OT: Corporate madness - Adobe software to be subscription only
Steve Johnson
chinaski69 at gmail.com
Sun May 12 06:52:05 PDT 2013
Adobe introduces subscription-based licensing. So many of its users find it
an outstanding value that over time, most of them license software by
subscription. Adobe is rewarded for being innovative and Adobe serves its
customers better. Everybody wins.
Adobe ends its relationship with resellers over time so that, eventually,
all users license software directly from Adobe .. either subscription or
download or disks (at an extra cost).
This is also a success story for Adobe; it's rewarded because it's
providing a better service for its customers and at the same time, it's
doing better for its shareholders. That's how capitalism is supposed to
work.
Choice is the entire issue. Everyone who made the case for subscription has
a great point. It's not what I choose but I have no reason to tell you
subscription is bad for *you*.
Choice ... it's what humans do all the time. Adobe has removed the choice
from some percentage of its users and there's no reason for it. Maybe Adobe
has gotten to the point where it no longer believes customers make Adobe
successful. Maybe they think they're so big they don't have to think about
customers anymore; we, Adobe, make YOU successful.
I don't know; fact is, they're doing their customers a disservice by
limiting our choice for how we license software from them. Subscriptions
are great, just give me back what I want and I'm perfectly content.
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Alan T Litchfield <alan at alphabyte.co.nz>wrote:
> Funny how people put words between the lines...
>
> On 12/05/13 12:08 PM, Steve Johnson wrote:
>
>> That's some interesting points and some of them are probably partially
>> true. What you're saying basically is that Adobe blames its customers
>> for its relative low profit margins and share price. If only we were
>> more rational and obedient, Adobe would be better off.
>>
>
> I never said Adobe "blames" anyone for anything. I am saying that Adobe
> has shareholders and share values are important. Customers are important
> too, but they are important because they improve share value (more
> customers, better share values). However, customers are only valuable when
> they are encouraged to part with their money, so to have customers pay more
> frequently is better than when they don't.
>
> The problem with cusomters is that they cost money to do business with.
> The cost of customer management has a negative effect on share value. So,
> cut the cost of doing business and improve share value. The subscription
> model Adobe are rolling out does just that.
>
> Obedience has nothing to do with it. Don't make it a human factor.
> Humanity has nothing to do with this. This is economics.
>
>
>> You're side of the mark about resellers. Adobe locks down pricing and
>> availability of its software; you can't buy old versions of anything
>> from anybody ever and you can't get more than a few dollars of discount
>> from anybody. Having other people sell for you is generally a good
>> thing.
>>
>
> Ignoring the bit about buying old versions, as a former reseller, I can
> quite confidently tell you that you are wrong.
>
> Resellers are expensive to support and no longer bring real value to the
> product. With the advance of Internet and peer support of products, Adobe
> had long since removed the reseller from the channel. The subscription
> model merely removes the last part of the retail chain. Sure, there remain
> some resellers but they are concerned with large customers who need
> specific licensing requirements. These are the ones that for Adobe to do
> itself, are uneconomic.
>
> > But again, in the Adobe way of looking at things, what's good for
> > the customer is bad because customers always do the wrong thing.
>
> Sorry, makes no sense. Customers (those that pay for stuff) always do the
> right thing when they are relieved of their money.
>
>
>> Adobe is making this change in anticipation of other changes yet to be
>> announced.
>>
>
> Meh. It's just another way to do business. I have worked out that the
> subscription model will cost me about twice much to keep getting access to
> what I have now. It will disadvantage me in the future because I have to
> continue to pay for something I do not have to continue to pay for now.
>
> If you love the subscription model you'll love whatever else
>> they have in mind for you. It's a good time to be an apologist.
>>
>>
> If I too were a fanboy, then maybe I too would be all smoochy about it. I
> have been in this business for too many years. I do not like it that this
> company (or any other) decide that I have not been paying enough for what I
> have been using and make it so that I pay more. I do not like it that I
> have to have the corporation in my head every month come subscription time.
>
> On the other hand, it is good time to be a user of LaTeX, et al.
>
> I am keen to see what Jeremy has to offer.
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Alan T Litchfield <alan at alphabyte.co.nz
>> <mailto:alan at alphabyte.co.nz>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2013, at 6:36 AM, Steve Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Almost everyone keeps ignoring the question of CHOICE. There's
>> no doubt you can make a case for subscription but you can also
>> make a case for getting the disks or downloading the software.
>>
>> Of what benefit to Adobe is depriving us to choose what we want?
>> Why is mailing me disks for additional cost or providing a
>> download bad for Adobe? Clearly it isn't. There is something
>> else going on.
>>
>> Certainly Adobe will jack up the price of subscription. They
>> might have other things in mind also but the point is, why make
>> everyone adopt a model that doesn't benefit everyone? What's in
>> it for Adobe? That's what I'd like to know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Decreased cost for license management, increased cash flow through
>> subscriptions, constant income stream as opposed to periodic peaks
>> related to new product releases, increased profit margins, better
>> share value, regional price control and management (we typically pay
>> 3x the US cost for the same software), better release management (no
>> more pesky resellers and middlemen), better profits from cutting out
>> middlemen and resellers, therefore even better share value, more
>> accurate profit forecasts at shorter time intervals, therefore even
>> better share value,...
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> --
>> AlphaByte
>> PO Box 1941, Auckland, 1140
>> New Zealand
>> http://www.alphabyte.co.nz
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**___________________
>>
>>
>> You are currently subscribed to framers as dr_gonzo at pobox.com
>> <mailto:dr_gonzo at pobox.com>.
>>
>> Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com
>> <mailto:framers at lists.**frameusers.com <framers at lists.frameusers.com>
>> >.
>>
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>> framers-unsubscribe at lists.__fr**ameusers.com <http://frameusers.com>
>> <mailto:framers-unsubscribe@**lists.frameusers.com<framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com>
>> >
>> or visit
>> http://lists.frameusers.com/__**mailman/options/framers/dr___**
>> gonzo%40pobox.com<http://lists.frameusers.com/__mailman/options/framers/dr___gonzo%40pobox.com>
>> <http://lists.frameusers.com/**mailman/options/framers/dr_**
>> gonzo%40pobox.com<http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/dr_gonzo%40pobox.com>
>> >
>>
>> Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com
>> <mailto:listadmin at frameusers.**com <listadmin at frameusers.com>>. Visit
>> http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ============
>> Steve Johnson, dr_gonzo at pobox.com <mailto:dr_gonzo at pobox.com>
>>
>
> --
> AlphaByte
> PO Box 1941, Auckland
> http://www.alphabyte.co.nz
>
--
============
Steve Johnson, dr_gonzo at pobox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers-frameusers.com/attachments/20130512/4ec4961d/attachment.htm>
More information about the framers
mailing list