There is also a philosophical aspect to this debate. Perhaps one thing gnawing at some who voice this complaint is two-fold: the natural repulsion we have against having even a small sense of being a slave, and the repulsion we have against being coerced. I think it was King Solomon who said the borrower is slave to the lender and others have said the renter is slave to the owner. Therefore we observe that many people prefer to own most things. This is not to deny there ever being a practical reason to choose to rent or to have joint ownership, but that doesn't count when one can make a choice on his own without any coercion. Russians had to put up with communism for 70 yrs. and they eventually threw it off, not based on a pure ideology but rather on the repulsion that they were being coerced, and were treated as mere slaves of the state. At the same time, some support the Adobe rental subscription idea by saying "well, even under the old system you never actually bought the software, you were merely licensing it from Adobe which amounts to renting." But that is not entirely true, that argument is merely a smoke screen away from the own-versus-rent arguments. You DID "own" the software and in the final analysis it doesn't matter what the fine print says. You were not going to be brought before a court and charged with a misdemeanor simply because you stated you bought the software, and no one was going to throw the fine print at you. Furthermore, Adobe itself states on their site that the so-called "licenses" could be used in perpetuity, which, if English words means anything at all, that means that Adobe is admitting you owned the software, subject only to certain terms of use. So on the one hand there is that "repulsion" against being coerced or to perform slave-like things (forced rentals) and on the other hand, there remains a memory of perpetual ownership. Adobe, of course, for its part, is not motivated by any philosophy or political ideology, it is purely a business plan to them. Adobe is merely hoping to take in more money using this model than with the perpetual license model. I recently read where the number of paying Adobe subscribers (combined single and complete cloud) is now approaching 500,000. But I have never seen how many copies of various CS5 and CS6 products they sold to compare that with to conclude whether this is a success story or maybe not so successful. Just some thoughts . Lee From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rieni Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AP] Fw: Calling all NLE Users! Even I as a very well earning professional think $600/year is too much especially when it's stuffed down my throat.
For example for photo editing I still use Photoshop CS2 on an old computer. It's good enough for what I do. I still use Final Cut Pro on a 3 year old MacBookPro because it's good enough for what I do. I still drive a 1996 Chrysler Voyager because it's good enough for what I do. Adobe can go cloud only... it's their decision. But then I'll stick with CS6 for the next 10 years. The only good cloud is a little cloud of cream in my breakfast coffee! Rieni At 3-10-2013 23:41, [email protected] wrote: How is $600 a year for the entire CC suite? Upgrades for the master suite were way more than that each year. Plus CC gets constant updates and new features. Why wouldn't Adobe discontinue old products? Every company does that. With CC you will have access to the two previous versions of the software.
