I am quite aware that it is $99/year and I have no problem with it and it does not pi$$ me off, coz that is less than 1 Big Mac & a Coffee per month for me. Initially I was not very happy about Adobe's subscription model, but when I calculated what I've paid for Adobe software since 2007, the subscription model actually works out far cheaper than "owning" it (as I've always upgraded to newer versions as and when they released CS & LR), so I now prefer the subscription model. Besides, I waste a lot more than $8.25 a month buying all kinds of cheap camera accessories that I never use after the first try, I am sure I can stop wasting some of it and pay for Adobe subscription. Since I am a salaried person and not a businessman paying smaller amounts every month works out lot easier for me than to pay a big lump sum. I understand that it may not work well for people who like to use the same software for several years and get great mileage out of it ... I guess they are justified in being pi$$ed off about the subscription model.
LR for iPad sounds really good ... if it is anywhere near the feature set of LR5, $99 is a very reasonable price ... where I live right now, that's less then the price of a Big Mac + Coffee ... neither of them are good for my health, so, I'm sure I can forego 1 Big Mac & a Coffee every month to pay for the LR iPad subscription ... even if they double the price I will simply forego 2 Big Macs and 2 cups of coffee every month ... that way I might even be able to extend my life by a few minutes longer, to capture a beautiful sunset or a sexy lady ... then edit it on my iPad with LR, take a good look at my work, be proud of it and then die like a proud peacock
It's not $99. It is $99/year. Big difference. One can buy LR5 and use it and sit on it for a couple years or more, getting more and more value out of the product, all for a single up-front cost of $149 (or $79 for upgraders, which is even better!) This iPad app is a subscription product...so it isn't $99, it is $99/year. It's the "/year" part that pisses people off.
You may be part of the rarer few who upgraded with every version. If you used to spend more, then more power to ya with the subscription model.
Personally, I tended to skip a version or two before upgrading. Most of my graphic design and artist friends would skip as many versions as they could and still get a decent upgrade price. With version skipping, buying licenses was quite a bit cheaper...and more often than not it was easy enough to skip since few of the new features were really useful or critically necessary to the niche of any given artist. Photographers might get compelling enough features every couple versions, classical artists might get a new feature every two to three versions, graphic designers probably benefited most from more frequent updates, but most of the ones I've known still skipped (just too costly on a sporadic freelance salary).
Now, once I get my freelance thing going full steam, it won't be all that terrible to rent Adobe software for $50 a month. The problem is that if the freelancing dries up for a while, I won't be able to afford $50 a month...and I'll LOSE ACCESS. It's the losing access bit that is the most irksome part of Adobe's new rental modal, even though the prices still feel too high. The thing Adobe doesn't seem to get is that even though a freelancer isn't necessarily able to work every single month of the year, they still create works. I'll always be creating new photography, doodling new logos and creating new web site designs. I'll always need the tools, however I may not always be able to afford the rather astronomical price. Losing access after a month is just a bad dig at freelancers...kind if like Adobe saying "GTFO" to all of us. Do they care? Are freelancers important to Adobe? Really hard to tell...
Personally, I cut out random expenditures on fast food (and pretty much everything else) about a year ago, so I don't really have any "cheap" things I buy each month to compare the price to. I only spend money on new photography or astronomy stuff when I have saved up the money for something I really intend to use, so I don't really have any random monthly expenditures there either. I periodically buy new ink and paper for my printing...however I'm usually just as irked about the cost of 14ml of ink as I am about the cost of Adobe software rental.
The only real basis for comparison is the cost of the full Lightroom, which is still $149. You can buy a license for LR and sit on it for years (usually, the time between camera body upgrades, which is the only REAL reason you MUST upgrade...in order to get support for your cameras' new sensor.) At a list price of $149 for the full
version of LR which can be amortized over anywhere from two to four years, $99 per year for a less capable
iPad app is kind of like a slap in the face, doesn't it? It certainly feels that way to me. Especially since I'm currently renting Photoshop CC and LR 5 for $9.99 a month...that is a HELL of a lot more functionality for quite a bit cheaper than Lightroom iPad for $99 a year. Again, feels like a slap in the face.
If they were asking for $99 a year for full LR functionality, that isn't quite as bad, but it's still worse than the PS CC + LR5 deal for $10 a month.