OT: Subscription Based Software Coming?

Cliff Etzel wrote on 5/12/2008, 7:10 AM

Mike Jones posted on his blog about Adobe making a move to a subscription based model for its software.

As someone who is a one man shop, the idea of having a company control when I can use my software based upon whether I paid my month subscription or not is frightening. Imagine being in the middle of a project and all of a sudden, you software quits working due to not paying your monthly subscription (due to uncontrollable cirumstances). I was consulted by Adobe last year on this very topic and needless to say, they didn't listen to those who are the base of their users - one and small person operations who typically work on cash flows that are less than flush many times.

Having read this posting and followed the link to Adobe Australia to confirm, I made a business decision at this time to boycott any future products from Adobe where applicable (Guess Flash can't be done since now it controls 98% of the market share - maybe time to revisit other technologies). From my POV, this corporate move is, in a sense, holding my business for ransom on a month to month basis. I cannot see paying more per month over the course of a year than the full price of an application suite up front would cost - and I get to keep my software.

I only hope SONY doesn't decide to follow this trend. I wish Linux had a viable native NLE that could handle HDV.

Soap Box Rant over.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/12/2008, 7:22 AM

"big" companies have done this for years. The plus: you pay a fraction to stay up to date. Minus: stop paying & loose the software. For Vegas I do NOT see it being viable unless a) it's a few $$ a year or b) they raise the price of the software quite a bit & then charge a subscription fee. Adobe charges MUCH more then Sony does, the cost of upgrading Vegas every year is peanuts compared to a new version & I'm betting it's ~the same as Adobe's yearly fees.

But this has been comming: digital media is the same way, games are becoming the same way, only makes sense everything would go this way. More $$ for less work on the dev end (people can't buy a version they like & stick with it for years, they either keep paying or loose the software).

But no company does ONLY this except for HUGE companies that has software that would measure in the tens of thousands of $$. Maya didn't even do ONLY this when it cost tens of thousands.

farss wrote on 5/12/2008, 3:09 PM

It's an excellent idea, I'd be way more inclined to boycott companies that don't offer this option. By not offering it they're locking out the little guys who can't afford outright purchase or have a one off need.

Bob.

Steve Mann wrote on 5/12/2008, 3:36 PM

How is an annual support/upgrade fee any different from the way upgrades and new versions are sold now?

farss wrote on 5/12/2008, 3:49 PM

Let me see. Pay $10K upfront plus ongoing upgrade costs. Or pay monthly rental of $500 that includes upgrades.

If you've got the capital and the work to justify the expense outright purchase is generally better for your bottom line. If you don't have that sort of money or the ongoing business renting anything makes a lot of sense. Who can afford to buy a high end camera and a set of primes. Even if you could they'll very likely spend a lot of time not earning money.

As has been said, this is only in very rare cases a one or the other option. Same goes for hardware too. There's some cameras you cannot buy. Even Fisher dollies until recently were not for sale, that's changed in the last few years.

Bob.

rmack350 wrote on 5/12/2008, 4:05 PM

I didn't know Fisher had started selling dollies. I used to do repair work on Chapman dollies back when I was still at a rental house. Those too were never available for purchase. Both Chapman and Fisher wanted dollies to be insured for $100k US.

Generally, they were so expensive that it was unlikely you'd recoup your cost as a sole owner unless you could keep it busy contantly. Even having it on a lease, we couldn't always make a profit on each and every PeeWee we had available to rent to people. But then we had six, and some months we needed more.

One thing about leasing Fisher and Chapman dollies was that they'd occasionally swap them for units with new features if we asked. Retaining ownership meant that they could take product off the market if they wanted.

For software like this, a lot depends on what the vendor needs and what the customer needs. Vendors who rent software better also provide immediate support. Customers willing to rent probably either don't need the softwar efull time, or they need the support contract that comes with it.

For Vegas, it makes more sense to buy it. Same with most adobe products, but if you need to equip 100 people with the suite for 6 months then maybe it makes more sense to rent.

Rob Mack

Cliff Etzel wrote on 5/12/2008, 5:21 PM

Rob - that was how I saw this issue - it makes perfect sense for companies that need numerous copies but for the small business owner, that puts a hefty dent in ones bottom line. Every single app I have I use regularly - not occasionally. I still use my copy of Acid Pro 4 which I haven't bothered to upgrade. I just feel like I don't need to upgrade and like having a known entity that just works.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt

TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/12/2008, 6:43 PM

I'd say this fully depends on what the requirements are. Autodesk REQUIRES you already have a copy of 3ds max to have a subscription. That's ~$3500+$500 a year subscription fee. If it's not a current version of the software you need to get a current version. The upgrade is ~$1300.

