PDA

View Full Version : SketchUp goes subscription



Snosrap
02-06-2019, 07:59 PM
Another one bites the dust. https://blog.sketchup.com/article/a-whole-new-way-to-sketchup?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRoaE9ERmxZekkyTjJFMyIsI nQiOiJ5dzlwaWtnS1RXMXlIK2txY1ZseXVIcjdjWUNHd3N0WnF GUm9kYlA3aWo5dDVNU25rTzZFcVpXaFpLMVBcLytOeFlrT2IyV VU3RytITVI4RERXXC9uVVkwSVVHV0NzQ2wyOHdoc0crMkIrSUV SbjdsQWFQUzJZOUZrZGNPQUpJVVMzIn0%3D

If LW ever goes this route, I'm done. :)

calilifestyle
02-06-2019, 10:25 PM
But there still is the free version. you know what, yeah this is lame. "Proudly introducing SketchUp subscriptions." On their page kind of annoying

Rayek
02-06-2019, 11:17 PM
[sarcasm mode on]

That's an amazing new dashed line feature update. Worth the upgrade in rent alone! And WOW! a ruler upgrade too!

[sarcasm mode off]

Poor Sketchup users.

hrgiger
02-07-2019, 06:24 AM
Yes, how these plans are usually presented can seem condescending, now with subscription options! Many independent users don't see the benefits, and only see it as a benefit to the vendor. I do agree that it doesn't look like a impressive list of new features (but I don't use the program so can't really say either way).

Truth is though, a lot of people do use subscription software and it appears to be a more sustainable business model as people buying a perpetual license and sitting on it for however long and upgrading at their whim of course sounds great to a buyer on a budget, but doesn't always provide regular revenue which a company needs to pay development costs. Modo for instance offers both a perpetual license and subscription based services, but subscription was 75% of revenue last year.

kind of like Allegorithmic's recent acquisition/merger with Adobe. You'd swear by internet outrage by customers that they were going to lost most of their customers. The truth is, they're likely to gain more revenue even if they did go to subscription only (not to mention probably just getting a huge influx of cash from people rushing to buy a perpetual license, fearing that they're going to go away).


But again, I don't use Sketchup and don't know if most of their user base are professional or indie hobbyists or freelancers. Most professionals would just consider a software cost either subs or perpetual with upgrades a cost of doing business if the software was essential for them.

Marander
02-07-2019, 10:06 AM
Any software going rental or online activation I immediately stop supporting, as it happened to Vray, Vue xStream, Substance and more to come I guess.

As a perpetual license owner I have a free Vue Enterprise subscription now for a couple of months but never even installed the new version, couldn't care less. For Vray I have one year free rental but after installing the new version I noticed that it requires an online connection all the time - uninstalled immediately. Same for Corona of course. Then I considered Octane 4 with a dongle - LOL you need to verify and update your dongle every couple of months. What a pile of &@!# software.

Sooner or later all big software will go rental only in my opinion. To me that means I will continue using the last perpetual version I have and save a lot of money for maintenance and upgrades.

For corporate users subscription can be a good option but not for individuals or hobbyists.

There is already software that can not be activated anymore because the company was sold or they changed the activation system that doesn't support old version anymore.


Modo for instance offers both a perpetual license and subscription based services, but subscription was 75% of revenue last year.
...

Well Modo with its online activation licensing system is not much different from subscription (except you pay once) because you can not do a single thing without Foundry giving you permission. There were reports where the Modo activation system didn't work and users couldn't finish customer projects on time. I might have purchased Modo with the previous licensing system but not anymore.

Marander
02-07-2019, 10:27 AM
[sarcasm mode on]

That's an amazing new dashed line feature update. Worth the upgrade in rent alone! And WOW! a ruler upgrade too!

[sarcasm mode off]

Poor Sketchup users.

Yeah that's just ridiculous and the blog post is written like they lost their marbles. I guess they will get their fair amount of sh..storm.

raymondtrace
02-07-2019, 10:42 AM
Subscriptions are not inherently bad. If well-implemented, they can be beneficial to development and to users. Substance offered a perpetual license after the user had paid for a year's subscription. Even a free program like Blender offers subscriptions.

