poor mans photo shop

[JacaRanda]

I like it. A definition that can be applied either way. It's hard to tell who drank it.

 

[pixmedic]

I understand...CC isn't the best solution for everyone.

I don't have a dog in this fight, nor do I really care as I've been a long time and happy user of alternative and open source software. Even my own choice is not for everyone, just as CC is not for everyone either. The only reason why I brought up this software rental business model, it's because I know a few big cheeses in the software industry, and I know exactly where all this is going, and chose not to be part of it, that's it. All I hope for is it doesn't sink the whole industry in this rental model only. I also happen to know what kind of data is coming back to the software developer during updates, upgrades, activation, etc.

I don't get to keep the movies i watch on netflix for $8 a month.
I don't get to keep the shows I watch on cable.
I don't get to keep the songs i listen to on Pandora.
I would assume you probably don't subscribe to any of those either.

You are confusing a few things here... TV shows, musics, and movies are "content", but software is a "tool", not content. I'm not the type of guy to go out and buy movies, but I like to purchase my tools once, and have them when I need them.

By the way, you say you don't get why I refer to the Kool-Aid expression. I never looked up the definition until now on Wikipedia : Drinking the Kool-Aid is a figure of speech commonly used in North America that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. It could also refer to knowingly going along with a doomed or dangerous idea because of peer pressure. It can also be used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion.

Couldn't be more dead on! LOL.

wouldn't you rather buy a movie on CD and "own it" instead of just "leasing" it?
i would rather own a movie that will never be changed, and lease a "tool" that requires constant updates and needs to be replaced every year or two.

please explain how how it is "doomed" since you don't know. people have been saying Nikon is doomed for years.
please explain how it is "without critical examination" when i have reviewed all the editing options i had available and choose the best software at an affordable price which seemed to suit me best.
I did my research. I looked at other options. Corel, Gimp, paintshop pro, ACDSee...
my belief in CC being the best choice for me was not unquestioned or unresearched. it certainly wasn't the "popular" choice when I got it, and there was definitely no peer pressure or persuasion.

by the wiki definition of the "kool aid expression", im afraid you couldn't be more wrong about me, as none of the definitions are accurate in my situation. perhaps you have it backwards, and you are just against the CC on naive principle against subscriptions, and not due to any actual factual concerns or critical thinking. perhaps you are the one who has drunk the kool aid. (which, honestly....sounds like a horrible Jim Jones reference..)

Lightroom AND Photoshop for $120 a year.
way cheaper than buying the newest versions every 2 years.
and when the time finally comes that adobe either raises the price, or stops the CC....ill just move on to whatever suits me best at the time.

 

[Microbois]

I like it. A definition that can be applied either way. It's hard to tell who drank it.

Indeed! Mouhahahahaha!

I have to step out pixmedic, but hold on, I'll reply to you later tonight. This is a very interesting and funny discussion.

 

[pixmedic]

I like it. A definition that can be applied either way. It's hard to tell who drank it.

Indeed! Mouhahahahaha!

I have to step out pixmedic, but hold on, I'll reply to you later tonight. This is a very interesting and funny discussion.

indeed.
dont be too late, i gotta be on shift early tomorrow.

 

[sashbar]

LightZone Open-source digital darkroom software for Windows Mac Linux

 

[Microbois]

wouldn't you rather buy a movie on CD and "own it" instead of just "leasing" it?
i would rather own a movie that will never be changed, and lease a "tool" that requires constant updates and needs to be replaced every year or two.

That's a funny and unexpected twist you've got there, but I guess I think differently. Aside from a few classics, I never understood why people buy movies. Once you have seen it once, either at the cinema or on TV, I don't feel like watching it again before several years, and sometimes never. I'm not a 3 years old who can watch the same movie 50 times in a row. Buying a movie I've never seen before, just to have it, will gather dust until I give it away or throw it away. I guess it's a different story if you have a home theater and you can have a bunch of friends over. Not my cup of tea though.

please explain how how it is "doomed" since you don't know. people have been saying Nikon is doomed for years.
please explain how it is "without critical examination" when i have reviewed all the editing options i had available and choose the best software at an affordable price which seemed to suit me best.
I did my research. I looked at other options. Corel, Gimp, paintshop pro, ACDSee...
my belief in CC being the best choice for me was not unquestioned or unresearched. it certainly wasn't the "popular" choice when I got it, and there was definitely no peer pressure or persuasion.

