[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.