OT: Corporate madness - Adobe software to be subscription only

[Bill Swallow]

You don't lose your content. The files don't turn into pumpkins when you quit the subscription. Yes, you can't use the native files, but if you didn't plan a content migration knowing you'd be dropping the parent application, whose fault is that? 

As a consultant, the model is extremely appealing to me. I can purchase use of the tools for as long as I need them. When done, the source content resides with the client, anyway. 

As for cars, leasing has been a huge business for a couple of decades. There's also a growing adoption of ride shares (pay for shared use of a car), and rentals still are thriving. 

I can understand if people are averted to the model as opposed to buying a license, but the content issue, specifically, is a non-issue. You should always have a plan/strategy surrounding your content. 

---
Bill Swallow
Writing and Content Strategy
http://www.linkedin.com/in/techcommdood

On May 9, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Steve Rickaby <srickaby at wordmongers.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> At 14:22 -0400 9/5/13, Bill Swallow wrote:
> 
>> I don't see this as being a bad thing. I see it as being different.
> 
> Yup, but as soon as you stop paying, you lose access to all your content. That's a real big psychological barrier to bridge. I can see why a subscription model would appeal to corporate users, but for freelances it's a great deal less appealing. What is even less appealing is not being offered the choice of whether to buy or rent the apps. How for example would General Motors fare if they stopped selling cars and just rented them?
> 
> Time alone will tell whether this will work for Adobe, but it sure doesn't work for a sole worker like me.
> 
> -- 
> Steve [Trim e-mails: use less disk, use less power, use less planet]