do the same work (and continue to be able to open my own goddamn files!) without paying anyone. Being stuck with a product that won't work if I'm offline for 30 days (say I'm on assignment is a 3rd world country. What then?), or if my connection goes down or their company folds, or their server is attacked at a time that's critical for my business, is unacceptable.