I don't work for free. I expect ongoing payment for ongoing work. I can't fault Adobe for following the same model.
Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment, I don't expect every client to make an enduring commitment. I bid on a project, and when the project is completed, so is the contract. I don't bill the client for any subsequent work I do correcting my own mistakes. Changes or additions after the initial project is completed are billed separately.
From time to time I am able to offer my clients things I couldn't when I did their project. They may decide that what I offer now justifies paying me for another project, in which case we enter into a new contract for that project. Or, they may decide that the new offering doesn't add sufficient value to the product I make for them, and choose to stay with what they have.
What I create for a client becomes theirs, and doesn't disappear when they stop paying me.
I disagree with the argument that software is a service (in most cases, certainly in the case of things like Photoshop and Illustrator). It is a "tangible" product, in that it requires no further intervention from the provider after delivery to perform its intended function.
The subscription model puts me in the position of paying in advance with the hope that added features will both materialize at all and actually benefit my work. I believe the onus should be on the provider of the product to create an incentive for me to provide them with additional revenue by making newer versions of the product attractive to me.
When software is is treated as a service it generally gets better.
I don't accept that premise. You haven't said how it gets better or why it would as a result of treating it as a service. I can easily tell you why it would not: there's less incentive because the revenue will continue (at least for a while) whether the developer does anything or not.
If additional revenue REQUIRES substantial improvement, then there's an incentive.
...whereas Avid is an example of how it can go the other way. Old bugs persist and the features added are not the ones users want.
On the other hand, Final Cut Pro X is sold as a "product" rather than a "service" and it has improved significantly since its disastrous launch (or so I'm told, I don't actually use it myself).
Recurring billing is absolutely not an assurance of development that is beneficial to the user.
Comments
From time to time I am able to offer my clients things I couldn't when I did their project. They may decide that what I offer now justifies paying me for another project, in which case we enter into a new contract for that project. Or, they may decide that the new offering doesn't add sufficient value to the product I make for them, and choose to stay with what they have.
What I create for a client becomes theirs, and doesn't disappear when they stop paying me.
I disagree with the argument that software is a service (in most cases, certainly in the case of things like Photoshop and Illustrator). It is a "tangible" product, in that it requires no further intervention from the provider after delivery to perform its intended function.
The subscription model puts me in the position of paying in advance with the hope that added features will both materialize at all and actually benefit my work. I believe the onus should be on the provider of the product to create an incentive for me to provide them with additional revenue by making newer versions of the product attractive to me.
I don't accept that premise. You haven't said how it gets better or why it would as a result of treating it as a service. I can easily tell you why it would not: there's less incentive because the revenue will continue (at least for a while) whether the developer does anything or not.
If additional revenue REQUIRES substantial improvement, then there's an incentive.
...whereas Avid is an example of how it can go the other way. Old bugs persist and the features added are not the ones users want.
On the other hand, Final Cut Pro X is sold as a "product" rather than a "service" and it has improved significantly since its disastrous launch (or so I'm told, I don't actually use it myself).
Recurring billing is absolutely not an assurance of development that is beneficial to the user.