Subscription software - why the trend?

[Bercy]

Thanks for all the thought provoking posts! It feels to me like a new step is required to protect the images, and the problems here is the format of the "language" in which the picture is held. As pointed out if you import in the Nikon or Canon file language, there is no law that a program will support it in the future. Given some images are now 20 years old, is there are chance of files being unreadable, without the original camera program. The Adobe DSG file (I think I have that right??) was to be the "universal" file format, but was that just a product of their own invention. Because of the rate of progress nothing is universal, and rather programmes like LR of CC need to have either legacy features to future proof files, or transcription programmes to make sure the files not corrupted and current. More over, if the file is "universal" any program should be free to read it. Otherwise it is blackmail. I am swerving back to buying LR alone as an upgrade for now and not worrying to much about CC as I would rarely use it.

[Kym]

DNG = Adobe Digital Negative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative

[geoffsta]

It's a no-brainer really.. Cloud is a crock... $100 for multi TB portable hard drives. Fill, store and forget. The current software is pretty good. Back up the installation discs on a portable HDD as well. Last for years...

[Bercy]

Given that 99% of the time I get what I need from LR, I have decided to BUY! At $99 downloaded I thought it better value than an indefinite subscription. What's more - I have a couple of programmes like driver "updaters" which I no longer want or need, but can't see where to turn off the tap! I wil probably need to get a block put on the Visa account. Chances are some time in the future some may want ot change programmes for personal reasons, but whilst easy to subscribe it might be quite hard to get the flow of funds to stop, and down load all your photos in a format that can be read by another program! DNG should be universal of course but will it always be so!

[Warb]

Speaking as an insider of the IT industry....

The subscription model provides a constant supply of money to the software company. In the past, software sold for high prices. MS Office, for example, used to cost hundreds of dollars ($700+, more for the versions including more than the 3 basic programs). Software piracy became rife as people refused to pay that much, and many people stuck with very old versions. The industry tried many things to circumvent this, online activation and restricted licenses are examples. Then the world moved towards cheap "apps" written by individuals or tiny companies, and the big companies HAD to change.

So now most software is available via subscription. It means we can get a full suite of previously very high price software for a much smaller amount of money, albeit a recurring payment. Over several years we eventually pay more, but not if we include the price of a support contract, and/or annual upgrades to the latest version.

There are some things to note with both approaches. For example, the home or student versions can still be purchased outright, but the license explicitly prevents their use for commercial purposes. Most people ignore this, but it is actually illegal to use them if what you are doing can be construed as a business. Some such license are also not able to be upgraded to the latest version (very small print in the license!), and will fail the activation process when an upgrade is applied, as the vendor "assumes" you can't be a student forever! Student versions also require you to be a student or teacher. Whilst I (a parent acting on behalf of a child) can buy such a license if I have a child at school, TECHNICALLY I must stop using it when I no longer qualify, i.e. when the child ceases full time education. Again, most people ignore such requirements, but they do exist.

Most recent outright purchase licenses also allow a single install (legally), whilst subscription models often allow several machines in a household, including mobile devices, to use the software.

"OEM" licenses provide a very cheap option for some software. They are designed for people building systems to on-sell, and often have to be bought with hardware. OEM licenses are most common for operating systems, but actually cover other software as well. However these licenses are often very restrictive, even down to being "one-off" installations in the most extreme sense - they record the hardware IDs of the components in the computer and won't install (activate) on a different machine, so if your computer breaks (or you change processor, disk drive etc.) you must buy a new license.

The software companies use many other techniques to increase their cashflow on outright purchased software. Annual maintenance contracts can cost 50% of the cost of the software, with "major upgrades" each year to try to force us to upgrade (via contract or outright new purchase). Some companies will now charge extra to resume a lapsed maintenance contract, to avoid the hit they take when someone buys a support contract 1 year in 4 to get a cheap upgrade! Most upgrades in fact offer very little to the user, often being nothing more than a "re-skin" to change the appearance. But other measures are taken to encourage upgrades, like no more updates, unsupported product notices, slight changes to file formats etc.

Overall I have found that the current subscription models mostly offer enough benefits to be worthwhile. I can install MS Office on 5 PC's and 5 mobile devices (if memory serves) for about $100 a year. That compares to $700/machine a few years ago. The installs are all kept up to date automatically, and my subscription is renewed automatically unless I choose to specify otherwise. It works very well for my family.

