7 ms·

> When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. I was actually quite supportive of Adobe's initial SaaS strategy. It was well and truly a

> When creative cloud was very first released, it was excellent value. I was actually quite supportive of Adobe's initial SaaS strategy. It was well and truly a "why would anyone ever pirate photoshop ever again?" type of product. This is the entire issue with these kinds of things. They always launch at a good value because they know they can capture the market. Yes if they were benevolent or whatever it'd be fine, but these things almost ALWAYS turn into cluster fucks. They couldn't launch at worse value than the current product line because they need full adoption before they can put the screws to you.

mistrial9 2y ago
agree but I would reverse the cause and effect.. launch great experience on the web+cloud to gain traction.. then Because it is so Easy to Do It, change the terms of service, the benefits, the longevity, the billing practices, the prices.. etc IMO pathetic to see a well-loved brand degenerate in the public.. especially while Apple counts that cash (and ways they ran rough over their former "friend" )
- swores 2y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading somehow but you seem to be saying the exact same thing as the person you replied to, without reversing anything?
  - Matl 2y ago
    If I am reading the post you're replying to correctly they're saying that maybe it's not that they launched with a good value prop with a plan to screw you later, but rather that because the initial launch went so well and everyone says what a good value it is that maybe the SaaS vendor says to themselves, 'screw it, we're delivering so much value, let's raise prices'. But I agree that there's little difference between the two ultimately.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    Adobe did not "capture" the old single license sales customers, they are just walking away from them.. any way they can, into the cloud.. the results look similar but thinking about the power dynamics that drive them, here... what I meant to say is.. that the driver to launch a great experience is first, then it is easy and tempting to change the cloud terms.. not compared to the deal you get with desktop purchase.. not because you captured the single license customers with better deals in the cloud.. but because the cloud is just so easy to change, the money so tempting.. maybe the anecdote.. when Apple stopped caring so much about the desktop, after the iPhone.. they did not "capture" the single sale customers.. they just walked away to focus completely on the new, more profitable model
duped 2y ago
Or you do what everyone else does, which is force everyone to adopt the SaaS model by revoking their licenses or otherwise bricking the software. That's why it's important to own your own data in a way that can be reused and adapted when they try and screw you later. You see this all the time with video games nowadays. Everyone wants their own launcher and subscription services.
- exe34 2y ago
  I'll never again learn another proprietary tech unless I'm getting paid to do it. open source or nothing.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    100% agree. I would also add an explicit exception to the DMCA. Cracking copy protection on software you bought legally because the copy protection has failed in a way that prevents the software from working should be legal.
    - exe34 2y ago
      I don't buy ebooks with drm anymore, and when I buy movies on Amazon I treat them as a long term rental.
      - boringg 2y ago
        Buying movies online is such a waste. Long term rental mentality indeed.
        exe34 2y ago
        I try to save it for obscure things that aren't easily available
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    That's sadly why I stick with Windows. I am perfectly comfortable in Linux, but I know my next place of work will inevitably throw Windows hardware at me. And some vital professional tools only have Linux support in the most superficial stance. But yeah, trying to make sure anything else I have control over.
CrimsonCape 2y ago
Every corporate leader has the opportunity to "bring value" to the company by upping the subscription fee a few dollars. Profits increase, shareholders are happy. Better than trying to solve twenty year old bugs or worse, refactor legacy code.
shostack 2y ago
Which is where they shift focus to lock in and growing the amount of your things that live in their walled cloud garden.
doe_eyes 2y ago
And we keep falling for it, too. Folks on HN and elsewhere are fawning over Fusion360, despite Autodesk having a long history of being worse than Adobe and pulling the rug on individual features more than once. People spend thousands of dollars on 3D printers or CNC mills, but the idea of spending several hundred bucks on "buy-to-own" software is so outmoded... The other reason you have all these subscription models is that they obscure the total cost of ownership. Spending $300 on photo editing software seems like a big commitment. Paying $20/mo for a decade is easier. But when you add up Creative Suite, Office365, Xbox Game Pass, Spotify, Netflix, Squarespace, and whatnot, it's all of sudden a big chunk of your disposable income.
atoav 2y ago
Just as if the goal of corporations isn't to provide value, but to extract value.

