Ask Slashdot: What Is Your View On Forced Subscription-Only Software?

dryriver writes: All used to be well in the world of Digital Content Creation (DCC) until two very major DCC software makers -- Adobe and Autodesk -- decided to force a monthly subscription model on pretty much every software package they make to please Wall Street investors. Important 2D and 3D DCC software like Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, InDesign, 3DMax, Maya, and Mudbox is now only available to "rent" from these companies. You simply cannot buy a perpetual license or boxed copy for this software at all anymore, and what makes matters worse is that if you stop paying your subscription, the software locks itself down, leaving you unable to open even old files you created with the software for later review. Also annoying is that subscription software constantly performs "license validity" checks over the internet (subscription software cannot be run offline for any great length of time, or on an air-gapped PC) and the software is increasingly tied into various cloud services these companies have set up. The DCC companies want you to save your -- potentially confidential -- project files on their servers, not on your own hard disk.

There are millions of DCC professionals around the world who'd love to be able to buy a normal, perpetual, offline-use capable license for these software tools. That is no longer possible. Adobe and Autodesk no longer provide that. What is your view on this "forced subscription" model? What would happen if all the major commercial software developers forced this model on everyone simultaneously? What if the whole idea of being able to "purchase" a perpetual license for ANY commercial software went away completely, and it was subscription only from that point on?

Comments

Hate the Sub Model

[jvp]

I'm not a fan of the sub model; I use several of the Adobe apps, so the $50/month seems like a steal when you consider the Suite used to cost in the thousands of dollars. But I'd still rather pay up once and be able to keep using the software as much as I wanted.

Re:Hate the Sub Model

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If you could actually do arithmetic, Creative Cloud still didn't work out cost effective at the pricing in a lot of markets, and much less so if you didn't upgrade Creative Suite every time, which many users didn't.

We've run away from both Adobe and Autodesk as a direct result of these decisions. Most of our new graphics and UI work is done with tools like the Affinity suite. For occasional 3D modelling work we keep a pre-subscription licence around for compatibility but we're migrating to open tools like Blender for future-proofing. Only a brave person or fool lets their business depend on this sort of uncertain yet locked in arrangement for anything critical to their business, and whether they are a brave person or a fool is probably only a matter of perspective. There are good, realistic alternatives for most casual to moderately serious users these days.

Open source options benefit from this.

[substance2003]

As a user of Blender, I am fine with Autodesk's destructive attitudes. I've noticed that some animation studios are now providing both money to the Blender Institute and software coders to help it's development. It may still feel like a drop in the bucket but Blender is capable to do many of the tasks needed out there already.
Now I know that won't cover all aspects but maybe other programs such as FreeCAD will get a boost from these vendor lock in tactics.
If Gimp could speed up their development, people might see a benefit to replace Photoshop in businesses too but I might be asking too much here.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It's why I'm dumping Quicken

[SirDrinksAlot]

The Quicken change is garbage, once you upgrade to 2018 all of your data gets held hostage going forward. If you don't renew for the low low price of full price next year you only have read-access. Before at least they just disabled downloading financial statements which sure that's no problem. It just made the old versions a pain but I understand that limitation, importing external data could require ongoing support.

If a user doesn't need to download statements or new features, forced upgrades are no benefit so long as everything is working fine.

I setup a new PC for the gf's family that I got for them, I had to dig up a copy of Quicken 2015 to reinstall since they're poor farmers. Their old PC was a Pentium 4 with Windows XP running Quicken 2011.... They were happy with 2011 and don't need anything new or fancy, unfortunately they lost the CD and it probably wouldn't work on Windows 10 anyways. Forcing them to pay $35-50/yr to be able to manage not going into debt is counter-intuitive. This sounds like it's thick with exaggeration but unfortunately this is the case. People trying to make ends meet responsibly trying to be forced to shell out more out of what they have, Quicken isn't used just by rich people with money burning holes in their pockets.