I don't know about the doom prophecies of Nikon, but I do know that we are getting into a whole new world if the monthly rental software business model becomes successful. Just to make the record straight, I use to work as an IT director for a large architect firm, and it was my job to negociate software acquisition with all the big names in town (Autodesk, Microsoft, Adobe, etc.). So, what you will read down there is not just from thin air or how I see it in my crystal ball...

But let me start with an analogy with something that happened in the last few decades, but relates to the current story. I won't get too much in details as you will see exactly where I'm going. You remember when most of the stuff we bought were made in North America? Yes, the stuff was more expensive, but it was often of much better quality, lasted longer, and it was made not too far from where you lived. People had good paying jobs in factories and could afford what they were making (sounds familiar?). Today, most of the stuff we buy is made overseas, the quality has suffered, and more than half of the Americans today work for retail stores at minimum wage. On the bright side, the stuff we buy has never been any cheaper than now, but we have lost our good jobs. See, there are 2 sides to a coin... Depending on which side of the fence you are, maybe you are suffering today, or maybe you're laughing all the way to the bank.

Back to the monthly rental software program... As it was mentioned before, software companies had a hard time competing against their own older version as customer would not upgrade just to get a few marginal improvements. The reason to move to a monthly rental program is to transform the "product" into a "service", to have recurring incomes. If priced right, it's also easier on the wallet. So far, everyone wins right? I think we all agree on this.

Right now, all you are looking at is the attractive price of 10$/month for 2 great pieces of software, and it's unquestionable that it's a great deal. My reference to you drinking the Kool-Aid is simply that you are just contributing to the creation of a new paradigm in the software industry. If no one was buying into the CC, Adobe would stop, right? Now, as you mentioned it yourself earlier, you keep your RAW and JPG files, and if you ever decide to stop your subscription, there will be little harm. True enough, but the problem is elsewhere, it's the fact that this software rental model will grow, and if Adobe is successful at it, guess what? All the major software companies will follow, Microsoft already announced they will be doing this with the version following Windows 10. Now, think a little bit in the future at a wider scale, not just your little person using LR and PS for 10$/month, and try to envision people using databases, writing articles, creating drawings, etc. If their files must be reused or accessible over several years, can you imagine the kind of power software companies have over those using their products? I mean they have the power to make your archives unaccessible unless you pay them a monthly fee, and that monthly fee is set by whom? The software industry is not regulated like other utility companies. And guess what, this isn't recent news... Back in the early 2000's, when I had those sales managers of Autodesk and Microsoft in my office, we were discussing exactly that rental model. So, I'm not new to this, and I knew it was coming long before anyone here.

The second problem we get into is software companies receving monthly payments have a captive customer base and that will totally change their work dynamic as they are no longer forced to compete everyday. Remove competition from the equation, and what do you get? They will implement a few changes here and there to show that they are doing something, but globally, they will slow down innovation by a large margin. They are already big, but will get even bigger, and slower. Where do innovation will come from? Small startup companies that they will acquire and integrate to their product line, maybe. I've seen it happening in other businesses, software is not any different. By the way, did you know that 85% of the cost you are paying for CRM/ERP solutions is used to pay the expenses incurred to sell you that solution (marketing material, hotel room, plane tickets, meals, sales rep salaries and commissions, etc.). Less than 15% goes into R&D... Yup, and it's probably not any different with our big players.

The third reason why software rental is bad, as I mentioned before, those companies are big and they are in some ways monopolies. I mean, as an IT director, when your company has been using Microsoft Word for the last 15 or 20 years, moving to another software is simply not an option. First, you'll get a lot of resistance internally from employees, all your archives become suddenly not fully compatible, the cost of retraining is significant, and if you collaborate and exchange documents with partners, you can't afford to be the only one working with software no one use. So, put a huge software company in a situation of monopoly offering subscription to mission critical software for a monthly fee for as long as you pay. Now, tell me seriously that this is not a threat to your company when all the control of your software infrastructure is in the hands of another company...

Now, let's get back to my example of products made overseas and which killed quality jobs here in North America (if you don't beleive me, read the book "Cheap - The High Cost of Discount Culture"). All those times where we bought in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, products based on price alone, regardless of where there were made or their quality, we slowly dug the graves of our own North-American workers. Back then, if we had made the decision of buying more products made locally, and shell out that extra 10$, then your neighbor would probably still have his machinist job at the factory, instead of working at Wal-Mart at minimum wage. While not exactly the same threat, drinking the 10$/month Kool-Aid will just bring what I've described above. Oh ya sure, it's only 10$/month for now, but what will we loose in return in 5 or 10 years from now?

Now, of course, maybe those big software companies will behave properly, charge reasonable monthly fees, not abuse their position, and my doom prophecies will never happen, I sincerely hope so. Maybe this business model will revolutionize the industry, give access to great software for "budget dust" as someone said here, and I can be completly wrong, but I have no reason to beleive this will be in favor of customers. Call me a pessimist, but I prefer to give my money to those smaller software companies that still believe in making a great product before making a lot of money. Software is a product, not a service.

I guess I'm not the only idiot thinking this way :

I Have to Rent My Software Now How Does That Work - Scientific American
Steve Wozniak Cloud Computing Will Cause Horrible Problems In The Next Five Years - Business Insider
Photoshop CC modest upgrades shackled to terrible rental model Ars Technica
Petition Adobe Systems Incorporated Eliminate the mandatory creative cloud subscription model. Change.org

 

[Dao]

I think we need to looking at software product differently. A product that is for general consumer or a product that is geared toward professional or commercial/business. Let take an example. in mid 90s, if someone like to host a internet server using Windows NT, they or someone need to buy the NT server.

After using it for few years, a new version come out and they may need to buy it again due to new features. So for those business who need to stay in the game will need to pay 9 hundred to a thousand every few years. Of course, some will stay behind for the longest they can until the point they have no choice. However, the long they wait, the harder the upgrade.

I believe that is one of the main reason MS was losing ground in internet server business to open source Linux model. High up front cost and need to pay again in few years. I saw business rewrite their site/code to move to open source platform. Linux server installation in our Data center far exceed Windows based server. So in early 2000s (forget exactly when), MS started to offer Windows Server (either Windows Server 2000 or 2003) leasing to customer. So customers only need to pay a monthly fee to lease the OS or DB server. And if they decided to upgrade to a newly version, the monthly cost stay the same. And that really help those who want to stay with MS technology.

Back to Photo touching software. I believe Photoshop CS or most of the high end Adoble products are designed for professional, not for regular consumer. I'll assume a design firm may choose software subscription over purchase the software again and again due to version upgrade. Of course, the company can just buy a Photoshop CS6 and be done with it for the next 10 - 15 years as their competitors always using the latest version with more latest features.

Photography is my hobby, so I am fine with older version which can do what I need to do. May not be as efficient, but that fine with me. However, if I am doing it professionally, I may choose subscription model as long as the cost is right and new and better feature are coming.

Of course, it will be nice if Adobe offer 2 models for Photoshop. (Subscription and purchase) But I believe their target audience are business that prefer subscription. Majority of the consumer who buy their product for photo touching most likely are the one who buy Photoshop Elements instead.

 

[Microbois]

So customers only need to pay a monthly fee to lease the OS or DB server. And if they decided to upgrade to a newly version, the monthly cost stay the same.

I totally agree with everything you say. The only thing I can't stand from the actual CC model, is that it's now a "service", and no longer a product that you can buy or lease. Back in my days as an IT director, I made a lot of deals with Autodesk and Microsoft so we would pay our licenses on a montly basis, during which we would receive updates and new versions, but this was contracts spanning over 2 or 3 years, and we remained owner of the software purchased at the end (or leased whatever you call it). If for any reasons we decided to stop after the deal was over, then we would keep those licenses, and they would still be functional for as long as we kept the same generation of computers/OS/software. I don't see why software companies can't continue this model that offered them exactly what they needed, a recurring income.

That being said, I don't discount the software monthly rental model as per say. I think it could be very useful, for instance, if you need to hire a bunch of people for a project lasting 6 months. You already owe licenses for your core employees, and then you rent monthly those extra licenses you need for a short period of time. It can even be beneficial to individuals who needs good software for a short period of time, just like you can rent a car, or a 150$K cine-camera to shoot a movie.

If companies want to move to a new paradigm of offering software services for a monthly fee, it's because they know all too well that they are no longer capable of delivering major upgrades with lots of new and powerful features. Maybe, in a near future, technology will evolve in a totally new direction, and there will be lots of room to adapt existing software to the new technology, but at the moment, I don't see anything close to that at first sight.

 

[Buckster]

The only thing I can't stand from the actual CC model, is that it's now a "service", and no longer a product that you can buy or lease.

Yeah, we understand where you're coming from. You're not the first to voice that opinion. Nonetheless, even after most of us have hashed through this same conversation with others over the past couple of years and examined it thoroughly from all sides, points and counterpoints, pros and cons, it turns out that many of us don't have a problem at all that it's now a "service" and no longer a product that we can buy or lease.

As for you, it's simple: don't use it. There are lots of alternatives out there for you and anyone else who doesn't like it for any reason, or no reason at all. No need to justify it with anyone - do as you will on that score.

You're preaching about this like it's a religion and any of us who don't believe what you do are going to consumer Hell or something. I don't know about anyone else, but it's not swaying me a bit. I paid full price for many years for every Photoshop upgrade that Adobe came out with, and all I had to do was a bit of basic math to know that I'll take this over that any day of the week.

Somewhere on old hard drives and backup disks, I have every "owned" copy of Photoshop I ever "bought" outright. Several thousand dollars worth of them. But even if Adobe went out of business tomorrow, I'd never pull them out, reinstall them and use them again, so what good is the fact that I "own" them? That's always been the problem with "owning" something that has a limited useful life to it. I only care to have it while it's still useful to me, not until I die and can pass it on to my kids, and then they can pass it on to their kids, and so on.

I bought my Jeep outright, so I own it. That doesn't mean it will last me forever though. When it's sitting somewhere rusting away on flat tires or rims and unable to even start, what good will it do me that I "own" it?

That's what those many "owned" versions of Photoshop I have are to me today - rusting old software that I "own", like that means anything at this point.

If old software is all you need and all you will EVER need to get the job done, then just buy the old software and be done with it.

But for those of us who want more up to date features and benefits than old software can deliver to work with, it's an ongoing cost to us, either way; Big bucks per upgrade, or little bucks per month, which turns out to be much less expensive than the upgrades were.

 

[Microbois]

You're preaching about this like it's a religion and any of us who don't believe what you do are going to consumer Hell or something.

I'm not a preacher, nor there's consumer Hell waiting for you. I just raised up the issue because that's what discussion forums are all about. I think I've been respectful for other's opinion so far, even if they are opposite to mine, but I'd like to remind you that this is a discussion forum here, so if we must all say the same, there's no discussion. You are defending very well your decision to drink Adobe's 10$/month Kool-Aid, and you are happy to do so, so please just keep going. I think this discussion can be useful to anyone who's on the fence right now, as to weither get a CC subscription or not, and my opinion on the subject, just as those who disagree here, may be helpful to make a decision.

Somewhere on old hard drives and backup disks, I have every "owned" copy of Photoshop I ever "bought" outright. Several thousand dollars worth of them. But even if Adobe went out of business tomorrow, I'd never pull them out, reinstall them and use them again, so what good is the fact that I "own" them? That's always been the problem with "owning" something that has a limited useful life to it. I only care to have it while it's still useful to me, not until I die and can pass it on to my kids, and then they can pass it on to their kids, and so on.

Here's another slanted opinion that misses my point entirely. What's important is not to hold on to your old copies of Photoshop so you can put them on your will. Older versions of software are useless. Do you realize by paying for a software you will never owe shifts the power from the customer to the software manufacturer? As a consumer, manufacturers have to make goods that will entice you to buy them. If you feel it's too expensive, or doesn't respond to your needs, you can decide not to buy. As a consumer, you have the power on your side for as long as the money is in your hands. This is the most important incentive software manufacturers have to keep coming out with new useful features and invest heavily in R&D. By paying every month for a service, it's open ended as to what manufacturers will do next, how much they will charge, and you have no say on that end. Heck, they may even come out with an update that will require you to add more RAM to your computer! Sure, you can cancel your subscription at any time, but since the product you are renting monthly are mainstrean software, those software manufacturers are in a technical situation of monopoly. I'd just like to remind you that monopolies are illegal, and for many good reasons.

You see the current situation in your own personal perspective by paying a pleasing 10$/month for a duo of great professional software, but just like that guy who picks a cheap screwdriver made overseas instead of a better American made screwdriver for couple dollars more, you are contributing to a business model that will lead to a lot of problems later without caring for the consequences later. We make a lot of decisions with our purchase decisions, but I assume that all that really counts for you now is to have LR and PS at 10$/month?

 

[pixmedic]

You're preaching about this like it's a religion and any of us who don't believe what you do are going to consumer Hell or something.

I'm not a preacher, nor there's consumer Hell waiting for you. I just raised up the issue because that's what discussion forums are all about. I think I've been respectful for other's opinion so far, even if they are opposite to mine, but I'd like to remind you that this is a discussion forum here, so if we must all say the same, there's no discussion. You are defending very well your decision to drink Adobe's 10$/month Kool-Aid, and you are happy to do so, so please just keep going. I think this discussion can be useful to anyone who's on the fence right now, as to weither get a CC subscription or not, and my opinion on the subject, just as those who disagree here, may be helpful to make a decision.

Somewhere on old hard drives and backup disks, I have every "owned" copy of Photoshop I ever "bought" outright. Several thousand dollars worth of them. But even if Adobe went out of business tomorrow, I'd never pull them out, reinstall them and use them again, so what good is the fact that I "own" them? That's always been the problem with "owning" something that has a limited useful life to it. I only care to have it while it's still useful to me, not until I die and can pass it on to my kids, and then they can pass it on to their kids, and so on.

Here's another slanted opinion that misses my point entirely. What's important is not to hold on to your old copies of Photoshop so you can put them on your will. Older versions of software are useless. Do you realize by paying for a software you will never owe shifts the power from the customer to the software manufacturer? As a consumer, manufacturers have to make goods that will entice you to buy them. If you feel it's too expensive, or doesn't respond to your needs, you can decide not to buy. As a consumer, you have the power on your side for as long as the money is in your hands. This is the most important incentive software manufacturers have to keep coming out with new useful features and invest heavily in R&D. By paying every month for a service, it's open ended as to what manufacturers will do next, how much they will charge, and you have no say on that end. Heck, they may even come out with an update that will require you to add more RAM to your computer! Sure, you can cancel your subscription at any time, but since the product you are renting monthly are mainstrean software, those software manufacturers are in a technical situation of monopoly. I'd just like to remind you that monopolies are illegal, and for many good reasons.

You see the current situation in your own personal perspective by paying a pleasing 10$/month for a duo of great professional software, but just like that guy who picks a cheap screwdriver made overseas instead of a better American made screwdriver for couple dollars more, you are contributing to a business model that will lead to a lot of problems later without caring for the consequences later. We make a lot of decisions with our purchase decisions, but I assume that all that really counts for you now is to have LR and PS at 10$/month?

Well poo....i was looking forward to consumer Hell....
You keep assuming there will be dire concequences later, and you could be right, but there's really no way to say which way this business model will go. You are implying that because we don't subscribe to your "theory", we don't care about the future. You also seem to keep assuming that anyone choosing adobe CC either did no research for themselves, or remain willfully ignorant of what is "best" for the market. Perhaps this isn't the message you are trying to convey, but that's kinda how it is appearing. Why do you assume that our decision to get adobe CC us strictly based on price? I paid full price for CS5 and LR4 so I am well accustomed to paying for Adobe products. Why isn't it perfectly feasible that we simply researched all our options and came to the conclusion that adobe is the best product for us?

I suppose, just for the sake of playing devils advocate here, I will say that by NOT going to a subscription service, you are perpetuating a market that encourages software piracy and illegal sales.

 

[table1349]

Here you go medic.

 

[Derrel]

I want to point out that when Adobe suddenly announced the $50 a month "rental" program, I was one of the loudest and most persistent voices to condemn their announced price point--over,and over,and over. Meanwhile, we had a few people on this site who acted like shills for Adobe, trying to portray $50 a month in-perpetuity as "a good deal". Well...as it turned out, the shills were overruled by the larger base of Adobe customers, and the $50-a-month extortion gave way to $9.95 a month for Photoshop CC AND Lightroom.

Adobe's attempt to extort $50 a month out of millions of customers, in perpetuity, is the exact type of move that has made Thom Hogan start recommending Pixelmator as a Photoshop alternative.

 

[Microbois]

You are implying that because we don't subscribe to your "theory", we don't care about the future. You also seem to keep assuming that anyone choosing adobe CC either did no research for themselves, or remain willfully ignorant of what is "best" for the market. Perhaps this isn't the message you are trying to convey, but that's kinda how it is appearing.

You got that right, it's pretty much what I'm saying.

Why isn't it perfectly feasible that we simply researched all our options and came to the conclusion that adobe is the best product for us?

You are confusing a few things here again. I think LR and PS are the best and most powerful photography software you can purchase today, and I understand why some people want those programs. But you could have kept your last paid version and refused to drink Adobe's Kool-Aid. Then, it would have sent a strong signal to Adobe that this business model is not desired by its customer base. By being lured into a cheap monthly price, you voluntary drank the Kool-Aid, and can't care less about the future (you said it). I personally use open source and alternative software because it's plenty enough for my needs and a fraction of the cost of Adobe's products, but if I was a full time photographer working with art directors of important clients, of course I wouldn't waste my time with any other software than LR and PS. I also understand that hobby photographers want to use LR and PS if they can afford it, it's their choice.

I suppose, just for the sake of playing devils advocate here, I will say that by NOT going to a subscription service, you are perpetuating a market that encourages software piracy and illegal sales.

Well, as long as software is installed in your computer, it's possible to pirate it. I haven't checked, but I've read that CC has been pirated long ago. Actually, just type "Adobe CC" in Google and see one of the first word added automatically ... Yup, it's "crack", so I'm pretty sure cracks exist. The only way to prevent piracy will be to have a hosted application on Adobe's server, until then piracy will remain present.

On another note, and we're are certainly all different, I tend to keep my computer for as long as I can. I'm obviously not the type to always want the best and shell out money to get it right away. I see computers and software like tools, and I don't replace my cordless drill every 6 months just because a new model has 50 in-lb more torque than my actual drill. I have no problem working with software one or two versions behind. So, every couple years, I buy a new computer, and update the software I use and want to keep. As a former IT guy, I've long understood that to acheive the best performances, it's better to keep software and hardware within the same 1-2 years generation. Once you start mixing old software with new OS and new hardware, or vice-versa, glitches and bugs arise. That being said, my computer is more than 4 years old, still very powerful to edit photos and HD video, and judging from that I won't upgrade it for another 1-2 years, maybe even 3 years. So yes, I skip versions, and even if I decided to drink the Kool-Aid anyway, it would probably turn out to be more expensive that way for me.

Software, hardware, cameras, lenses, are just tools involved in the process of creating images. If those "tools" do exactly what you want, and they are paid off, what's the incentive to spend money just to get the latest and end up doing the same work as before? Can you tell me only one feature in CC that is now essential to your workflow, but you couldn't do in earlier versions?

 

[Buckster]

your decision to drink Adobe's 10$/month Kool-Aid

You should stop using this insult. And yes, it is an insult. Please stop.

my opinion on the subject, just as those who disagree here, may be helpful to make a decision.

The OP of THIS thread is someone looking for alternatives to PS and LR, so he doesn't need to be dissuaded from it. He's already looking for alternatives, and others were helping him with that. You're overreaction to someone asking him why not PS and LR, which he could easily have answered himself, has hijacked the thread and started this argument, and both are entirely unnecessary, ESPECIALLY since it's been hashed and rehashed countless times already for more than 2 years since Adobe went with the CC model.