You are correct that software activation after a developer shuts down is a major concern. The Adobe CS2 situation was hilarious. At least they remained in business to offer unlocked software after their licensing servers were pulled.

TheLexx
02-07-2019, 10:58 AM
Then I considered Octane 4 with a dongle - LOL you need to verify and update your dongle every couple of months. What a pile of &@!# software.
Totally agree with that. I'm glad someone finally called Octane out, the paper tiger. Their so-called "all you can eat" licenses are more like "all you can choke on" licenses in my view. :devil:


Well Modo with its online activation licensing system is not much different from subscription (except you pay once) because you can not do a single thing without Foundry giving you permission.Those with the previous offline Modo license are pretty lucky. Foundry could always rename their baby Modeler: The Second Coming and donate to Newtek if they want... :)

hrgiger
02-07-2019, 11:24 AM
Marander, as I said, your view is not uncommon among a lot of indie artists. However, I suspect you're not the target audience of some of these apps moving to a subscription service. And I think you're mistaken about the cost of perpetual vs subscription services in a lot of cases so saying it's not feasible for Indie artists or hobbyists isn't always the case. In Modo's case, you would have to buy and maintain a perpetual license for something like 6 to 7 years before you would beat the cost of subscription in that same length of time . It's similar with Adobe, $600 a year for all of their apps vs what it was before for what, $2500-$3,000 for the creative suite? In some cases (and I know this was true for me) I was able to afford software that I would have never otherwise been able to under a perpetual license.


as far as what you read about the Modo licensing system, yes there have been hiccups, it is a new system, but its not as common as people would have you believe. And people do have the option of an offline license any time they want, all you have to do is write support and ask that you be switched over to a DRM license.


The good news is for users like yourself that have taken a hardline stance on subscriptions isthat LW will never go to subscription.

Marander
02-07-2019, 12:09 PM
@hrgiger

Yes, you're right, there are subscriptions that are more reasonable than others. Adobe offers good value for the price. What's missing is a PS + AI + AE bundle for a good price in my opinon. The new VUE Professional (that you need in order to export) on the other hand for $79 a month is just greedy in my opinion.

But with LightWave, Cinema, Affinity, Photoline, Corel Apps, Vue, Terragen, Gaea World Machine, Geoglyph, Substance + Vray (current versions), tons of plugins and the amazing Blackmagic Design software I have a giant package of perpetual software of which I can hardly ever use to its full potential. Not to forget the free software like Blender, Krita or Inkscape.

Too bad for Modo indeed - such a good software - with its online activation and I agree that it probably only single occurrences when it didn't work and not an issue for many users. For myself I just don't want my workstations to be online. Never say never but I also don't think LW will ever go rental or online activation only.

sadkkf
02-07-2019, 12:12 PM
Marander, as I said, your view is not uncommon among a lot of indie artists. However, I suspect you're not the target audience of some of these apps moving to a subscription service. And I think you're mistaken about the cost of perpetual vs subscription services in a lot of cases so saying it's not feasible for Indie artists or hobbyists isn't always the case. In Modo's case, you would have to buy and maintain a perpetual license for something like 6 to 7 years before you would beat the cost of subscription in that same length of time . It's similar with Adobe, $600 a year for all of their apps vs what it was before for what, $2500-$3,000 for the creative suite? In some cases (and I know this was true for me) I was able to afford software that I would have never otherwise been able to under a perpetual license.


as far as what you read about the Modo licensing system, yes there have been hiccups, it is a new system, but its not as common as people would have you believe. And people do have the option of an offline license any time they want, all you have to do is write support and ask that you be switched over to a DRM license.


The good news is for users like yourself that have taken a hardline stance on subscriptions isthat LW will never go to subscription.


I think your numbers are off. Last Adobe upgrade I made was to CS6 Master collection for ~$800. If I'd subscribed since that same time, I would have paid more than $6000.

