I post too Much on Here!!
- Jul 21, 2010
Sure, or they could just make their software free. But that's not going to happen.My main problem with the subscription model is that if you end sour subscription, you lose access to the software after having spend hundreds of dollars over the years. A fair deal would be if you could keep the current version (without any new updates) after two or three years of subscription. Or at least that you then get the option to keep the software for a one time fee of $50 or so. The same odel that is used for leasing a car. You lease a car for some time and in the end you can buy the car for a small sum. Then it is your car forever.
For example (using round numbers), a standalone perpetual license for CS6 cost $500. A PS CC subscription costs $100/year. So if they let you keep the current version after 2-3 years, they're making $200-300 instead of $500 for that perpetual license. An extra $50 at the end isn't going to make up for the lost revenue.
Incidentally, if you lease a car and pay the residual buyout at the end, you'll often end up paying more than if you'd bought the car at the start. Leasing is not a cheaper way to buy a car you plan to keep for many years, it's a cheaper way if you want a new car frequently. That analogy holds well for the software subscription model – you are basically driving PS CS2 into the ground, so buying makes a lot more sense for you. The subscription model is better for people who want/need the latest version frequently, e.g. those of us who buy new cameras somewhat often and need updated software to support the RAW files.
Having said that, what is best for the customer is not really the driver here. Subscription models mean stable revenue streams, and investors like stable revenue streams. Adobe's stock price was stable for many years prior to 2012 when they changed from perpetual licenses to subscriptions. From 2012 on, their stock has steadily increased (until just recently, of course), at a rate that far outpaced the indices.