Traditional License? Or Subscription Based Model?

[pdxindy]

Isn't that pretty common? You probably have subscribed to a few services like TV, phone, internet. What about rent for a house? You don't pay to "own" it, you pay to "use" it.

In those cases, there is less choice. With software, there are plenty of non subscription options.

Also, for stuff like internet and phone and electricity, there are ongoing costs because they are a service... not so much with software.

As for housing, it should be free for everyone!

[RichardNL70]

Isn't that pretty common? You probably have subscribed to a few services like TV, phone, internet. What about rent for a house? You don't pay to "own" it, you pay to "use" it.

In those cases, there is less choice. With software, there are plenty of non subscription options.

Also, for stuff like internet and phone and electricity, there are ongoing costs because they are a service... not so much with software.

As for housing, it should be free for everyone!

Why don't make software free? Or bread?

The thing is, you still see software as something that you can own. I have been a software developer in the past and all contracts I have been worked on it was paid as a service. Hopefully someday all software will be free and you pay only for maintenance, upgrades, support and other services.

[pdxindy]

The thing is, you still see software as something that you can own.

It is not about 'owning' for me... it is that I don't want to pay for stuff I do not need.

Take Photoshop... for many years, I upgraded every 2-3 paid versions. I really didn't need most if any of the new features so why pay for them? Now Adobe forces you to pay for all new features, whether you want them or not. I used to have some say over what I wanted to pay for, now I do not... well, I still do, because I chose to stop using Adobe and use other software.

Many people were happy to keep using an older version of Photoshop and they used to be able to do so without additional cost. And they were not costing Adobe anything. Now it is all or nothing... you are all in on the constant upgrade train or at least paying for it, or you are out.

[JonSolo]

It is not about 'owning' for me... it is that I don't want to pay for stuff I do not need.

Take Photoshop... for many years, I upgraded every 2-3 paid versions. I really didn't need most if any of the new features so why pay for them? Now Adobe forces you to pay for all new features, whether you want them or not. I used to have some say over what I wanted to pay for, now I do not... well, I still do, because I chose to stop using Adobe and use other software.

Many people were happy to keep using an older version of Photoshop and they used to be able to do so without additional cost. And they were not costing Adobe anything. Now it is all or nothing... you are all in on the constant upgrade train or at least paying for it, or you are out.

First let's go ahead and address what always gets addressed but somehow ignored again and again...no one is FORCING anyone to pay for anything. We really should drop these all encompassing terms when having these types of discussions cause it just makes folks like me waste a paragraph like this re-debunking the comment.

That said, you make some valid points...but points in my opinion that support a subscription model. Adobe gives you a choice: (1) subscription for individual products or all of them, (2) purchase individual products (licenses) or all of them, and (3) have nothing to do with them at all. A similar model (with some minor differences) is true with EWQL Creative Cloud.

By offering a subscription service, EWQL enabled me to deep test every library they had. This lead me to enjoying a little over a year worth of subscription while determining what products I enjoyed and would use. That lead to a purchase of 9 products from them over the course of their last two BOGO sales.

Today I do not own any EWQL products that I do not want. On the other hand, I have been tempted in the past to buy several products from them based on the demo songs. I am glad I waited because on testing the libraries I determined they were not for me. The money I saved allowed me to spend that cash elsewhere, in some cases on products that I really DON'T use and DON'T like but had no real way to test them in advance (read Kontakt libraries here).

Therefore it is easy to conclude that subscriptions actually work very well when you have a plan in place on how to use and implement them. In some cases it works even better than demos because you get constant real world use without limitations (albeit paid for) which helps you to determine what your needs really are.

Having said that...if I were limited to a subscription only based product, I would have to decline. I always want the freedom to choose how and when I use a product.

[pdxindy]

That said, you make some valid points...but points in my opinion that support a subscription model. Adobe gives you a choice: (1) subscription for individual products or all of them, (2) purchase individual products (licenses) or all of them, and (3) have nothing to do with them at all.

There is no purchase option... Adobe is subscription, or nothing

I don't have a problem with subscription as an option in addition to purchase... although I tend to suspect it is a first step to doing away with purchase.

[incubus]

Heed my warning:

You're going to end up buying it anyways in some form or another, so what's the point debating it?

[JonSolo]

That said, you make some valid points...but points in my opinion that support a subscription model. Adobe gives you a choice: (1) subscription for individual products or all of them, (2) purchase individual products (licenses) or all of them, and (3) have nothing to do with them at all.

There is no purchase option... Adobe is subscription, or nothing

I don't have a problem with subscription as an option in addition to purchase... although I tend to suspect it is a first step to doing away with purchase.

Heh, I forgot they stopped selling products (I have subscribed since day one to their whole suite). They still sell Elements.

Still, I stand my ground with the EWQL model. It just works.

[Hewitt Huntwork]

I only subscribe to things that give me more options than I could ever use (streaming services for video and music, mostly).

I do Track Spark because it's dirt cheap. I sponsor an artist or two on Patreon.

Most music production related things charge too much for something I'd use too seldom. I work on music production every day, but I have more of everything than I need. If Toontrack went subscription, I'd go for it, but that's about it.

[pdxindy]

That said, you make some valid points...but points in my opinion that support a subscription model. Adobe gives you a choice: (1) subscription for individual products or all of them, (2) purchase individual products (licenses) or all of them, and (3) have nothing to do with them at all.

There is no purchase option... Adobe is subscription, or nothing

I don't have a problem with subscription as an option in addition to purchase... although I tend to suspect it is a first step to doing away with purchase.

Heh, I forgot they stopped selling products (I have subscribed since day one to their whole suite). They still sell Elements.

Still, I stand my ground with the EWQL model. It just works.

Lightroom 6 is/was still purchasable... but this is the last version. So I'll use Lightroom 6 until it stops working then switch to something else.