Luckless wrote in post #15938067
And you aren't too interested in reading what I actually write, insist on taking things out of context, and blatantly ignore what I actually say.
I will continue to ignore statements that you don't seem interested in either bind with some quotes or links. Or try to actually motivate in a convincing way. Too many of your statements are written in a way that they would feel more correct if started with "I believe" or "In my view".
My interest is in one of two things: Either Adobe remaining in its financially strong position going forward, despite growing research data showing more and more people skipping upgrades and putting Future profits in question, or world economies switching to a highly organized planned economy in an advanced communist state with rigorous oversight and transparency where resources are shared to their best effect.
So - let's see your research. Or have you spent time looking at the most interesting research information for this debate - the Adobe financial reports?
Next thing: You haven't managed to convince that this change improves Adobes ability to stay ahead. Extra money for R&D is very important for a company that needs to capture market shares. Extra money for R&D doesn't have a high priority for a market leader who are extremely dominant. When too dominant, then you have no market shares to capture. So then the driving force is to develop new functionality to convince people to upgrade - but that isn't needed when you have any customers to convince. With a forced subscription, the customers has to subscribe even if you don't put out new updates.
Can you please one more time try to describe exactly why a subscription-only model for a company with a huge percent of the market shares should give you more new features in the software, compared to if Adobe also had perpetual licenses? And this time try to show that you have considered my above comments when you try to convince us how CC will now see lots of new money for developing new functionality.
Guess which is more likely to happen?
I have already guessed. My guess looks different than yours. Only time will tell.
Except offering people the option to Either subscribe, or opt out of the process while still using the software IS minimizing their profit potential with the new system.
You have many responses where you say "minimizing their profit". But not once have you tried debate 101 - trying to motivate why you feel that a business model they have had for 20+ years represents "minimizing their profit". Are you claiming the previous Adobe management to have been totally incompetent all these years? How else do you see it as "minimizing their profit"?
As I've said before, customers can be divided into 3 key groups: People who won't subscribe at all, people who will subscribe but would rather outright buy a given version to use longer (thereby most likely spending less in the long term), and those who have no qualms about buying in. (4th major group that has no plans to pay anything at all, but they're not customers and don't actually matter in this discussion.)
Yes, you have said that before. But you still haven't said anything about the implications if 10 or 20% of the customers becomes free targets for the competition. And how it affects the Adobe bottom line if a competitor suddenly doubles their sales values and decides that they want even more market shares and uses their new income to actually fight for the market shares? That is obviously good for us, but is it good for Adobe? Because the line you are driving is that this is the best path for Adobe.
Next thing: You argue the best path for Adobe. But is the best path for Adobe the best path for you? You prefer a path that is good for Adobe, or a path that is good for you? You mix and match your arguments so I don't really know who you want to win.
The whole goal, from a business perspective, is to lock users in and ensure cash flow.
Of course the whole goal is to lock in users. There is 100% total agreement there. The debate is if that is a goal we customers should think is good or not. You seem to think it is good, and that customers who see issues with it are stupid for not considering Adobe. Adobe have no feelings. You don't need to protect Adobe from us.
By giving that middle group an option to Not be locked in to the scheme, Adobe would be cutting heavily into their potential profits.
Let me fix that for you:
By giving that middle group an option to Not be locked in to the scheme, I believe that Adobe would be cutting heavily into their potential profits.
You can only believe. You can't know. Still you present it as a fact - something you know to be true. It isn't true if too many customers leaves. And you don't know how large percent of the current sales volume that is represented by customers who will jump the ship.
People seem to want to ignore that Adobe is a business, and refuse to understand Why adobe would make a choice like this. Which I find scary given that we are discussing this in a business related forum. If people can't or refuse to wrap their head around these points, then why are they trying to operate a business?
Show were you see people ignoring that Adobe is a business. Link to people claiming that they don't want Adobe to make a profit. Link to people claiming that we don't like there to be money to the share holders after Adobe have had ample money to pay for R&D of new functionality.
We very much understands why Adobe would like to make this choice. But that doesn't mean we should stay silent. And it doesn't mean that it was the best business decision by Adobe.
Please stop explaining how people don't understand, when you so regularly post comments that show that you have failed to understand the comments you react too. Because the alternative is that you do understand the comments, but decides to instead lie and pretend and intentionally misrepresent.
