Adobe and many other companies have to say this in their product agreement for legal purposes but it doesn't mean it'll do that. Can you think about the reason why Adobe may not like you, a customer who pays money buying their products, and terminate your account?
Happens all the time. Company A buys company B and kills their products. If you bought that app, you're annoyed because there won't be any future updates, and you'll eventually have to move off of it. If you're renting it by the month, you're hiring contractors to help you move off of the app before it stops working (at most) 180 days later.
It just occurred to me... just like so many have complained about "renting" vs. "owning" software, the diglloyd article also complains about making an investment into software that is only rented and what if Adobe decides down the road to shut down CC... sucks to just rent software, pay month after month, year after year, and then poof no more access. Well... does anyone here subscribe to diglloyd... he charges fees but his website does not allow any downloads as pdf etc. and you have to be connected to the web to read his articles. Well what happens after months and years of subscribing he shuts it down and I can't access the information I paid for... well, guess I was just renting it and too bad for me right. What if his site goes down for a week, does he reimburse all his subscribers for the lost time they paid for... I should hope so if he's going to complain about Adobe for having the same effin rental model he himself uses!
Not really the same thing. If a website goes down, you've lost access to articles. Yes, I'd expect them to extend your subscription if it is down for very long, but frankly, even if the site went away, the only thing you've actually lost is the last month's subscription fee, or the last year's fee if you were subscribing on an annual basis. It's peanuts.
With creative software, if you lose access to that software, unless someone else manages to create a bug-for-bug compatible Photoshop clone that can read your existing files perfectly, you stand to lose all the time and effort that you have invested in creating content with that software.
That's a much, much bigger deal. Comparing renting software to a magazine subscription is just not a valid comparison. Renting software is more like renting the land under your house. Yes, under certain circumstances, it might be the only option, but there's always that risk that tomorrow, you'll get a notice that you have to tear down your house.
Even if I were willing to rent software (and I'm not), I would consider the use of any new features in future versions of Photoshop to be playing with fire. If Adobe ever goes under, any files that use those features are going to become unreadable 180 days later. By everyone. Worldwide.
And honestly, that isn't as unlikely as it sounds. Given how badly Adobe has botched pretty much every aspect of Flash, PDF, Digital Editions, etc., I'm amazed Adobe is still in business today. Every year, I have less faith in their products than the year before. This is a company whose stock is basically priced the same as it was twelve years ago—you'd do about as well sticking your money in a sock under your mattress. That isn't a sign of a strong, growing company. It's a sign of a company with no real leadership, with no real drive to improve their products, and no real insight into how they can expand their market share.
And now, instead of actually improving their products, lowering cost, or any of the other things they could do to drive adoption, they're resorting to milking their existing customers for more money. Their logic is, "Those greedy people won't buy every update, so we'll do a subscription so that they have to pay for it all the time," ignoring the fact that people don't buy every update because they haven't actually improved the product significantly in any way that actually matters. (Ooh. It's grey now.) The problem is that most people's natural reaction to such tactics is, "Bye."
Now not everybody can move off of Photoshop right away, but lots of people are looking for alternatives now who were content to periodically upgrade before. And in the long term, that's going to really hurt Adobe. Because the main reason people buy Adobe products is the same reason that people buy Microsoft products—compatibility. They know that their files will "just work". When you start to see half the small studios running Pixelmator and Acorn and Gimp and Corel PaintShop Pro, the main rationale for spending that kind of money goes away, and more and more people begin to more carefully examine their continued use of Photoshop. It's like a tiny snowflake that snowballs into an avalanche.
Of course, Microsoft is encouraging people to rent their software, too. Historically, such rapid increases in pricing like we're seeing here are generally the last gasp of a monopoly player as they succumb to competition, gouging fewer and fewer customers for more and more money in order to stay afloat. In Microsoft's case, they're suddenly facing stiff competition from Google Docs and OpenOffice, and they're scared that they may soon lose the ability to milk that cash cow, so they're looking for any means that they can to prolong the decline of that revenue stream. I have little doubt that Adobe is doing the same thing with CC.
But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps all those small studios will be so enthralled with the new software that they'll be willing to spend $240 per year instead of buying a $300 upgrade every six years. I wouldn't bet money on it, though, which is just one of the many reasons I'm glad I do not hold any position in ADBE.