elrey2375 wrote in post #15933380
Of course, the customer may decide when to upgrade. By the same token, you can't expect companies to wait around for you or continue to cater to you. At some point, they have to move on and service newer models, etc.
Same goes with the car analogy.
Sorry, but I totally fail to understand what you are trying to say here.
The car manufacturer isn't exactly changing their time line based on my purchase preferences. They do release their models, and I chose to decide if I upgrade my car or not.
Who have suggested that Adobe should "wait around"?
Software companies don't ship patches for old versions of their software. They ship patches for new versions of their software. But they leave it up to the customer to decide if the patches (if available) should be installed or not.
And Adobe have made a huge amount of money while letting the customer decide when/if it is time to upgrade their CS2. Or their CS3. Adobe doesn't have any maintainance costs for customers using CS2. They don't need to dedicate staff to "wait in" these customers.
It is the normal business model that the seller waits for the customer to decide if they buy or not. Not that the seller makes the decision when the customer should buy.
It's the right thing for Adobe to do from a business standpoint and that's the only thing that mattered to them when making this decision. They make more money this way, that's what companies are in business to do. They don't make money, they can't innovate.
It might be the right thing for Adobe to do. And the might make more money this way. The important thing is that the change must be good enough for enough numbers of customers too. A business model that isn't good enough for lots of customers is a failed business model. Because Adobe needs customers. Lots of customers. Lots and lots of customers. If each customer pays $40/month in average, then they need about 7 million customers to sign their subscriptions to break even. If only 5 million customers jumps on the bandwagon, then Adobe either needs to step up the subscription fees higher or kick parts of their management before starting a campaign to try to recover lost customers.
Next thing: you imply that they need to do this because else they don't make money and can't innovate. So that indirectly imply that you feel Adobe hasn't been making money the last 10 years, and hasn't innovated the last 10 years. How come you imply that? Have you checked the financial statements, and compared how much money they make, with the costs Adobe have for their R&D? Could you please tell me how you see Adobe lacking money to innovate. Does the financial statements indicate to you that a huge percent of the sales volume is claimed just to manage their R&D?
Everything you've both said is exactly what I've said, but the opposite. I'm projecting my interests onto everyone else. You're projecting your interests onto me, etc.
Wrong. I don't project my views onto others. I don't have any issues with people seeing subscriptions as best for them. If you notice, subscriptions have been available for a while.
I just wonder why people seem to argue that perpetual licenses - as complement to subscriptions - is wrong, or why people who prefer perpetual licenses are wrong.
Why do you see a need to defend Adobe for dropping perpetual licenses? What do you have to gain by Adobe not having both options? What made it different for you today, than last week where both options existed?
I see why it might not work for some people. I'm not opposed to choice. I simply don't care.
But still you make posts that indicates that you do care. Because you explicitly question why people don't like the subscription model - which is a very strange thing to do in a thread where people have already spent a lot of time telling why they prefer perpetual licenses.
It currently works for me and it will continue to work for me. I'm not Adobe, I didn't come up with this and I didn't decide to have it forced upon you. Take out your anger on the appropriate parties. Subscription, no subscription, updates, forced updates, it's all just crap that I don't have the time to be upset about. There are real things in life to be upset about. A software company changing things around isn't one of them, IMO. A family member I've known all my life who no longer recognizes my face or remembers my name. Those are things to be upset about, not this petty crap. Perspective, gentlemen. No one is making you use PS. There are many other programs out there.
Perspective? Well, whatever bad things happens in a persons private life doesn't remove the need to keep an eye on what happens in their business life. The business life is what puts food on the table, and food just can't be ignored.
PS. - when I make a case or state my opinion, it's from my perspective, as it's the only one I have. While I understand that others feel differently, the bottom line is it's just not something worth getting upset about. Time does in fact march on, there's no way to deny that fact, it's marched on since I started typing this sentence and this is the technology and software field we're talking about. Time marching on isn't my mandate, it's the universe that's mandating it.
If you are so neutral as you claim, why do you then claim that Adobe needs this to be able to afford to innovate?
By the way - what is your personal view about all the other reasons people have made for preferring perpetual licenses? Have you - or your business - evaluated these factors too when deciding how this affects you?