Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: SketchUp goes subscription

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by sadkkf View Post
    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-...grade-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.

  2. #17

    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.
    Last edited by erikals; 02-07-2019 at 03:31 PM.
    LW vidz   DPont donate   LW Facebook   IKBooster   My vidz

  3. #18
    Founding member raymondtrace's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,290
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    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.
    LW4, 7.5D, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020 running portably on a USB drive.
    Active LW Development in 2020: DB&W | Deep FX | DPont | LWCAD | TrueArt | ...

  4. #19
    Plays with fire sadkkf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside looking in
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    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.
    So much water, so few sharks.

    "...all men are created equal." -- US Declaration of Independence

  5. #20
    Plays with fire sadkkf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside looking in
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    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.
    So much water, so few sharks.

    "...all men are created equal." -- US Declaration of Independence

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by raymondtrace View Post
    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.
    Last edited by hrgiger; 02-07-2019 at 05:01 PM.

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    448
    Software that can't open my files unless I give more money is a no-go.

  8. #23
    Registered User Rayek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,645
    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.
    Win10 64 - i7 [email protected], p6t Deluxe v1, 48gb, Nvidia GTX 1080 8GB, Revodrive X2 240gb, e-mu 1820. Screens: 2 x Samsung s27a850ds 2560x1440, HP 1920x1200 in portrait mode

  9. #24
    Adapting Artist jasonwestmas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,399
    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.
    All that is powerful or long standing is first conceived in the imagination; supported by the hope of possibility and then made manifest in our commitment of our current physical reality.

  10. #25
    Plays with fire sadkkf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside looking in
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by hrgiger View Post
    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.
    So much water, so few sharks.

    "...all men are created equal." -- US Declaration of Independence

  11. #26
    Super Member Snosrap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    4,925
    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.

  12. #27
    Curmudgeon in Training Ma3rk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Near Beaverton, OR
    Posts
    2,036
    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...or-photos.html
    Earth can't be flat otherwise cats would have pushed everything off the edge!

    The Big Apexx System:
    AMD RYZEN THREADRIPPER 2990WX Processor (3.00GHz)
    64GB
    2x NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 8GB 32 Core

  13. #28
    Super Member Chris S. (Fez)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,039
    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.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Snosrap View Post
    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.
    Last edited by hrgiger; 02-08-2019 at 03:48 AM.

  15. #30
    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!
    Robert Wilson
    i-7-4770k @3.5ghz, Titan, GTX 1660 Ti, et al

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •