Adobe Tells Users They Can Get Sued for Using Old Versions of Photoshop

[unpopular]

No ongoing charges were assigned to him whether he engaged in his hobby or not.

yeah, but isn't that kind of what's going on with a flat rate? I mean, I can cancel my Adobe subscription at the end of the term without penalty. But if I decide not to use software with a permanent license, then I'm just sitting on the software I've purchased regretting it. I mean, I guess you could try to resell and transfer, but who wants your crusty Photoshop license, and what if you need it again in a couple years?

The software I use most for work (and play) is Houdini, which costs about $300/year. And yeah, I definitely feel like I'm wasting that $300 whenever I'm not using it. But if I know I won't be needing it next year, I just won't renew.

I wouldn't have that option if I bought the license up front, and every month I wasn't using it was a month that $7,000 houdini license is being wasted. Pretty sure I'd feel about the same if I spent $7000 on an enlarger...

Plus, Pentax, Kodak, Nikon, etc., never threatened their customer with a lawsuit if they didn't upgrade their cameras.

Well, I think we can all agree Adobe sucks.

-----

My larger point here is that, aside from all the ethical, moral and religious feeling that we have about renting software is that digital has certainly reduced our everyday expenses, and there is a tendency to forget just how amazingly expensive everything used to be.

So speaking of $7000 enlargers...

I'm pretty sure that if Durst had an option to send you the latest and greatest enlarger for ten bucks a month, I doubt people would be debating this. Of course, Durst would probably give you the option to buy.

OTOH, Panavision doesn't...