Regarding file formats, it is worth noting that large companies do not usually give things away without reason. So "open" file formats from large companies are for a reason. Adobe made PDF "open" to encourage rapid uptake, and succeeded. However "open" does not always mean what we think. It often means "a free license to use", which is quite different and can be revoked later!

- - - Updated - - -

What's more - I have a couple of programmes like driver "updaters" which I no longer want or need, but can't see where to turn off the tap! I wil probably need to get a block put on the Visa account.

Sorry to tell you, but most such software is totally unnecessary, just a way to extract money from people who don't know any better. It is deliberately hard to stop, because they want to keep taking your money!

[arthurking83]

.....

However "open" does not always mean what we think. It often means "a free license to use", which is quite different and can be revoked later!

.....

I think I've mentioned more than once that while the gesture appears on the face of it to be noble .. the DNG file format may not be what THEY!! want you to think it is.


My take is that for the next 10 or so years a lot of people will be suckered into this market movement.
At some point they will notice the lack of any real improvement of the software over the preceding 10 years that they have paid for it.
Only then will they consciously consider that while a once off up front cost of ... say $700, or $1000 may have appeared to be quite a large hit at the time, it's still probably less then the $200 or $300 a year that they have paid for the preceding 5 years up to this point of revelation.

When my copy of Office 2010 ceases to have any relevance, I will completely move over to Open Office for good.

For perfect software, I'd gladly pay $1000 or even $2000 up front, and be done with it.
Apart from one or two obscure programs I have ever used .. not one fits the bill as 'perfect' software, and FWIW, in general they usually end up being at the extreme end of perfect.
If not in usability, then in stability or performance.
But I have no issue paying $200 for software that may not be perfect, but one that has not required any more financial input from me for about 8 years!

$200 over 8 years .. well it's easy math to do. And that's what good software should cost on an annual basis.

Strangely tho, the two programs I classify as 'perfect' have cost me either next to nothing($25, about 10 years ago) or nothing(about 6 years ago).

Actually thinking it about it more, that $100/yr for Office doesn't sound too bad to be honest.
If it weren't for the fact that the kids get tablet/laptops at school and they come with whatever Office version they need for school, I'd have been tempted at that price.

[Warb]

My take is that for the next 10 or so years a lot of people will be suckered into this market movement.
At some point they will notice the lack of any real improvement of the software over the preceding 10 years that they have paid for it.
Only then will they consciously consider that while a once off up front cost of ... say $700, or $1000 may have appeared to be quite a large hit at the time, it's still probably less then the $200 or $300 a year that they have paid for the preceding 5 years up to this point of revelation.

My first PC (meaning IBM/DOS style rather than any other computer) was an IBM PC XT, with DOS and a 10Mb hard drive (not a typo!). I used Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3. From the viewpoint of actually doing stuff, there is nothing that I can do now that I couldn't do on that system! Lotus required slightly more typing than the latest version of Excel, as there was no mouse to select multiple columns etc. The same applies to Wordperfect, no mouse meant navigation was slightly slower. Apart from that, the 1985 software did everything that my current word processor and spreadsheet do.

In the early 1990's I was at a presentation by Microsoft, where they stated that they could not make software do anything more than it already did, so they were concentrating ONLY on making it easier to use.

In the last 20 years, software has changed appearance but does no more than it used to. The only reasons to upgrade have been to cater for changing file formats, internet connectivity and the associated security issues.

Each round of software updates has also resulted in the software requiring more horsepower to run, and therefore also entails new hardware with higher performance. My old IBM with a 10Mb hard drive, which stored all my documents, software and operating system would not store a single photo from my 7D!

The upward spiral of hardware performance has removed any attempt at efficiency by the software companies, so software has become exponentially bigger, bandwidth requirements grow constantly.

So whilst I agree, and indeed have often said myself, that in perfect isolation a computer that did a job 10 years ago can still do it today, the reality is that without that isolation, when connected to the internet and dealing with new file formats, new security threats etc., most people find it hard to avoid upgrading!

As an example, whilst I am supposedly retired I still work (for free) for a few local businesses and friends. Several of them have avoided upgrading (to save money), and are now faced with big issues. In some cases the cost of parts for a small hardware repair can be almost as much as an entire new computer because the older parts can be far more expensive. New operating systems don't always play well with older ones, or older servers. Old peripherals don't always work with new machines, and vice versa.

