You used to be able to buy Adobe Photoshop for a one time fee, but now you have to pay a yearly subscription in order to be allowed to use it. This means residual income for Adobe, and a lot of upset former Photoshop users. This is one reason I never use one software, and am a big time of quality free and open source alternatives.
Why use Microsoft Office when you have Open Office (aka Libre Office)?
It seems a lot of companies are loving this subscription model, but I believe it is a business model that needs to be adjusted. I was originally going to say it needs to die, but that is a bit harsh (you can't keep people from being greedy).
I think that a person should retain ownership of something they buy, and that something should be able to be paid in full, at which time the rights to the use of a product is transferred to the buyer.
They typical model is that at the point of sale, the buyer obtains ownership of the product they buy and the seller looses ownership. This is fair.
But now it seems that the seller wants to take your money, and still retain ownership of the product, so that they can take your money again.
The Subscription model should go to a contract type model, where a person pays a subscription for a set number of years and thereafter retains ownership of the use of the product. The reason I continue to say "the use of the product" is because as far as software goes, the owner does not retain full ownership of all parts of the software they purchase (re-distribution rights and such).
Joe buys a 3 year contract subscription of Adobe Photoshop. It is a yearly cost of $600 (numbers may not be correct, but could even be set on a monthly basis). At the end of 3 years he would have paid $1,800 at which point he retains usage rights forever.
Even if it were a monthly fee, the buyer should retain ownership of a product they buy.
Does anyone see any issues with this, or a better way? Do you like subscription models? Do you think they are for desperate/greedy businesses?
I can see a case where people pay for upgrades, but making residual income off of software which only has to be maintained (and sometimes, not even that) just seems greedy to me.
Basically, it is more like you are renting software.