For a dollar down and a dollar a week you can get all the goodies you seek.
Aren't software subscriptions one of Microsoft's big failures? It's sad to see Adobe's leadership so bereft of vision.
The subscription model makes sense in some cases. For example, let's say a design firm owns enough copies of Creative Suite for all their regular employees, but during occasional busy periods they need more copies for freelancers they bring in temporarily. Renting software for a few months would be cheaper than buying it.
@David: Do you have a primary source describing this “subscription experiment?”
Christopher, here's Adobe's description:http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/cssubscription.html
Let's say you need Photoshop and don't qualify for an upgrade discount. If you bought it from Amazon it would cost roughly $650, but if instead you rented it from Adobe it would cost $49 a month (or $35 a month if you committed to subscribing for a year).
I think the subscription model is mainly for people who can't get the upgrade discount, or who just need an app for a short period of time.
Here's hoping it has more to do with this?
Thanks. I suspect this will be a brief blip before they start offering a cloud version.
subscriptions are hot right now. Haven't you seen:
if subscription is a viable software licensing method for type? why not for other applications?
Nah...it's just a concession to the way we have come to expect things to work. The current trend in merchandising is for the merchant constantly to have his hand in your pocket. SUPER DEAL! Get a smartphone for only $49.00, which is super only until you realize that you have to commit to spending around $1,500 on service to get the deal, or pay a hefty $325 termination fee if you back out early.
On a more positive note, the subscription model means that your software is always up-to-the-minute: bug fixes, enhancements and upgrades are part of the deal. Of course, there is a downside: if the later version replaces a feature you REALLY liked in a previous version with one you don't like, you're kinda stuck with "progress"...
Cloud computing is not a financial model, merely a means of distribution.
For comparison, consider "@fontface": this is a cloudish means of software access, but may be licensed in varying ways — as a one-time payment or rental.
The subscription model is a bit of a stretch if it doesn't include periodical updates, making it suitable for companies like Adobe, which has established the practice of frequently updated (albeit bloated) products, for which customers have become accustomed to paying regular upgrade fees.
It's slightly different with fonts, as versioning does not sit so comfortably. A foundry would have to be extremely well managed in order to offer a subscription service that provided customers with its version of the latest font styles, annually. But I can imagine that in future as a viable business model.
“Cloud computing is not a financial model, merely a means of distribution.”
If they charged you by the hour would that constitute a different financial model?
> a downside: if the later version replaces a feature you
> REALLY liked...you're kinda stuck with "progress"...
You're also stuck if you occasionally want to use an older version for a client or printer who requests it. For example, one of my corporate clients asks me to use the previous version of Creative Suite for their projects because that's what their in-house art department still uses.
If you own the software it's no problem to keep older versions on hand. (I have CS5, CS4, and CS3 on my Mac). But if you subscribe, you can't do that.
Another alternative would be by bandwidth usage, which is more geared to service providers than software licensors.
>if subscription is a viable software licensing method for type? why not for other applications?
why don't apples work in my orange juice squeezer? dead apple bits all over de place and hardly any juice, damnit! ;)