Re:It doesn't matter what you want.

[zifn4b]

And by the way if you have a 401K or a 403B, you are a potential investor and driving this behavior as well...

Pros and Cons

[duke_cheetah2003]

Mmmm, subscriptions to software. They're definitely the future. Look for this to become more of a thing as time goes on. I personally don't like it, but I do see the benefits of this model. We have to admit there are some boons to the subscription model we might not readily see.

The biggest one is going to be support. If a company is making you pay every month to use their stuff, they better be supporting it. The entire model sustains a decent support team assuming the company is willing to shovel some of their profits into it. Also, the support part includes continuous updates. See Microsoft Windows 10 for an example of how this looks.

Also updates, yep, you never have to pay a large one-time licensing fee, and your subscription includes updates, for as long as you keep paying. Never have to worry about buying the next version at a large one-time licensing fee.

But then the cons: You're married to this company, dependent on them to make a living. Not sure I'm comfortable with that. Offline usage. I imagine a lot of subscription models are going to have to provide for more security conscious customers, like DoD or three-letter-agencies whom can't have stuff always connected. So there will definitely be stipulations for that, but it's still annoying. Hopefully they'll give a fairly decent amount of 'offline usage' before the license gets angry with you. Access to your files after subscription ends.. yeah, that's not good, companies definitely need to provide a read-only mode of their software so you can still get at your stuff, just can't modify it anymore until you resubscribe.

Final thoughts: It definitely has a place. It's not all evil. It's not ideal for all situations and I do wish companies would offer both options. If I want to buy a perpetual today's latest and greatest version of doffusofficecadauto, I should be able to do that, and never get updates ever, until I buy a new version or subscribe. For some situations it's really ideal and actually a boon. It does sort of force companies to stand behind their product for as long as you're subscribed to it.

Long term I worry, computer companies of all shapes, sizes and flavors come and go at a breakneck speed. I do worry about people losing work trapped in defunct subscription software. At the end of the day, you have to decide which works for you. For those of us who are bitching we can't get perpetual licenses anymore.. well, there's a market opening for someone ambitious. Fill that niche?

Re:Premise is bullshit.

[Smidge204]

Don't use Adobe or Autodesk.

Not using AutoDesk is basically impossible if you hope to work with anyone else in the fields of architecture and engineering. Some municipalities even explicitly require AutoCAD/Revit files as part of the deliverables.

But yes, I suppose "Not using AutoDesk" is just as much an option as "Not having a job."
=Smidge=

Re:LOVE IT!

[Anonymous Coward]

cayenne8 revealed:

So far, I'm voting with my wallet....I encourage anyone that can to also do so.

Avid Corporation's Pro Tools is the standard DAW (Digital Audio Workstation) in the recording industry. Every professional recording studio uses it, because their customers demand that they do so.

Avid decided more than a decade ago that renting, rather than selling, recording software would be their model - and, like the Adobe examples listed in TFS - they've stuck with it ever since. And their license fees are not cheap. Like, at all. To frost the feces cake, most major makers of audio processing plug-ins have adopted the same strategy. All of which, naturally, makes running a commercial recording studio a hideously expensive business, given how much it costs to design and build one, and how much the necessary hardware (professional-quality microphones, for instance, start at around $1,200 and go way up from there) adds to the start-up expense.

That's why, for my home studio, I chose to go with Reaper, instead. Justin Frankel, the lead developer of the seminal WinAmp music player founded the company that makes it after AOL bought (and promptly forgot about) WinAmp from him for gazillions of dollars. He's publicly stated that the price of Reaper ($60 for private use) is purposely set low to make it affordable for everyone, since he's already rich enough to afford not to gouge his customers - so the cost is just high enough to pay the development team to keep working on the product.

