7 ms·

Adobe shambles – Why subscription software should be illegal

32 points by bricss 7y ago

inamberclad 7y ago
Did they ever explain why Photoshop used to be priced so much more in Australia? https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/it-is-cheaper-to-fly-to-us-than-buy-adobe-software-in-australia/news-story/158aa7824a22e1e66611c2afb5e7a61a https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/it-is-cheaper-to-fl...
- viraptor 7y ago
  Australia tax. It's not specific to Adobe unfortunately and basically it exists because what else are we going to do? Not buy things? Same with games. Latest fire emblem: US: 45 USD = 65 AUD. Australia: 80 AUD. 23% more because they can.
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    It's the same with poor countries. I don't play games now, but when I was young and lived in Eastern Europe, by some miracle my mother brought me PS1 with one free game included for Christmas. The non pirate games cost about 50 dollars at the time. My middle class mother Made 250 a month... I got the machine modded and bought few pirated games... It was impossible for us to afford originals.
    - y_molodtsov 7y ago
      That’s different, you’re just getting the same price as the entire world. Purchasing power is different, yes.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dinkleberg 7y ago
I don't like Adobe's 12 month lock-in pricing, but saying subscription software should be illegal is ridiculous. Especially using a single company's practices as proof. This just strikes me as an angry rant post with a selfish premise. There is no consideration about the sustainability of a software business and why they tend to move towards subscription-bases. And consider how much value you are getting out of the tool. Does $50/month for the tool that allows you to do your trade (and always having access to the latest features) really seem ridiculous? Seems like a fairly trivial business expense to me. But if you don't like it, don't use premiere. There are plenty of options out there that aren't subscription only.
- yvan-eht-nioj 7y ago
  The problem is that they’ve trapped businesses in with proprietary file formats, and are now using that to bend everyone over a barrel and hold them hostage. You want to move to Affinity? Good luck when your corporate client requires you to edit an .indd file created years ago when the license didn’t require large sums of money regularly thrown at it.
  - dinkleberg 7y ago
    You're not wrong there, I definitely agree about Adobe's business practices being shady. My main argument is against them saying that subscription software should be illegal.
    - chii 7y ago
      subscription software should be illegal _if_ the software does not also contain a feature to port/export your data out in a standard (and supported-by-a-competitor) format. If they are able to hold your data hostage, then it's not a free-association relationship, and should not be called a subscription, but instead an extortion. Sell me a perpetual license, or sell me a subscription plus ability to move away.
      - ttoinou 7y ago
mruts 7y ago
Why is he talking about subscription software being illegal while also talking about how Adobe sucks? If he was happy with his subscription, I doubt he would have written this post. Yet, being happy with a subscription has a little to do on the morality of it. Of course, no one actually thinks subscription software should be illegal. Maybe he's making a distinction between software that can operate offline and internet dependent software? > I also think that paying once to OWN software should be practically a human right. It’s my operating system, my computer, and I don’t see why I should be renting part of it from some greedy little fuckwits. It's not even your operating system, or computer. You can't do anything you want with them. For BSD, you have to keep the copyright, for Linux, you have to redistribute the source if you redistribute the binary, and for Windows you can't really do anything. If he doesn't want any new Photoshop features, I'm sure he can find an old binary that works for free on the internet. Or he could just switch to something else.
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  Happy GIMP user here. GIMP is probably the most apparent "something else". But talking to my friends who use Photoshop, apparently the learning curve of GIMP is too steep. It doesn't work the way Photoshop does, and so they don't use it. I find this odd.. they'd prefer to carry on paying hundreds of cash each year to use a buggy piece of software that they know, instead of using this awesome piece of software for free with the minimal investment of a few days learning. People are weird.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    > It doesn't work the way Photoshop does, and so they don't use it. It's not just the way it works. It simply does not have a lot of features present in Photoshop, starting with non-destructive filter layers. It's not just different, it's objectively worse to work with, because you can't adjust filters retroactively, wasting time to undo to the right place, then reapply everything. If that works for you, great! But you're oversimplifying reasons it may not work for others.
  - dinkleberg 7y ago
    I don't know what your friends professions are, but if photoshop is a regular part of it, then the productivity gains are worth the cost. It's the same reason I pay for JetBrains IDEs. I've got friends who say why in the world would you pay for an IDE when you can do everything for free with VS Code. But my productivity is so much higher with pycharm + webstorm, so I pay. And maybe I am weird, but I like to pay people for the work that they do that makes my life better.
kachurovskiy 7y ago
I also got very upset with Adobe subscription model and simply switched to Affinity Photo / Designer and DaVinci Resolve. Never looked back.
Isinlor 7y ago
Adobe could easily crank up the price up to 10000$ per month and still, with total certainty, it should not be illegal. Sponsor GIMP or any other competition if you don't like Adobe product. If you think the competition is inferior in quality, well, now you know what you pay for.
Archit3ch 7y ago
Hot take: Subscription models actually reflect the costs of software development better than an one-off purchase. They link the value provided by updates/maintenance to a tangible cost. If we agree that software isn't ever finished, shouldn't the economics reflect that? Adobe expects businessess to pay for the tools of their trade, not hobbyists. Consumers are better served by a front-loaded buy-once model that includes free updates, but Adobe doesn't want to be in the B2C space. The author also describes Adobe's products as "basic tools". As someone who doesn't use them, they seem anything but.
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  I do not agree with the premise that software is never finished.
  - astrophysician 7y ago
    Is there a piece of software that doesn’t require even occasional bug fixes or updates in order for it to run reliably on even a single operating system/browser?
    - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      Service agreements exist for that reason. That’s not the same as a subscription model because I have the option of purchasing that.
      - zeroimpl 7y ago
        But when all your apps stop working every time you install a major OS update, are you saying you would be happy to pay again? Because most people will whine like crazy.
        JustSomeNobody 7y ago
        That doesn’t happen with every platform. Windows is backwards compatible for forever.
heavymark 7y ago
The mass market is use to paying little up front and expect updates and fixes forever for that one time fee which of course is non sustainable, subscription software is/can be. I certainly hope we are not a place where something should be illegal because you disagree with one company/person. How is this on HackerNews?
- JustSomeNobody 7y ago
  In fairness it wasn’t always like this. People used to buy a box copy of SW for a fair price. then software shops started offering the $.99 app when app stores got into vogue. Now they want to migrate everyone to subscription models.
  - giobox 7y ago
    The definition of “mass market” changed hugely too from the shelved box software era to app stores, so much so that I’m not even sure how fair it is to compare anymore. I’d argue that the majority of customers in the software market didn’t really evolve with the distribution model; phones arguably just expanded distribution to a great many people who previously weren’t software customers of any kind or rarely made software purchases at all (beyond that which came for “free” on their devices), many of whom appear to think paying for software in any fashion is almost unthinkable.
    - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
      > many of whom appear to think paying for software in any fashion is almost unthinkable. I still don't see how the fault lies with the customer. Look at all the software they get to use for free or cheap because the software shops made it available for free (with ads) or cheap ($.99 apps). This is not the customer's fault; they were trained to think this way.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    People didn’t buy software - they pirated it. Businesses bought software.
- 7y ago
thisispete 7y ago
Switched to Affinity last year. Never been happier with my tool selection.
appstorelottery 7y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/cirhpc/100_price_increase_for_creative_cloud_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/cirhpc/100_pr... By coincidence I saw this rant on PCmaster race today. 100% price increase.
jesseschalken 7y ago
> I don't like the deal company X is offering me so the government should ban it.