I know some people appreciate the rental model, but for me it's way too expensive and I like knowing I can still open my files without having to pay Adobe for the software to do so.


Edit: Looks like I didn't upgrade to CS6 10 years ago, but 7 years ago, which means I would have paid $4200, not $6000. Still, that's 4x what I paid for the perpetual license.

hrgiger
02-07-2019, 12:51 PM
That's not what I recall the bundle price being Sadkkf. Your $800 price makes no sense, especially when Photoshop alone sold for $600 by itself. Unless you got some student pricing or something or it was an upgrade (which you would then have to consider the original purchase price), that is not what the creative bundle was selling for.


EDIT: Here's this article which shows that you could buy the standard CS 6 design suite for $1299 and the master collection for $2599. https://mashable.com/2012/04/23/adobe-creative-suite-6-pricing/#omlrvFoQRGqx

Chris S. (Fez)
02-07-2019, 01:03 PM
They had deals. Like 1800 bucks to upgrade from Photoshop to the suite was about the best I saw but that was a firesale toward the end. I hate subscription but not having to pay a lump sum is huge for indy artists and small businesses.

sadkkf
02-07-2019, 01:09 PM
That's not what I recall the bundle price being Sadkkf. Your $800 price makes no sense, especially when Photoshop alone sold for $600 by itself. Unless you got some student pricing or something or it was an upgrade (which you would then have to consider the original purchase price), that is not what the creative bundle was selling for.


EDIT: Here's this article which shows that you could buy the standard CS 6 design suite for $1299 and the master collection for $2599. https://mashable.com/2012/04/23/adobe-creative-suite-6-pricing/#omlrvFoQRGqx



Mine was an upgrade, not a full license. At the time I had a Design suite of some kind with a separate license for AE and I recall it being cheaper to upgrade to the MC than the others individually.

Even if I paid twice that, it would still be cheaper than renting it over the same 7 years.

For reference, here's an article about pricing that shows $900 for an upgrade to MC. https://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-has-change-of-heart-for-cs6-upgrade-pricing/

raymondtrace
02-07-2019, 02:12 PM
There's a misconception that the indie or SMB market is different from the wealth of the corporate world. My employer (very corporate, certainly not indie) has settled on CS6. For the work we do, I know we are not missing anything in CC.

The CC customer is not leasing software. They're just funding corporate buyouts of Magento, Marketo, Allegorithmic...

As more software development companies move to subscription, they're not just finding a model for steady revenue. They're developing an audience that makes them valuable for corporate buyouts.

hrgiger
02-07-2019, 02:17 PM
Mine was an upgrade, not a full license. At the time I had a Design suite of some kind with a separate license for AE and I recall it being cheaper to upgrade to the MC than the others individually.

Even if I paid twice that, it would still be cheaper than renting it over the same 7 years.

For reference, here's an article about pricing that shows $900 for an upgrade to MC. https://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-has-change-of-heart-for-cs6-upgrade-pricing/

You're completely ignoring the initial purchase price which has to be considered for an actual comparison to the overall costs of owning vs subscription.

erikals
02-07-2019, 02:24 PM
years ago many told themselves "i can't leave Adobe"

times change.

kinda sad too, seeing the frail King.


Subscription companies forget one thing, people are not happy about being forced to pay for a lousy update.
so they better make it right.

several Subscription companies sleep, and it doesn't go unattended.

-------

i'm all for Subscription as an option.
"Subscription only" - usually not.

and right now for example i'm testing some stuff in LightWave 11.6, not possible in 2018.
several Subscription companies don't offer backwords compability.

raymondtrace
02-07-2019, 03:01 PM
You're completely ignoring the initial purchase price which has to be considered for an actual comparison to the overall costs of owning vs subscription.

I don't think that's happening (the ignoring).

Even full (not upgrade pricing) is cheaper than subscription.

The CS3 Master Collection was $2499 when it was released in 2007.
The CS6 Master Collection was $2599 when it was released in 2011.