So the subscription is still WAY out of reach for the people we're thinking it would benefit. If we use the same idea with Adobe, After Effects is $1000 with an upgrade of $300. That would mean the yearly subscription would be ~$150. Not bad. But... what happens if I don't want to subscribe any more? Is my entire license invalid?

AnthonyTower wrote on 5/12/2008, 8:46 PM

"Autodesk REQUIRES you already have a copy of 3ds max to have a subscription. That's ~$3500+$500 a year subscription fee. If it's not a current version of the software you need to get a current version. The upgrade is ~$1300. "

The yearly subscription fee Discreet charges is for support and upgrades during the paid subscription year.

If you choose not to renew your subscription for 3ds Max you still get to use it as much as your want.
I haven't renewed for years now and still use it.
I have even re-installed 3ds on a different computer and got an authorisation code from them.

I doubt Adobe would be so stupid as to not offer the end user the choice whether to buy or rent.

Cheers

rmack350 wrote on 5/12/2008, 9:46 PM

Exactly. In your case you don't want a subscription. (nor do I)

Looking at it as a customer, there's definitely a place for software by subscription. I don't really have much faith that marketing people at adobe would get it right, though. More likely they'd come up with a model that no one thinks is a good idea except for the marketing folks.

Adobe certainly couldn't convert to a subscription-only model. That'd be dumb.

Rob

Jessariah67 wrote on 5/12/2008, 11:25 PM

Subscriptions also wouldn't allow you to "go back."

How many people have V8 & V7 running together on their systems right now to deal with issues? I could go back to V3 if I wanted. Under subscription (if I understand it correctly), I wouldn't be able to do that.

I don't like programs or software companies deciding where & how I should be situated. You have Vegas 4 on your P3 system and it's working just fine. Good for you. I don't think that should be messed with.

KH

Xander wrote on 5/13/2008, 3:20 AM

Thought I would point out that nowadays you don't buy software. What you buy is the license to use software. It is worth reading the small print.

richard-courtney wrote on 5/13/2008, 5:31 AM

I see a retirement opportunity .....
a kiosk video editing station with dollar bill acceptor.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/13/2008, 5:43 AM

I have to agree with Kevin. It should be the consumer's choice, not the software company's. If I'm happy with version X and it does what I need, that's no one's business but mine.

Subscriptions are just one more way of the "haves" exercising control over the "have-nots".

I try, don't always succeed, to avoid Adobe products. Adobe and Apple were cut from the same bolt.

Cliff Etzel wrote on 5/13/2008, 8:30 AM

Hit the nail on the head Jay,

Although I try to avoid the religious debate of OS/software, I do find the behemoth's that make up the Triple AAA NLE offerings have become as bloated as their coffers. I'm all for making a buck, but the excesses of these large companies is almost sickening. The rumor mill now has it that Apple is considering spinning off its software division to another entity yet to be named, but still have a majority shareholder status to keep things in check so to speak. Apple is now considered a specialized hardware company.

The best thing I have read about Apple to date is that Apple's hardware is basically a large dongle for their software.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt

Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/13/2008, 9:01 AM

Cliff, I owe you a bit of an apology. I hadn't read your original post completely before I posted--just skimmed the thread. You wrote:

"From my POV, this corporate move is, in a sense, holding my business for ransom on a month to month basis."

Where I come from, that's called "extortion".

Extort: "to obtain [money or property] from a person by force, intimidation, or undue... power."

ken c wrote on 5/13/2008, 11:50 AM

Good thing the software we all have lifetime access to once bought, now, is likely "good enough" for most of what we'd ever need for many years to come ... only exception would be, for example, Adobe's Media Player, and production software needs for it, if they're different. I don't upgrade just because things are available; I do so if the new features are genuinely needed vs shiny bright objects that don't add to the bottom line. (or steps backwards, like vista "the new winME" is, compared to xp).

-k

AtomicGreymon wrote on 5/13/2008, 12:43 PM

Personally, I don't care for the idea. However, as long as companies still offer the option to buy the software outright, I wouldn't care if they began offering it on a subscription basis, as well. IMO, I'd only do this if I wanted to use software that was ludicrously unaffordable (eg. Blu-Print), most likely for a limited time. I'd never bother for an Adobe CS# suite, or SCS apps.