IT is a money making exercise, so the industry has a carrot and stick approach to making us constantly spend money. We gain very little from the expense, however it almost always boils down to either a constant string of small outlays, or one huge one every few years! In business I advised budgeting at minimum to replace 20% of IT every year, preferably more. The subscription model is one way to deal with the replacement/upgrade/maintenance cost for software.

The MS Office subscription system is one of the better ones. Adobe products can be purchased outright at very reasonable prices, but often only older versions. However because so little changes with each new version, that's probably not an issue!

When the subscription model was first introduced I hated it. But after some analysis, and getting over the "they're gouging us" gut reaction, it can make sense if the particular example is "fair".

[ameerat42]

Good! I like cynical cautions. Adobe didn't go from being mud-brickers to their palatial status by being kind.

[MissionMan]

I think the subscription based model forces companies to keep their software up to date because the subscription only works as long as people have a reason to keep it.

I run my own company and we used a subscription based model for Office 365 and exchange. It's great for temp employees as an example, as you only buy a subscription for them as long as they are at the company and the costs are fairly reasonable. Office 365 including exchange hosted is just over $10 per month and that includes up to 5 installs of the office suite along with SharePoint. When an employee leaves the company, you simply cancel their subscription and there are no further costs incurred. If they join for 6 months, you don't need to pay for the capital outlay of software that will only be used for a 6 month period. If an employee needs access to MS Project for 3 months, you can give them access without paying over a grand for the product which may be used for a limited period.

On the photographers side, I think the adobe option makes a lot of sense. Having access to lightroom and photoshop for $10/month is very reasonable when you consider how much we use it. 30 cents a day is far more palatable than the alternatives and if you find a better product, it's easy to move. Yes, you may lose your custom photo configurations but the simply option would be to generate JPG's of everything and keep the RAW for changes. You can also imbed keywords in the file itself so if you export with your current keywords, it would be easy to rebuild a new library in a separate product.

I think there is a fear with subscription because it seems like a lifelong noose but its actually the opposite.

[arthurking83]

I'm pretty sure that Lr doesn't embed the keyword data in the (raw)images, but keeps it in it's own catalog database system only.
I think it transfers it to the exported jpg file, but that I've tried .. not in a raw file.

You can get third party software that does this tho .. but I've had some issues with some of these systems, and won't bother with any ever again.
Only Nikon's ViewnX2 has never given me grief with embedding keyword/ITPC data into a raw file.

[MissionMan]

Yeha, you're right, I only ever tested it with JPG's and it worked. Raw it creates an XMP sidecar file

[Bercy]

I bought LR5 - for now it is all I need. I can't see this changing any time soon. Sometimes the best mouse trap is not complicated either. How long until some of the other firms start to knock on Adobe's lofty door with products that can give a decent bit of competition. A lot of the use of these programs relies on industrial and educational inertia I reckon.

[Hawthy]

I subscribe to the Photoshop CC 2014 package, which includes LR and PS. For $10 per month, I can't fault it. You get access to the most up to date versions of both programs for 33 cents per day.

I am an amateur photographer and once I have processed a photo I save it as a JPEG on my hard drive and in all likelihood will never look up the original file again. So, I will always be able to find the photo and enjoy it regardless of whether or not I continue to subscribe to Adobe. I have never really understood the cataloguing in Lightroom and never used it.

The main thing for me when deciding to sign up for a monthly plan was how I could justify spending more on software in one hit than I spent on my camera body? I have a Nikon D5100 which I think cost about $460 including the 18-55 mm lens. (I bought it on a well-known Australian online auction site). Buying CS6 up front is about $684 at the moment. Plus Lightroom is $99. So I would be looking at spending $783 to get what I have for $10 per month.

Sure, after 78 months I would have paid the full purchase price. But what if I had deposited that $783 against my mortgage with an interest rate of say 5.5%? Thanks to the magic of compounding interest, in six and a half years my mortgage would be reduced by $1,118 so my purchase of the software would really only have cost me a net amount of $445. ($780 less the difference between $1,118 and $783). What a bargain!

At least, that is how I sold this to my spouse...and it relies on Adobe not increasing the monthly subscription fee...

Still, I am very happy with it.

[Warb]

I just had a look at my records. In rough figures:

In 2012 I spent $180 on Lightroom 4
Mid 2013 I spent $100 upgrading it to Lightroom 5

That's $280 over about 30 months, or $9.30 per month.