If you were paying a $50/month rental since the CS3 release, you would have spent $6950 by now.
If you were paying a $50/month rental since the CS6 release, you would have spent $4050 by now.

Supposing someone bought the full CS3 and upgraded to CS6 for $800, they're still beating subscription pricing, by a lot.

Of course, you can get new features from a subscription but has Adobe really added value in CC? My CS6 does everything I need it to do (and more). Making a solid product that lasts for years is why Adobe had to move to subscriptions. Somebody would buy CS2 and be content for years before upgrading to CS6. The subscription model forces upgrades. This is all outlined in investor presentations from the advent of CC. It is amusing to see the two sides of Adobe at the time: what they were marketing to customers and what they were marketing to their investors.

sadkkf
02-07-2019, 03:03 PM
You're completely ignoring the initial purchase price which has to be considered for an actual comparison to the overall costs of owning vs subscription.

The original purchase price is not a factor. All of the costs I outlaid before the CS6 upgrade were for the use of those previous versions. If I did factor those costs in, we'd be going back more than 20 years. How many upgrades would you add together?

If I had purchased a full license of the CS6 MC for $2600, it's still cheaper than the $4200 a CC subscription would cost over the last 7 years (at $50/month). Yes, there were updates in those years, but for me nothing to justify that kind of money. I know I'm not alone in this thinking either. I was one who upgraded every other version, which was about every 3 years, because there just weren't enough new features to make me want to upgrade.

Also, owning a perpetual license means always having the software to open my files. And the CC subscription means paying for software I won't use.

For me, the bottom line is cost. There are so many free and low-cost alternatives to their software it has rendered them obsolete.

I'm not trying to change your mind here. Just saying for me, the rental model is no value. If it works for you that's great. I know a lot of people prefer it and that's great, too.

sadkkf
02-07-2019, 03:07 PM
I don't think that's happening (the ignoring).

Even full (not upgrade pricing) is cheaper than subscription.

The CS3 Master Collection was $2499 when it was released in 2007.
The CS6 Master Collection was $2599 when it was released in 2011.

If you were paying a $50/month rental since the CS3 release, you would have spent $6950 by now.
If you were paying a $50/month rental since the CS6 release, you would have spent $4050 by now.

Supposing someone bought the full CS3 and upgraded to CS6 for $800, they're still beating subscription pricing, by a lot.

Of course, you can get new features from a subscription but has Adobe really added value in CC? My CS6 does everything I need it to do (and more). Making a solid product that lasts for years is why Adobe had to move to subscriptions. Somebody would buy CS2 and be content for years before upgrading to CS6. The subscription model forces upgrades. This is all outlined in investor presentations from the advent of CC. It is amusing to see the two sides of Adobe at the time: what they were marketing to customers and what they were marketing to their investors.

I recall the time Adobe made this announcement clearly. It was clear, and spoken literally, the subscription model was to benefit their shareholders. I also recall the initial launch being very glitchy as if it were a last-minute decision and rolled out before it was really ready.

Adobe lost me when they added video editing to Photoshop.

hrgiger
02-07-2019, 03:49 PM
I don't think that's happening (the ignoring).

Even full (not upgrade pricing) is cheaper than subscription.

The CS3 Master Collection was $2499 when it was released in 2007.
The CS6 Master Collection was $2599 when it was released in 2011.

If you were paying a $50/month rental since the CS3 release, you would have spent $6950 by now.
If you were paying a $50/month rental since the CS6 release, you would have spent $4050 by now.

Supposing someone bought the full CS3 and upgraded to CS6 for $800, they're still beating subscription pricing, by a lot.




Again not a true comparison, because you're skipping upgrades with your perpetual scenario so that person is not getting the same benefits as someone on subscription which has every feature as its available. Whether or not you personally think its worth upgrading from one version to the next is irrelevant, those features or improvments are what's being offered. If you're going to compare, then you have to compare what it would cost to upgrade every version with a perpetual vs paying for the subscription model. Yes, over time the subscription model will be more expensive, but you also have to look at the average number of years people use the software for business or personal use. For some, they might not ever use it long enough to have subscription be more expensive.

EDIT: And by the way, that is the whole point of this subscription model, is to offer some incentive for people to stay up to date with the software which in turn funds the development of that software. If you're someone who bought a version several years ago and then you upgrade several years later, then you're likely not really that important to that company as far as target customer goes. They're trying to cater to professionals who need the software for their livelihood and make however the software is available perpetual or subscription just a cost of doing business.

As far as why they did it or who it beneifts… well it clearly has benefitted their shareholders, nor has the demand for those services waned.

wingzeta
02-07-2019, 03:51 PM
Software that can't open my files unless I give more money is a no-go.

Rayek
02-07-2019, 03:59 PM
The rental versus perpetual license business model discussion has been raging since Adobe introduced it. At first it wasn't an issue, because users had a choice between the two: whichever fit their situation best.

I have nothing against the "subscription" (which is really the wrong term, but "subscribing" sounds much friendlier than "renting") model, as long as a perpetual license is an option, or perhaps a "rent to own" model, as Allegorithmic had.

Subscription works great for companies (not so much for educational institutes, btw) and (semi-)professionals who use the software in question on a regular basis, and earn their daily income with it. But not as much for an incidental professional user, or a hobby user. Or a user who is happy with an older version, and doesn't require or want to update to the latest and greatest. There-in lies the rub.

Of course, companies like Adobe (and other larger companies) are accountable first and foremost to their shareholders, and to their users somewhere down in the list. And subscriptions provide a regular predictable income, that can be more easily expanded upon, and doesn't require the company to keep coming up with great innovative features to lure their user base into upgrading - at least, not as much as with perpetural licensing. In essence, accountability towards their users is lessened and it becomes easier to fulfill growth expectations towards the shareholders. Two proverbial stones with the proverbial stone.

Up to a point, of course. I've seen quite a lot of digital painters (novices and experienced ones) leave the Adobe fold to work in different tools in the past five years, and the Photoshop devs FINALLY caved in under pressure to update their rather aging digital painting tools. But just enough to keep users happy. They could have done so much more, but for obvious reasons they did not.

Anyway, I dislike subscriptions. Another matter of concern is that when you start adding up all the various subscription software, it becomes rather difficult for a freelancer to keep up with the upkeep (pun!). In particular when your source of income is irregular. It is easier to plan ahead for contingencies when your software is perpetual in my experience. If income is sparse for a while, the freelancer will be able to continue to work, and pay for the upgrade when income increases and funds for software become available again. Nor is it always necessary to update to the latest version (nor a good idea in the middle of sensitive projects). A perpetual license model allows for more financial flexibility, no matter if one or the other is more expensive or not in the long term.

One could object that Adobe also offers monthly subscriptions - but those are much more expensive. And unwieldy in my experience with InDesign. I'd rather just have the a full perpetual license to open older files, rather than have to be forced to pay for rent, even if it is only for a month. In short, files are sort-of held hostage until the user pays the rent. And in times of low(er) income, monthly subscriptions aren't helpful either.

In short, a perpetual license is a more flexible and friendlier business model for a freelance professional, hobbyist, casual user. Even for smaller companies with varying income this tends to be true.

Would you rent a hammer or purchase a hammer? Would you rent a construction crane or purchase one? Depends on the situation. No so choice with "subscription" only software. Subscription only software is of financial benefit to the share holders/financial stakeholders first and foremost, of secondary advantage to the developers/company itself, and only of tertiary benefit to their users.

At least, that's my experience so far with renting software.

jasonwestmas
02-07-2019, 04:05 PM
I'll chime in just because I can. For me to buy into a subscription and loose a perpetual license capabilities, the latest software has to be freaking amazing and I have to use it constantly. Well that rarely happens in my experience so I can't see the benefit to doing subscriptions in every piece of software that I use. Can't afford it, plain and simple and loosing perpetual rights is still robbery if you ask me. Anyway I'm the guy who likes to support the promising yet less popular stuff and software speaks for itself when it is used.

