4 ms·

> after six months of no improvements Historical Adobe releases were years apart but you're unhappy with a couple of months because it's a subscription? I can'

> after six months of no improvements Historical Adobe releases were years apart but you're unhappy with a couple of months because it's a subscription? I can't follow this logic. Below history is just Photoshop, and if anything it looks like change velocity has increased since it became subscription-based. https://adobe.fandom.com/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_release_history https://adobe.fandom.com/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_release_histor...

justinmeiners 6y ago
> Historical Adobe releases were years apart Because they were new versions and they had to sell you on the upgrade. Presumably one of the advantages of subscriptions is they can make ongoing improvements regularly as opposed to big releases. They release updates now, they just don't have many new features.
- trickldwn8nxjf 6y ago
  Blender costs nothing and is used extensively throughout the digital media industry. Presumably the advantages of a subscription is to cater to the meme “free == fascism”.
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    Blender is great. I use it myself (3D resin printing). But I've also used similar software I had to pay for, which was much better than Blender overall. Same way Photoshop is better than Gimp, and Windows UI is still better than Gnome/KDE. Sometimes to get great software and experience, you have to pay for it. And that's ok, it doesn't make the free software, like Blender, any less eff'ing awesome.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > they just don't have many new features. The feature cadence over a 2-year period doesn't look any different to me. The only change is you're getting piecemeal changes faster vs. a large number of changes all at once.
Marsymars 6y ago
> Historical Adobe releases were years apart but you're unhappy with a couple of months because it's a subscription? I can't follow this logic. I was unhappy with the overall product/service. Since I was paying on a subscription basis, I'd spent less money over those months than I would have on a full release, so had more money to switch to an alternative. There's also no psychological burden of a sunk cost on the status quo - you feel free to switch at any time there's a better alternative. My problems weren't that Adobe hadn't made general improvements in the six months time frame, it's that I had specific issues that they didn't address, and I didn't want to keep paying a monthly fee to be having those specific issues.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > It's that I had specific issues that they didn't address, and I didn't want to keep paying a monthly fee to be having those specific issues. So let me get this straight. Adobe has adopted a payment model that allows customer to more easily switch to alternatives (thanks to no large upfront cost), while simultaneously making more changes overall to the software over the same fixed-period of time, but because those changes didn't match your exact needs in the moment you had them you switched to an alternative? How is Adobe the bad guy in this situation? Not necessarily saying your comment is painting Adobe negatively, but that seems to be the general feeling towards Adobe's subscription model in this thread. It seems like a pretty good deal to be able to minimize your investment in a software product.
  - Marsymars 6y ago
    I don't have a problem with Adobe's subscription model - just providing my own anecdote about how subscription models saved me from giving Adobe money, and avoided software lock-in. I'm incentivizing faster improvements by only giving my subscription dollars to companies who deliver - and I can evaluate who delivers on a monthly basis.

justinmeiners 6y ago

> Historical Adobe releases were years apart Because they were new versions and they had to sell you on the upgrade. Presumably one of the advantages of subscriptions is they can make ongoing improvements regularly as opposed to big releases. They release updates now, they just don't have many new features.

trickldwn8nxjf 6y ago
Blender costs nothing and is used extensively throughout the digital media industry. Presumably the advantages of a subscription is to cater to the meme “free == fascism”.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  Blender is great. I use it myself (3D resin printing). But I've also used similar software I had to pay for, which was much better than Blender overall. Same way Photoshop is better than Gimp, and Windows UI is still better than Gnome/KDE. Sometimes to get great software and experience, you have to pay for it. And that's ok, it doesn't make the free software, like Blender, any less eff'ing awesome.
tomnipotent 6y ago
> they just don't have many new features. The feature cadence over a 2-year period doesn't look any different to me. The only change is you're getting piecemeal changes faster vs. a large number of changes all at once.

Marsymars 6y ago

> Historical Adobe releases were years apart but you're unhappy with a couple of months because it's a subscription? I can't follow this logic. I was unhappy with the overall product/service. Since I was paying on a subscription basis, I'd spent less money over those months than I would have on a full release, so had more money to switch to an alternative. There's also no psychological burden of a sunk cost on the status quo - you feel free to switch at any time there's a better alternative. My problems weren't that Adobe hadn't made general improvements in the six months time frame, it's that I had specific issues that they didn't address, and I didn't want to keep paying a monthly fee to be having those specific issues.

tomnipotent 6y ago
> It's that I had specific issues that they didn't address, and I didn't want to keep paying a monthly fee to be having those specific issues. So let me get this straight. Adobe has adopted a payment model that allows customer to more easily switch to alternatives (thanks to no large upfront cost), while simultaneously making more changes overall to the software over the same fixed-period of time, but because those changes didn't match your exact needs in the moment you had them you switched to an alternative? How is Adobe the bad guy in this situation? Not necessarily saying your comment is painting Adobe negatively, but that seems to be the general feeling towards Adobe's subscription model in this thread. It seems like a pretty good deal to be able to minimize your investment in a software product.
- Marsymars 6y ago
  I don't have a problem with Adobe's subscription model - just providing my own anecdote about how subscription models saved me from giving Adobe money, and avoided software lock-in. I'm incentivizing faster improvements by only giving my subscription dollars to companies who deliver - and I can evaluate who delivers on a monthly basis.