[jan_Inkepa]

Also that their cancellation window has limits on both sides - I told them more than six months I advance to cancel my renewal and the refused and toll me to call up again in a particular 30 day period close to the expiry date...

[_fat_santa]

When your business has to depend on subscription engineering like this, it means the underlying product is not good enough to stand on it's own feet.

[dylan604]

Your comment makes me think you have no experience with Adobe's product line if you think it can't stand on it's own feet. In fact, after Windows, I'd imagine Adobe software being one of the most pirated apps out there. Doubtful people would pirate software that's no good.

While your whimsical comment might apply to some rent seeking subscription products, as phrased, it does seem like you are totally out of line with it application in this thread.

[sealeck]

The problem is that Photoshop is actually pretty good (although Affinity definitely gives it a run for its money and is as good for simple things).

[rchaud]

> it means the underlying product is not good enough to stand on it's own feet.

Adobe CC not strong enough? That's not it.

Subscription retention practices like this are to juice quarterly numbers to delight analysts on the earnings calls. If Adobe was a private company this level of lock-in desperation wouldn't be necessary. We'd still be able to buy the software once like we used to.

[toyg]

That's a hopeful statement. Maybe it wouldn't be necessary, but it would be implemented anyway. These days, any company not having subscriptions is seen as leaving money on the table and they will become targets for takeovers.

[rchaud]

> These days, any company not having subscriptions is seen as leaving money on the table

This kind of product economics comes from Wall Street. It's led to a world where companies, rather than charging at a stable price point that allows them to keep the lights on, offer something at an unsustainable $10/mo to build marketshare. Then they raise the price every year after that, whether or not the additions made have any added value.

[i_am_jl]

That's the worst part, the products are great. $20/month is reasonable for PS/LR considering that yearly releases were retailing for $500+ in the CS6 era. Cloud storage and generative AI credits are rolled into those costs. New features are showing up again. Regarding Photoshop, there are no real alternatives.

It's not that Adobe's depending on subscription engineering, it's creative pros 100% dependent on Adobe products being willing to put up with this shit because they have quality products with no alternatives.

[jb1991]

> Regarding Photoshop, there are no real alternatives.

Unfortunately, the same is true for Illustrator. There are competitors that have 95% of the features, but that remaining 5% is critical for serious professionals.

[Spooky23]

Exactly. The downside of subscription software is that companies like Adobe become life insurance companies that produce software. Their enterprise value is defined by churn rates and there's a strong incentive to lock customers down to reduce that risk.

I work for a huge org, and we tell companies like this to go fuck off with terms like this. The real scam of Adobe is that there is no way to assess engagement rates with their tools. The only way to get this data is by metering PCs or datamining your IdP.

[figassis]

It probably is, but rent seeking has no limits.