3 ms·

> 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 w

> 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.

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.