I agree with erikals, people are going to tire of paying for subscriptions when the companies no longer have a reason to actually improve the software. I guess I can only hope that competition should move in and take advantage and earn the respect of those who really don't want to be subbing everything they use. I mean common, nobody really likes subs and clubs.

sadkkf
02-07-2019, 07:00 PM
Again not a true comparison, because you're skipping upgrades with your perpetual scenario so that person is not getting the same benefits as someone on subscription which has every feature as its available. Whether or not you personally think its worth upgrading from one version to the next is irrelevant, those features or improvments are what's being offered. If you're going to compare, then you have to compare what it would cost to upgrade every version with a perpetual vs paying for the subscription model. Yes, over time the subscription model will be more expensive, but you also have to look at the average number of years people use the software for business or personal use. For some, they might not ever use it long enough to have subscription be more expensive.

EDIT: And by the way, that is the whole point of this subscription model, is to offer some incentive for people to stay up to date with the software which in turn funds the development of that software. If you're someone who bought a version several years ago and then you upgrade several years later, then you're likely not really that important to that company as far as target customer goes. They're trying to cater to professionals who need the software for their livelihood and make however the software is available perpetual or subscription just a cost of doing business.

As far as why they did it or who it beneifts… well it clearly has benefitted their shareholders, nor has the demand for those services waned.

If they want people to upgrade to every version, they need to offer a product people want, not the same thing as last time. If you've found something that works for you, I'm happy. For me, it doesn't work.

Snosrap
02-07-2019, 09:09 PM
Subscriptions are for magazines and cable TV. Read - watch - discard. To say a subscription is the only way someone can "afford" the software just tells me they can't afford the software. Anytime you make payments for something that is semi long lasting (other than a home) it is a bad financial move on a personal level. For large corporations it appears that it must be viable as most companies prefer to do things like that - leasing cars - comes to mine. A private individual would be a total idiot to do the same. (Sorry if have offended anyone here) I think large companies have ways to write off stuff that individuals don't have, so subscription probably makes some sense. So I suppose if you are a "company" with steady cash flow fine, but as a hobbyist you'd probably have to be wealthy as heck to justify $600 - $800 a year to go the subscription route, but even then it would be a dumb financial thing to do as $700 a month invested at an annual return of 8% over the course of 30 years will give a person a nice return of just over a million dollars. :) Makes that subscription look pretty expensive - especially if it's your hobby.

Ma3rk
02-07-2019, 09:55 PM
I guess it's a time will tell scenario.

Some years ago, I bought an app that at the time was pretty unique. Not long after, they changed thier name & went the subscription route. I didn't follow & eventually found better alternatives w/o the extortion. Got a meesage the other day that it was now part of the Smith-Micro family with an intro price of $10. I still passed.

https://my.smithmicro.com/photodonut-artistic-effects-for-photos.html

Chris S. (Fez)
02-07-2019, 09:56 PM
I hate subscription. It is a terrible longterm investment. But it is cheaper for some short term projects to temporarily ramp up Adobe and Autodesk seats.

Better to just use Lightwave, Affinity and Blackmagic.

hrgiger
02-08-2019, 02:41 AM
So I suppose if you are a "company" with steady cash flow fine, but as a hobbyist you'd probably have to be wealthy as heck to justify $600 - $800 a year to go the subscription route, but even then it would be a dumb financial thing to do as $700 a month invested at an annual return of 8% over the course of 30 years will give a person a nice return of just over a million dollars. :) Makes that subscription look pretty expensive - especially if it's your hobby.

Affording $800 a year is wealthy? That's like $14 a week or $66 a month. I'd say you'd have to be pretty destitute to not be able to afford that no matter what your income. Of course not everyone has that little bit of extra income but it's hardly wealthy. And how does spending $600 to $800 a year compare to saving $700 a month? And again, I don't think hobbyists are of real concern to these companies going to subscription model. The kind of money you're talking about here on subscription is easily justified when you make money with the software and that is the relationship being fostered with these models. People who make money with the software in turn support the development of that software. Not hobbyists who buy a perpetual version of a software and then sit on it for however long before deciding to or being able to afford to upgrade.