mistrial9 2y ago

agree but I would reverse the cause and effect.. launch great experience on the web+cloud to gain traction.. then Because it is so Easy to Do It, change the terms of service, the benefits, the longevity, the billing practices, the prices.. etc IMO pathetic to see a well-loved brand degenerate in the public.. especially while Apple counts that cash (and ways they ran rough over their former "friend" )

swores 2y ago
Maybe I'm misreading somehow but you seem to be saying the exact same thing as the person you replied to, without reversing anything?
- Matl 2y ago
  If I am reading the post you're replying to correctly they're saying that maybe it's not that they launched with a good value prop with a plan to screw you later, but rather that because the initial launch went so well and everyone says what a good value it is that maybe the SaaS vendor says to themselves, 'screw it, we're delivering so much value, let's raise prices'. But I agree that there's little difference between the two ultimately.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  Adobe did not "capture" the old single license sales customers, they are just walking away from them.. any way they can, into the cloud.. the results look similar but thinking about the power dynamics that drive them, here... what I meant to say is.. that the driver to launch a great experience is first, then it is easy and tempting to change the cloud terms.. not compared to the deal you get with desktop purchase.. not because you captured the single license customers with better deals in the cloud.. but because the cloud is just so easy to change, the money so tempting.. maybe the anecdote.. when Apple stopped caring so much about the desktop, after the iPhone.. they did not "capture" the single sale customers.. they just walked away to focus completely on the new, more profitable model

duped 2y ago

Or you do what everyone else does, which is force everyone to adopt the SaaS model by revoking their licenses or otherwise bricking the software. That's why it's important to own your own data in a way that can be reused and adapted when they try and screw you later. You see this all the time with video games nowadays. Everyone wants their own launcher and subscription services.

exe34 2y ago
I'll never again learn another proprietary tech unless I'm getting paid to do it. open source or nothing.
- jandrese 2y ago
  100% agree. I would also add an explicit exception to the DMCA. Cracking copy protection on software you bought legally because the copy protection has failed in a way that prevents the software from working should be legal.
  - exe34 2y ago
    I don't buy ebooks with drm anymore, and when I buy movies on Amazon I treat them as a long term rental.
    - boringg 2y ago
      Buying movies online is such a waste. Long term rental mentality indeed.
      - exe34 2y ago
        I try to save it for obscure things that aren't easily available
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  That's sadly why I stick with Windows. I am perfectly comfortable in Linux, but I know my next place of work will inevitably throw Windows hardware at me. And some vital professional tools only have Linux support in the most superficial stance. But yeah, trying to make sure anything else I have control over.

CrimsonCape 2y ago

Every corporate leader has the opportunity to "bring value" to the company by upping the subscription fee a few dollars. Profits increase, shareholders are happy. Better than trying to solve twenty year old bugs or worse, refactor legacy code.

shostack 2y ago

Which is where they shift focus to lock in and growing the amount of your things that live in their walled cloud garden.

doe_eyes 2y ago

And we keep falling for it, too. Folks on HN and elsewhere are fawning over Fusion360, despite Autodesk having a long history of being worse than Adobe and pulling the rug on individual features more than once. People spend thousands of dollars on 3D printers or CNC mills, but the idea of spending several hundred bucks on "buy-to-own" software is so outmoded... The other reason you have all these subscription models is that they obscure the total cost of ownership. Spending $300 on photo editing software seems like a big commitment. Paying $20/mo for a decade is easier. But when you add up Creative Suite, Office365, Xbox Game Pass, Spotify, Netflix, Squarespace, and whatnot, it's all of sudden a big chunk of your disposable income.

atoav 2y ago

Just as if the goal of corporations isn't to provide value, but to extract value.