With Adobe's switch to a rent only basis for their products, it has me wondering about other companies. Do you support the idea of "Stabilized Revenue" where you can only rent a product, paying money each month, vs paying one large lump sum. Would you buy/use the Windows OS if they forced you to pay $25 to $50 a month for however long you operated that specific computer and still gave the current level of service with it? Same going for any other company out there, example being EA charging their consumers $5 a month for each game you have, enabling them to "stabilize" their income.

Note: Please, lets stay away from the symantics/standard defense of "you never truly own these products to begin with," and/or "you never own digital licenses."

Why not offer a single up-front payment as an alternative?

probably because it'd lampshade how much of a ripoff the subscription would be in the long term

Absolutely not. It's funny how game and software companies will often complain that they lose revenue due to piracy and sharing on one hand, but then on the other, they start creating policies such as this and expect everybody to "play fair" with them.

That being said, I am just now hearing about this renting idea from this thread. I won't pass judgement onto Adobe until I know more about how the system works, as I'm sure it's more than just "Give us money to keep using this product."

At least I hope it is. A company can't be that suicidal, can it?

Adobe strikes me as a company that only really attempts to sell their products to professional clients who are willing to make a steeper investment. Kind of like how studio equipment was sold before the software boom.

But the fact is that tons of people use their products, even if it's a small little hobby on the side. And of course piracy is rampant throughout that demographic, but Adobe doesn't seem to care much. Why they can't just offer earlier versions of Photoshop at a big discount without support is beyond me. They did that thing with CS2 earlier, deactivating the authorization servers and letting anyone get it from their site even if you're not "supposed to" without an old license, which really sends the signal that they don't care about turning their abandonware into an additional revenue stream.

I'm sorry, but I can't abide by this request because it's the heart of the issue.

I'm a software developer and have been for over 25 years of my life. I've been using Microsoft's products and services for most of those 25 years. It's been a phenomenal experience to be given the opportunity to use their software to create software of my own, then hope I can earn a living from it.

The problem is: it's difficult to do so. Why? Because people don't understand the fundamental law of Economics: supply and demand.

As a software developer, the second I compile my application, its cost is $0 to the consumer. Why? Because I can create indefinite copies of the digital file. Trying to balance out a reasonable price for consumers and maintain the control of earning a living is difficult.

We understand there's a cost to developer the software, but its ludicrous to think we can charge 99 cents, 10 cents, or even 1 cent for the application when A) there are others out there doing the same and people can simply copy it for themselves.

I don't believe they "steal" my software (and I hate that term, by the way). As a consumer myself, I know there's an inherent cost of paying for my software, as well as everything else. It's foolish to believe my software has any more value to a consumer than Windows or Photoshop, for example.

However, it's also important I try and flexibly design my software so I can earn a living as well as compete, and I can't do this without DRM. No one can, and that's why the public falsely believes "they don't own the works". It also doesn't help our copyright laws have been pushing the bounds to remove the consumer from the equation. Shocking to hear this from a developer, but I side with the consumer.

There just hasn't been any way to balance out giving the full rights to consumers as well as maintain an artificial supply of software and DRM was introduced to try and balance this problem.

However, we've seen what DRM can do to consumers when companies bend the balance toward their profits knowing full well customers don't have control. I find it disgusting these companies have the financial resources to pay off our government and block innovation against us little guys because they've earned profits over the years.

Now that the internet has come along and turned many people into writers, singers, game developers, and app makers, we see a shift if control, and that control is no longer belonging to the previous generation of software makers, who also controlled the gates of how the software was acquired: the disk.

I'd love nothing more than to develop games for the XB1, write apps for people who need electronic assistance, or release my latest musical score free to the world. But I've got to eat and I sure can't rely on people to pay me when they can download their buffet at no cost to them.

Yes, I do work for a company now, but this isn't where I wanted to be. I had to sacrifice opportunity for stability, and people are starting to realize the problem, as they see their songs and fan fictions being copied and pasted in places they didn't want. Rather than understand, they scream "THIEF! IT'S MINE! PAY ME!" and the world of digital seems to be getting worse.

What you see as "stabilizing revenue" is actually a misinterpretation of the true definition of artificial scarcity, putting an infinite distribution into the supply and demand economic rule.

Honestly, I don't see a balance possible when it comes to digital works. Without DRM, it's far too risky to rely on people's understanding we developer have to eat and hope they pay a fair price. In my years, I've learned one thing: if people can get it for free, they'll gladly download it and what happens behind the scenes is no concern of them.

In a consumers eyes, they think "business will make up for it somewhere else", and not see the devastation such an attitude has.

Again, it's not because they're thieves, it's because a digital environment can make so many applications, songs, movies, TV shows, and books so abundant, it's impossible for consumers to pay for it all.

And please don't resort to the "if they can't afford it, they shouldn't have it" argument. It's ridiculous, because I know for a fact you're going to tell your friend about the latest you've tried and entice them to try it as well.

A digital file can be used as a preview, even if the entire thing is consumed.

Because there's another economic law I live by: If someone enjoys what I've made, they'll pay for it, but only if someone hasn't given them a copy of it first.

I relished the digital era, but sadly, I watched as company after company ruined DRM to the point if I tried using it now, consumers scream "WE DON'T OWN OUR DIGITAL FILE".

This example of "stabilized revenue", however, is disgusting from companies who earn billions in profits.

It always begs me to ask: "What the [bleep] did you do with those billions you're worried about profits?"

No one bothers to ask that question, though do they.

Sorry for the unwind, especially since you asked not to, but I wanted to write the other side of the equation so people have more understanding of what's going on.

If you read this far, thanks.