UnCommonGrafx
02-08-2019, 03:45 AM
I think it's not about what people have.
That's quite an inappropriate premise for any argument of that sort around here.


Folks are simply saying that their machinations have the equation of a rental vs a subscription being unequal, biased in amounts paid to the subscription.

Even in a professional environment, this makes no sense. Corporate entities that had the CD still use it. They probably haven't upgraded because there is nothing new there for them.
For the large corporation that is more elite, they've moved well past the Adobe offerings.
For the independent freelancer, it's incumbent upon us to make our finances go as far as possible. Putting myself on the hook for a monthly fee would be a bad financial decison. Ask an accountant.


I question the professional group of which you speak. Snorap quoted the formula used for many money-making folk. Giving it away like that doesn't make good financial sense.
Nor is it the latest and greatest. Many better arguments against subscriptions for users than for. For investors, sure, subscriptions are a great thing: having your hands in others pockets, pulling out money monthly seems like a teat of plan!

3D Kiwi
02-08-2019, 04:19 AM
I like the Adobe Subscription, I think they have priced it right and you look on their website and there has been 51 new features, or improvements just to Premiere in 2018.

In saying that I dont have an active subscription to adobe anymore. I find Davinci and Fusion along with some other apps covers my needs really well, So for me its a matter of
why pay $900 a year when I dont have to.
And if a client comes to me and wants me to edit a AE comp or needs me to work in Adobe for some reason I can just rent it for a month or two and charge it to the client.
So I kind of get the Adobe apps when I need them for free.

sadkkf
02-08-2019, 07:08 AM
I guess it's a time will tell scenario.

Some years ago, I bought an app that at the time was pretty unique. Not long after, they changed thier name & went the subscription route. I didn't follow & eventually found better alternatives w/o the extortion. Got a meesage the other day that it was now part of the Smith-Micro family with an intro price of $10. I still passed.

https://my.smithmicro.com/photodonut-artistic-effects-for-photos.html

I'm in a similar boat. No longer finding value in the Adobe products, I found alternatives that work at least as well. Through my employer now I can get a CC subscription free and still don't.

Snosrap
02-08-2019, 07:44 AM
Affording $800 a year is wealthy? That's like $14 a week or $66 a month. I'd say you'd have to be pretty destitute to not be able to afford that no matter what your income. Of course not everyone has that little bit of extra income but it's hardly wealthy. And how does spending $600 to $800 a year compare to saving $700 a month? And again, I don't think hobbyists are of real concern to these companies going to subscription model. The kind of money you're talking about here on subscription is easily justified when you make money with the software and that is the relationship being fostered with these models. People who make money with the software in turn support the development of that software. Not hobbyists who buy a perpetual version of a software and then sit on it for however long before deciding to or being able to afford to upgrade.

Tru that. Got years and months mixed up. :) I guess in Photoshops case and Illustrator, if the other similar developers stay up on the .PSD and AI file formats a former Adobe user could leave and go to X with their files intact and completely editable. But what if Adobe etc. at some point decide to close their file format much like 3D Studio Max where a user has to have 3DSMax loaded on their box in order to read a .MAX file. So in my opinion there is so much risk for a hobbyist to get involved with subscription based software because life can get in the way at times. I hate monthly payments of any kind - electric, water and gas -all life essential items- SketchUp, Photoshop, Illustrator - not so much. :)

Bernie2Strokes
02-08-2019, 05:01 PM
A bit off topic, but the users of EIAS had a brief scare after Adobe purchased Allegorithmic. Someone brought up an old rumor that Adobe was going to buy up Electric Image next.

Long ago, in a galaxy far far away, I dreamed of buying that program. Even though it's no longer popular the idea of it selling out to Adobe angers me. Stop the monopoly!

