[itake]

I don’t know if the previous model was actually that good foe users. Because the releases were static every time there was a breaking software or hardware change you would need to buy a new version of the software.

It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow."

Companies didn't switch to SaaS out of the goodness of their hearts or out of concern for low income people. If the old pay-per-version model were making them more money, they would have stuck to it like a barnacle on a ship.

The SaaS model has always been more profitable than pay-per-version because it took control of when to do a version upgrade out of the hands of the end-user.

[desine]

>It also reduces accessibility for lower income people. Not everyone can force over $1000 for Photoshop software but paying $30 a month is a much easier pill to swallow.

Hard disagree. Pirating was easier, but even legal avenues were cheaper. Whenever a new version rolled out, you could pick up a license for the old version dirt cheap. I bought Photoshop outright for the price of 2 months of subscription, and had full access to a very usable program for years.

I see the above justification a lot from the same companies pushing this obviously more profitable model.