How do you feel about new Subscription based Software such as Adobe and MS Office?

[Harold Mansfield]

It seems that everyone is moving to subscription based software, where you pay monthly instead of just buying the thing outright. Adobe entered into started doing this earlier this year and now it looks like the new MS Office will be the same way.

Personally, I'm not a big fan. I like being about to own the thing outright and having as few monthly charges for stuff as possible.
What does everyone else think?

Will it make you more or less probable to use the products?

[billbenson]

I think its really the same trend as the forced upgrades that have been happening. After Windows XP MS started not supporting older versions. Software vendors quit supporting bugs or ugrades and only sold Vista compatible versions. This is really just an extension of that if you think about it. It forces you to upgrade (by way of monthly payments). It probably also is going down a path of not allowing you to use open source software.

It makes sense for software companies in a lot of ways. They have less software to maintain and probably increased profit. It also may make some people want to move from MS to Apple or Linux. It may also hurt open source software, because many people using open source software are going to want to stay on the windows platform.

[Pack-Secure]

I have mixed feelings about it. If I buy a certain version and they come out with a new version then I have to buy it again. If I pay a monthly fee, I would assume then that the new version would be included. It is more of a wait and see game, to see how the developers incorporate the fees.

[Wozcreative]

I can see why they would do it, I can't say I am a fan of it. If that is the case for these things I may end up paying a yearly fee instead of a monthly. I don't like too many bills floating around. It would be like buying new softare every year which is fine.

I do support software compatibility issues, I find it better to be told "you can't run this software because your OS is out of date" a much better way of doing things, rather than it being installed and be all buggy. This is one of the good features I like about apple, and why their software works so well with each other. I don't upgrade until I need to. I was falling behind because I was on CS4 as apposed to CS5 (i was over a year late), and was finding myself requesting files from printers in a lower version which was silly. That week I decided to upgrade, but found I needed the OS upgraded as well.. and then my RAM. But my computer now works great and It's only a matter of time before I need to upgrade the whole thing and get a new iMac, after all it is pushing 5 years soon.

So, do I like it? No. If it happens that more software is monthly based. I may just try to use alternative software or try without.

[billbenson]

It's almost like being forced to lease a car without have the option of buying a new or used one.

[Freelancier]

The problem is that their suites have become so bloated and expensive, that the average start-up is looking for alternatives when they need to buy lots of copies. This provides an alternative, if only to make it easier for these companies to get a large block of licenses without having to shell out tens of thousands of dollars up-front. It's a good business move for those companies.

But it's not something I need or want. I want to own the software I use, and decide when I want to upgrade. But that's me... and I'm not their target audience.

[MyITGuy]

I don't agree with it, and will seek out alternatives if I do not have the option to buy it outright.

What I tend to find is that the cost of the outright purchase, plus the costs of any maintenance/support to keep up to date on versions will almost always come out cheaper than "renting" the software over the long run.

[Business Attorney]

Freelancer expressed what I feel with respect to most of the software I use. I want one version, and I want it to continue to work as originally claimed until I (not the software company) feel like getting a version with different features. Some software gets updated and I want the new features. Other software changes the way things work and means readjusting to new menus and ways of getting the job done. I don't want to be forced to change.

One of the first companies to get me upset with their policies was Intuit with Quicken. I have used Quicken since its early days and voluntarily upgraded several times. Several years ago they changed their support policies so that when a version reached its end-of-life they didn't just stop supporting it (i.e., no updates and fixes) but they actually disabled the ability to use some features such as downloading your data, essentially rendering your existing program obsolete. Now, whether I feel like the few additional features are worth the upgrade or not, I have no choice but to switch programs or buy the latest version. At the next product EOL, I am seriously considering looking for another personal finance program.

[Harold Mansfield]

The new MS Office is going to be set up this way. I've been using the trail for a few days, and even though I hate monthly fees, it is surprisingly easy to use now. I also gave it a shot for Adobe Acrobat at $10 a month. Same. Ease of use is good.

I'm torn now. Not having the stuff sucking up RAM while I'm using it is a good thing. Free Cloud storage? Also good. Access from anywhere and up to 5 devices? Can't say I'm mad about that either.

I may have to temper my outrage for a bit until I see what MS is going to charge per month. If it's in the same $10-$15 range, I guess I can live with it.

[jbechtold]

While I don't particularly like it, its the only method that truly makes since. With all the compatibility issues and constant needs to patch/upgrade software in an ever changing market its surprising that software companies can make money with the current pricing structure. At the end of the day I think we as users will end up with better quality software and a more influential position in how software is updated in the future.

[MyITGuy]

I'm torn now. Not having the stuff sucking up RAM while I'm using it is a good thing. Free Cloud storage? Also good. Access from anywhere and up to 5 devices? Can't say I'm mad about that either.

until you loose your internet connection or don't have it available, then you can't access those cloud based applications or files.
until there is an outage at the cloud/provider level rendering your application/files useless until they get access restored
until your files are lost or a third party obtains access without approval due to different security standards that you may have in place.

[billbenson]

But, Jeff, do you see this as a trend that is going to be hard to combat? You are a windows proponent, but I could see a path that both Apple and Windows force this on customers leaving Linux as the only option?

[Harold Mansfield]

until you loose your internet connection or don't have it available, then you can't access those cloud based applications or files.
until there is an outage at the cloud/provider level rendering your application/files useless until they get access restored
until your files are lost or a third party obtains access without approval due to different security standards that you may have in place.

Yeah, no internet leaves me dead in the water anyway. That's one of my biggest fears anyway. Not a whole lot I can do without it. The files will never be useless as long as I have them stored locally. But what can you do if that's the only way it's offered?

You can buy the Adobe software separately, but so far I'm not hearing that from MS. I don't think it;s written in stone yet though.

[billbenson]

Harold, do you run a local Apache, Mysql, php install? If you do, at least today, you can continue to work without internet access depending on what you are working on.

[Harold Mansfield]

Harold, do you run a local Apache, Mysql, php install? If you do, at least today, you can continue to work without internet access depending on what you are working on.
I can access websites and files on other people's servers without internet access?

[billbenson]

No, but you can put other peoples sites on your server (pc) and work on them locally. That means both databases and site files. You make changes locally and upload the changes to your customers site later. There are a couple of advantages to this. One, you change a file and you don't need to ftp it to see what it looks like. You have a backup. You can work if your network goes down.

A one click install of this is XXAMP. If your customers don't want you downloading it for their site, I would install it just for working on and backup of your own site. However, I would expect someone working on my site to download it for backup purposes at least!

[MyITGuy]

But, Jeff, do you see this as a trend that is going to be hard to combat? You are a windows proponent, but I could see a path that both Apple and Windows force this on customers leaving Linux as the only option?

I think it will be hard to combat as people dont like change or have already invested in the 'ecosystem'. Otherwise more people would've adopted Linux already, or would be willing to switch from iPhone to Android or etc...

The only thing that will make the manufacturers change is if they loose significant market share, which I doubt would happen.

As a note, I am a Windows proponent...but if they continue to force the Metro UI on its users then I will likely be looking at alternatives (One of my *nix/Apple clients is excited about this lol)