For $10 a month, on the Creative Cloud model, I could have Lightroom (plus Lightroom Mobile), Plus Photoshop (plus various mobile apps that may be free anyway!), plus (as I understand it) 20Gb of cloud backup. Currently an old "boxed" version of Photoshop costs $380 (CS3), to $680 (CS6). Adding that cost, over the 30months I have owned Lightroom, means my monthly cost would have been $22 for the cheapest (CS3) version.

So whilst I would indeed have owned the disks and a license to ruin it, it would have cost me twice as much per month - not including the interest I would have made as mentioned by Hawthy - and I'd not have the mobile versions, cloud storage etc. Nor would I have been certain I could run it on Windows 8, so I may have had to buy upgrades anyway! I'd have to keep using all that software, without upgrades, for the next 2.5 years (seems unlikely) to be better off with an outright purchase.

[I @ M]

That's $280 over about 30 months, or $9.30 per month.

Compared to my preferred software ( unfortunately recently no longer being supported ) that cost me around $180 some 6 or 7 years ago and has received full support and upgrades at no cost during the whole time and still is functional for another few years at least, the a$obe model looks entirely extortionate.

[MissionMan]

Compared to my preferred software ( unfortunately recently no longer being supported ) that cost me around $180 some 6 or 7 years ago and has received full support and upgrades at no cost during the whole time and still is functional for another few years at least, the a$obe model looks entirely extortionate.

I'd still rather pay $9 a month than have the piece of crap that NX-D has become. Mine crashes more than Linsey Lohan after a drug binge

[I @ M]

I'd still rather pay $9 a month than have the piece of crap that NX-D has become. Mine crashes more than Linsey Lohan after a drug binge

I do not consider NX-D to be software, even for free.
I do consider Capture NX 2 to be stable, efficient and relatively speedy processing software that has been a very worthwhile and economical purchase.

I have absolutely no idea who Linsey Lohan is. Can they be bought for $9.00 a month?

[MissionMan]

I do not consider NX-D to be software, even for free.
I do consider Capture NX 2 to be stable, efficient and relatively speedy processing software that has been a very worthwhile and economical purchase.

I have absolutely no idea who Linsey Lohan is. Can they be bought for $9.00 a month?

Unfortunately NX2 doesn't support some of the newer cameras like the D750, but I really like it. It's disappointing to see it go, it really should have been free though because Nikon view was so dismal.

I'm pretty sure Linsey Lohan can be bought for $9 or less a month. In fact, half a load of white bread and 50 cents is probably her going price after rehab.

[Warb]

Compared to my preferred software ( unfortunately recently no longer being supported ) that cost me around $180 some 6 or 7 years ago and has received full support and upgrades at no cost during the whole time and still is functional for another few years at least, the a$obe model looks entirely extortionate.

Indeed, but sadly your preferred software is an exception to the norm, or at least an example of "how it used to be done"! Nikon are not a software company, they make money selling cameras. At some point, Nikon decided that an inexpensive piece of software for editing photo's would add value to their hardware. So they employed what I would imagine was a fairly small team, who created (or bought) what turned out to be a reasonable piece of software. Having written a good product to start with, it probably didn't need too much spent on it to keep it up to date with later cameras. Nikon were, in any case, making money from selling camera's and any mechanism to lock customers to their brand is welcome.

Unfortunately as IT complexity and costs increases, such a model ceases to be viable. The existing customers still demand support and upgrades, but (as you point out) they haven't paid anything for many years. Much like selling an everlasting lightbulb, it's a business model that doesn't make a long term profit! Capture was designed in the days of Windows XP, and almost certainly requires significant effort to make it 100% compatible with Windows 8.1 and beyond. New users demand more frills (uploads to Facebook and other such "features") which are sometimes hard to implement when the original design never envisaged such things. 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. So Nikon have, like everyone else, pulled the pin and moved to a product that is cheaper to support and hence more profitable, even if they give the software away!

I have several pieces of software, unrelated to photography, that have suffered similar fates. One went from a 1 off purchase, through to a new "major release" every year (with associated removal of support for any previous version) necessitating a support contract, and finally now a (huge) penalty charge to renew a lapsed support contract. That case is actually even worse, because the software relates to a specific piece of hardware and it has no competitors, so the choice is to pay or throw the entire system away!

But the shareholders must be paid their ever increasing dividends.....

[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 -----