Reaper kicks ass. It's just as capable a product as Pro Tools - and, once you buy it, it's yours. You get no-cost upgrades through the entire major version you bought. And the next one, as well. It's compatible with all the major plug-in formats, and it comes bundled with a whole bunch of them (including VSTi's) at no additional charge. It's WAY more configurable than Pro Tools, it uses very little RAM, comparatively speaking, and it's scriptable up the wazoo.

Oh, and there's a Linux version, as well.

I didn't mean this post to be a Slashvertisment, but I guess it turned into one. Sorry about that. See, my point is that there's a pro-quality alternative to what is practically a software monopoly in the audio recording world, too. And it doesn't require you to compromise on functionality or power.

Fuck rent-seeking. And fuck rent-seekers ...

(Posted as AC only to keep from undoing prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

Re:In Favor

[networkBoy]

While this may be true, I have not upgraded any of my adobe creative suite tools past the last perpetual licensed version I own. Ever since then I've been learning the open source replacements for everything I do. Not as easy, or as integrated, but I refuse to be hostage to a sub that prevents me from accessing prior work without current payment.
If they had a "reader" version of all their tools that allowed the basic functionality then *maybe* but as it is now? No.

Re: LOVE IT!

[nehumanuscrede]

" That's odd. My pirated copies work just fine. No problems here. "

I just can't bring myself to trust pirated software anymore. I got burned too many times during my Amiga days with all sorts of evil shit that came hidden / bundled with the Yarr Matey versions.

I don't really care for the subscription model, but I use Adobe's software too much to avoid it.

I greatly dislike the fact that Adobe keeps open / talking connections back to their servers at all times. Even more annoying that it's encrypted so I can't see what is going out. I let it talk initially, then a script kills the active processes for the remainder of the session.

I have experimented with Photoshop alternatives, but I find their performance is seriously lacking ( Wacom Mobile Studio Pro platform ) in comparison.

Capture One Pro ( v11 is latest ) works very well for a Lightroom replacement though I don't typically shoot 5k shots that I then have to sort through.

Now, Autodesk can just kiss my ass on their Maya / Max subscription systems. ( I like how they bought and then discontinued Softimage just so they could remove any potential competitors )

Last I checked, they were around the $1500 / year mark ( for a subscription ) and that price is why I got serious about Blender.

Re:No product is unassailable

[Voyager529]

*I was amazed to see that Word Perfect is still lumbering along. I had no idea. Also Word Perfect supplanted things like Wordstar (of which I also have fond memories of running under CP/M)

WordPerfect is still in existence because they got bought out a few times and ultimately ended up at Corel, a company I affectionately call "the software retirement home". With titles like WinZip, WinDVD, CorelDraw, Paint Shop Pro, and WordPerfect (which itself contains Paradox), it seems as though the company's plan is to play law-of-large-numbers on acquisitions of software titles which were de facto standards in their day. But I digress.

WordPerfect survives primarily because they have a solid niche in law firms. Legal documents depend heavily on the "Reveal Codes" functionality, which is kinda-sorta like a middle-of-the-road between WYSIWYG editing and LaTeX, which allows for consistent document formatting without either the weirdness of Word rearranging everything when you move an image one pixel to the left, or the learning curve of LaTeX for those who "only know Word". Reveal Codes begat document libraries (keeping in mind that law firms also notoriously keep everything forever), and templates, and plugins, and enough of a cottage industry around a highly profitable sector that has enabled it to avoid utter irrelevance.

All of that being said, I completely agree with your assessment that no program is beyond being dethroned. Oracle used to be the platform for databases (unless you were using IBM or small enough to use Access or Paradox), but newer databases commonly end up being designed in MariaDB or Postgres; even MS SQL Server has more favorable licensing. MS Office is still the standard, but GDocs is making inroads, especially in the education market. Good ol' Internet Explorer was the standard until Firefox chipped away at a solid clip, themselves supplanted by Chrome for many. Adobe themselves supplanted Quark with Indesign, and didn't take long to do so. Software comes and software goes, and while Adobe's decline will be incredibly gradual, it's far from impossible.