32 points by bricss 7y ago

Did they ever explain why Photoshop used to be priced so much more in Australia? https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/it-is-cheaper-to-fly-to-us-than-buy-adobe-software-in-australia/news-story/158aa7824a22e1e66611c2afb5e7a61a https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/it-is-cheaper-to-fl...

viraptor 7y ago
Australia tax. It's not specific to Adobe unfortunately and basically it exists because what else are we going to do? Not buy things? Same with games. Latest fire emblem: US: 45 USD = 65 AUD. Australia: 80 AUD. 23% more because they can.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  It's the same with poor countries. I don't play games now, but when I was young and lived in Eastern Europe, by some miracle my mother brought me PS1 with one free game included for Christmas. The non pirate games cost about 50 dollars at the time. My middle class mother Made 250 a month... I got the machine modded and bought few pirated games... It was impossible for us to afford originals.
  - y_molodtsov 7y ago
    That’s different, you’re just getting the same price as the entire world. Purchasing power is different, yes.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dinkleberg 7y ago

I don't like Adobe's 12 month lock-in pricing, but saying subscription software should be illegal is ridiculous. Especially using a single company's practices as proof. This just strikes me as an angry rant post with a selfish premise. There is no consideration about the sustainability of a software business and why they tend to move towards subscription-bases. And consider how much value you are getting out of the tool. Does $50/month for the tool that allows you to do your trade (and always having access to the latest features) really seem ridiculous? Seems like a fairly trivial business expense to me. But if you don't like it, don't use premiere. There are plenty of options out there that aren't subscription only.

yvan-eht-nioj 7y ago
The problem is that they’ve trapped businesses in with proprietary file formats, and are now using that to bend everyone over a barrel and hold them hostage. You want to move to Affinity? Good luck when your corporate client requires you to edit an .indd file created years ago when the license didn’t require large sums of money regularly thrown at it.
- dinkleberg 7y ago
  You're not wrong there, I definitely agree about Adobe's business practices being shady. My main argument is against them saying that subscription software should be illegal.
  - chii 7y ago
    subscription software should be illegal _if_ the software does not also contain a feature to port/export your data out in a standard (and supported-by-a-competitor) format. If they are able to hold your data hostage, then it's not a free-association relationship, and should not be called a subscription, but instead an extortion. Sell me a perpetual license, or sell me a subscription plus ability to move away.
    - ttoinou 7y ago

mruts 7y ago

Why is he talking about subscription software being illegal while also talking about how Adobe sucks? If he was happy with his subscription, I doubt he would have written this post. Yet, being happy with a subscription has a little to do on the morality of it. Of course, no one actually thinks subscription software should be illegal. Maybe he's making a distinction between software that can operate offline and internet dependent software? > I also think that paying once to OWN software should be practically a human right. It’s my operating system, my computer, and I don’t see why I should be renting part of it from some greedy little fuckwits. It's not even your operating system, or computer. You can't do anything you want with them. For BSD, you have to keep the copyright, for Linux, you have to redistribute the source if you redistribute the binary, and for Windows you can't really do anything. If he doesn't want any new Photoshop features, I'm sure he can find an old binary that works for free on the internet. Or he could just switch to something else.