Ma3rk
02-08-2019, 11:42 PM
Affording $800 a year is wealthy? That's like $14 a week or $66 a month. I'd say you'd have to be pretty destitute to not be able to afford that no matter what your income. Of course not everyone has that little bit of extra income but it's hardly wealthy. And how does spending $600 to $800 a year compare to saving $700 a month? And again, I don't think hobbyists are of real concern to these companies going to subscription model. The kind of money you're talking about here on subscription is easily justified when you make money with the software and that is the relationship being fostered with these models. People who make money with the software in turn support the development of that software. Not hobbyists who buy a perpetual version of a software and then sit on it for however long before deciding to or being able to afford to upgrade.

Ya, they're after the new user who will consider it just a cost of business, over the aging lone wolf (moi) as you say. But, multiply your figure but how ever many tools you need to subscribe to for your workflow. It rapidly adds up and there are those dwindling few of us who ARE on a fixed income and of course really resent having to suddenly rent our "hammers". Capitalistic mindset at it's purist and really nothing wrong with that; it is what it is. However, that only works until the better, cheaper or free mouse trap comes along, then those subscription based companies are truly phuqued. I think it's just going to take those new-comers a little time to wake up to what they actually signed on for.

jasonwestmas
02-12-2019, 10:32 AM
I hate subscription. It is a terrible longterm investment. But it is cheaper for some short term projects to temporarily ramp up Adobe and Autodesk seats.

Better to just use Lightwave, Affinity and Blackmagic.

Yup exactly, subscriptions are for short term investments for when you just need to get something done but don't necessarily need the technology later in the year. Stacking up subscriptions definitely doesn't make any sense for a small studio either, not for what they are charging now for the larger packages. The charges just keep adding up. I mean do we really need to bring out our lists of stuff we are interested in but can't do it because it is yet another subscription?

Before we know it, companies are going to be tethering hardware to subscriptions services only. Where does it stop. I'll be forced to be a technology curmudgeon using 1980s art and design techniques. Ok that's exaggerating things but I definitely won't be using software and digital hardware as much.

gdkeast
02-13-2019, 03:35 AM
I'm not a big fan of the subscription model either. I like "owning" what I use and not being beholden to a monthly fee. For me, it would be like renting a camera versus owning it. And if you crunch the numbers, it seems to work out about the same whether you are renting the software monthly or paying annually for upgrades. It would seem that the perpetual license does favor the consumer though because if the upgrades aren't significant, then you hold the version you have and don't upgrade and the company doesn't gain as much in return. But if you're on the subscription model, you keep paying whether you want or like the new features, if new features are added at all. I like LW's current model and hope they keep it that way. If they go subscription, I hope they only offer it as an additional option to the perpetual license model. I have no issue with that at all.

rustythe1
02-13-2019, 09:43 AM
But there still is the free version. you know what, yeah this is lame. "Proudly introducing SketchUp subscriptions." On their page kind of annoying

not really, its just an online one and crashes with anything more than a few thousand polys, no download free one any more

jaf
02-14-2019, 11:42 AM
Well, as I approach 70, retired on a fixed income, a hobbyist, and grumpy, it's more depressing every year. I know, part of getting old.

I did my upgrade from LW 9.6.1 to 2017 in April of 2017. I upgraded to 2018 last year (January.) I updated my plug-ins and bought a few new one's. Then a year later, I see the next upgrade to 2019 is $395. Since I basically just use Modeler, I realized I can't justify yearly upgrades, especially if there's very little done to Modeler. So I'm learning Blender.

So then I see that my perpetual licenses to Substance Designer and Painter will now be "frozen" since I won't subscribe to CC and there likely won't be a perpetual license upgrade option.

I turn on my TV and see "4 line unlimited data for $99!" But I'm single and no family, so surely they will have a $25 - $35 plan. No. And my TV -- I basically watch sports, but to get the channels I want, I have to pick a tier that has a lot of movies, so it's rather expensive for one TV, one viewer.

Grumpy