Here's another slanted opinion that misses my point entirely. What's important is not to hold on to your old copies of Photoshop so you can put them on your will. Older versions of software are useless.

Exactly. So what good is it to "own" that which is useless? People don't. They don't continue to use old software. They upgrade. They buy new. They pay. Again. And again. And again. It's a myth that a subscription service keeps costing you but buying and owning doesn't, since buying and owning only lasts until the next buy and own cycle of the product. It's a red herring to continue to act like the subscription model is the bogeyman simply because it's an ongoing subscription. It's like whining that food is a subscription since we have to keep buying it over and over and over again, or we'll starve to death.

Do you realize by paying for a software you will never owe shifts the power from the customer to the software manufacturer? As a consumer, manufacturers have to make goods that will entice you to buy them. If you feel it's too expensive, or doesn't respond to your needs, you can decide not to buy. As a consumer, you have the power on your side for as long as the money is in your hands. This is the most important incentive software manufacturers have to keep coming out with new useful features and invest heavily in R&D. By paying every month for a service, it's open ended as to what manufacturers will do next, how much they will charge, and you have no say on that end. Heck, they may even come out with an update that will require you to add more RAM to your computer! Sure, you can cancel your subscription at any time, but since the product you are renting monthly are mainstrean software, those software manufacturers are in a technical situation of monopoly. I'd just like to remind you that monopolies are illegal, and for many good reasons.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... They'll be coming to get my first-born and take my car too someday. They'll never update the software. It'll just stagnate, and all of us users will stagnate along with it. Because of it, the economy will tank, Adobe will go out of business, and all our computers will implode right after we realize that suddenly without warning all our PSD files can't be read by anything anymore, including the various programs not made by Adobe that can read them now, and even pull out the various layers from them. Then you informed lot who walked around with your sandwich boards, bullhorns and signs screaming the end is near will be proclaimed right, and hailed as the seers you obviously are.

WTF EVAR.

When it happens, you can say you told us so. Meanwhile, there's no sign that any of that "consumer Hell" you keep describing and alluding to and preaching about is going to happen any time soon, so I'm not going to worry a lot about it.

You see the current situation in your own personal perspective by paying a pleasing 10$/month for a duo of great professional software, but just like that guy who picks a cheap screwdriver made overseas instead of a better American made screwdriver for couple dollars more,

Show me that cheap American BETTER made Photoshop and LR solution that will last FOREVER without EVER needing an upgrade or replacement and is just a few dollars more, so that I can replace this cheap, overseas-made horrible PS and LR software that will no doubt break any minute, RIGHT when I NEED it most.

And then I'll be ready to buy any bridges you have handy that are for sale.

...you are contributing to a business model that will lead to a lot of problems later without caring for the consequences later. We make a lot of decisions with our purchase decisions, but I assume that all that really counts for you now is to have LR and PS at 10$/month?

What counts for me is that I have the latest, greatest (IMHO) software for my needs, and that means PS and LR. As I stated earlier, I paid full price for MANY years to get it, and now I pay less. If CC hadn't come along and the price wasn't less, I'd STILL be paying the full upgrade price every time adobe popped out a new upgrade. So, no, it's not all about the money.

On the other hand, since I'm NOT rich and money and budget ARE things I have to actually deal with in the real world I live in, I'm certainly LIKING that it now costs me LESS than it ever has before to use those programs that I WANT to use, CHOOSE to use, and was always willing to pay MORE for in order to continue to use the latest greatest versions of them. Believe it or not, I'm informed enough to know there ARE other software solutions out there, have actually tried some of them over the years, and I still CHOOSE to use PS and LR, as is my right.

Now go parade around in front of Walmart with a bullhorn and a sign that tells people not to shop there because it's ruining the economy and their futures. It's true, but guess what? You're not going to change a thing with that sign and bullhorn. They're going to keep right on shopping at Walmart right there in front of you, and across the land. You might as well be standing on a beach with a bucket trying to turn the tide with it while shouting at the other people lounging about and swimming about how bad it will be someday when that beach has eroded away.

If and when that happens, they'll just go to a different beach. And if all your dire prophesies come true, we'll just go to a different software.