marcus_holmes 7y ago
Happy GIMP user here. GIMP is probably the most apparent "something else". But talking to my friends who use Photoshop, apparently the learning curve of GIMP is too steep. It doesn't work the way Photoshop does, and so they don't use it. I find this odd.. they'd prefer to carry on paying hundreds of cash each year to use a buggy piece of software that they know, instead of using this awesome piece of software for free with the minimal investment of a few days learning. People are weird.
- viraptor 7y ago
  > It doesn't work the way Photoshop does, and so they don't use it. It's not just the way it works. It simply does not have a lot of features present in Photoshop, starting with non-destructive filter layers. It's not just different, it's objectively worse to work with, because you can't adjust filters retroactively, wasting time to undo to the right place, then reapply everything. If that works for you, great! But you're oversimplifying reasons it may not work for others.
- dinkleberg 7y ago
  I don't know what your friends professions are, but if photoshop is a regular part of it, then the productivity gains are worth the cost. It's the same reason I pay for JetBrains IDEs. I've got friends who say why in the world would you pay for an IDE when you can do everything for free with VS Code. But my productivity is so much higher with pycharm + webstorm, so I pay. And maybe I am weird, but I like to pay people for the work that they do that makes my life better.

kachurovskiy 7y ago

I also got very upset with Adobe subscription model and simply switched to Affinity Photo / Designer and DaVinci Resolve. Never looked back.

Isinlor 7y ago

Adobe could easily crank up the price up to 10000$ per month and still, with total certainty, it should not be illegal. Sponsor GIMP or any other competition if you don't like Adobe product. If you think the competition is inferior in quality, well, now you know what you pay for.

Archit3ch 7y ago

Hot take: Subscription models actually reflect the costs of software development better than an one-off purchase. They link the value provided by updates/maintenance to a tangible cost. If we agree that software isn't ever finished, shouldn't the economics reflect that? Adobe expects businessess to pay for the tools of their trade, not hobbyists. Consumers are better served by a front-loaded buy-once model that includes free updates, but Adobe doesn't want to be in the B2C space. The author also describes Adobe's products as "basic tools". As someone who doesn't use them, they seem anything but.

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
I do not agree with the premise that software is never finished.
- astrophysician 7y ago
  Is there a piece of software that doesn’t require even occasional bug fixes or updates in order for it to run reliably on even a single operating system/browser?
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    Service agreements exist for that reason. That’s not the same as a subscription model because I have the option of purchasing that.
    - zeroimpl 7y ago
      But when all your apps stop working every time you install a major OS update, are you saying you would be happy to pay again? Because most people will whine like crazy.
      - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
        That doesn’t happen with every platform. Windows is backwards compatible for forever.

heavymark 7y ago

The mass market is use to paying little up front and expect updates and fixes forever for that one time fee which of course is non sustainable, subscription software is/can be. I certainly hope we are not a place where something should be illegal because you disagree with one company/person. How is this on HackerNews?

JustSomeNobody 7y ago
In fairness it wasn’t always like this. People used to buy a box copy of SW for a fair price. then software shops started offering the $.99 app when app stores got into vogue. Now they want to migrate everyone to subscription models.
- giobox 7y ago
  The definition of “mass market” changed hugely too from the shelved box software era to app stores, so much so that I’m not even sure how fair it is to compare anymore. I’d argue that the majority of customers in the software market didn’t really evolve with the distribution model; phones arguably just expanded distribution to a great many people who previously weren’t software customers of any kind or rarely made software purchases at all (beyond that which came for “free” on their devices), many of whom appear to think paying for software in any fashion is almost unthinkable.
  - JustSomeNobody 7y ago
    > many of whom appear to think paying for software in any fashion is almost unthinkable. I still don't see how the fault lies with the customer. Look at all the software they get to use for free or cheap because the software shops made it available for free (with ads) or cheap ($.99 apps). This is not the customer's fault; they were trained to think this way.
- scarface74 7y ago
  People didn’t buy software - they pirated it. Businesses bought software.
7y ago

thisispete 7y ago

Switched to Affinity last year. Never been happier with my tool selection.

appstorelottery 7y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/cirhpc/100_price_increase_for_creative_cloud_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/cirhpc/100_pr... By coincidence I saw this rant on PCmaster race today. 100% price increase.

jesseschalken 7y ago

> I don't like the deal company X is offering me so the government should ban it.