Subscription software - why the trend?

[I @ M]

Thanks for a well thought out and detailed post Warb. I realise the cost / business model / limitations that relate to software packages through their development and continual refreshes but from what I can see there has been relatively little fresh development to a product such as lightroom other than new model support additions and the odd feature or two.

Most commercial users have settled on Adobe products, and the budget end of the market is flooded with "apps" that for $12 can stick your head on a bodybuilders body.

This is one other point that I query regularly, I have yet to see any proven figures to support the theory that a$obe products are in actual fact the "industry" standard. I am rather convinced that the actual claim has been mad by a$obe, people ( non industry ) have bought the products and then repeated all over the internet in a parrot fashion those same claims because they want to "feel good" about using industry "standard" software.

From my perspective it would seem that Capture One is a very regularly mentioned program by those in the "industry".
I highly suspect that a$obe is carrying out some very "creative" advertising, after all they are from the land of snake oil salesmen -----

[Warb]

Thanks for a well thought out and detailed post Warb. I realise the cost / business model / limitations that relate to software packages through their development and continual refreshes but from what I can see there has been relatively little fresh development to a product such as lightroom other than new model support additions and the odd feature or two.

Correct, and as I posted earlier the same applies to most other software. Change the look and feel, throw in a new file format or two, increment the version number and kerching...$$$$$$. The issue is not with development, but with dollars. Saying that, what real differences are there between a 7 year old car and a new one? New software won't work on old computers for 2 major reasons: 1/ it is written so inefficiently (because computer hardware gets ever more powerful that efficiency isn't worth the effort) and 2/ BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED NOT TO! So we are forced in to a constant cycle of upgrading hardware and software, with very little benefit. But that is no different to any other industry. My 1950's Land Rover will get me to town, but not in the same air conditioned comfort as my Hilux, and nowhere near as pleasantly as my wife's Prado.

This is one other point that I query regularly, I have yet to see any proven figures to support the theory that a$obe products are in actual fact the "industry" standard.

When I say "industry" I mean the "creative industry" in general. Apple and Adobe did a very good job, many years ago, of becoming the de facto standard for "creative types". The reason was very simple, the early IBM PC's had very poor graphics! By the time PC's had caught up, and eventually overtaken (!?), Apple Macs had become entrenched as the standard for most creative graphics work. And the software of choice was Adobe. The same is true today, the daughter of a friend is starting university studying something creative/advertising/marketing and instantly she "needs a MacBook".

It drives me mad, because in a commercial environment Macs are only used by creative people, and these days for no very good reason. PC's are just as good, and the same software titles are available (though for $ reasons the Mac versions are sometimes newer/better) and for really heavy image work big UNIX boxes are better. And Mac's are, historically, a nightmare to integrate with anything else. I was once involved in a project for a multi-national company, creating a particular piece of software for hundreds of users worldwide, and the cost and complexity doubled (and we're talking millions of dollars) because one department of 12 people used Macs. And for various reasons (notably the secretary of an executive officer being an ex-marketing company "Apple fan") we ended up crippling the software and doubling the cost to get it to run on Macs (for 12 people) as well as PC's (for > 200 people).

OK, back on track....

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of people in any given profession aren't talking about it on the web. Discussions on the web involve enthusiasts, not daily grind people. Reading IT forums, for example, you'd think that everyone used Ubuntu, Open Office, Firefox etc., and that Microsoft never sold anything. But that's simply not true. It's just that the people on the forums very often are "kids" who've read a magazine or two. The IT guys who work for large companies and buy software licenses 1000's at a time are mostly buying Microsoft products. Web development guys working from their front room might use all kinds of software, but in big companies Dreamweaver (Adobe) is the norm. The same applies to image editing software. How often have you heard someone say "celebrity X doesn't look like that, the picture's been Capture NX 2'd"? On the other hand, "that's been Photoshop'ed" is a standard phrase.

It might also be the case that whilst photographers, professional or otherwise, might use a product to clean up their images, in the commercial world unless the image is regarded as "art" it is almost certainly subject to subsequent work. So the photographer may use Capture, but once that picture has been sold then the team doing the page layouts, website design or whatever are far more likely to be using a suite of Adobe products.