Thread: opinion on subscribing to use software?

I was planning to buy Adobe Muse(for designing websites), but instead of retailing in a box, it costs $14.95/month to use. I prefer to own software, so that I can use it as much or as little as I please. Vendor lock in is bad. If I was using Muse as a professional to earn income, then I would have no problems with subscribing. I am just a hobbyist.

There isn't any real competing products available to Muse, so I am in a tough situation. I don't want to subscribe, work on my site, unsubscribe when I am finished, and then subscribe again every time that I want to update the site. Forever.

EDIT: Adobe are now using the subscription model for pretty much all their software now.

Thoughts?

I wouldn't go for that, since you do it only for fun.

I have used wordpress, which is actually for creating a blog, but I am almost sure that I use mine as a pseudo-site. It's free and lets you give your taste in your page. However, it has the option of upgrading, which allows you write your own code and design your page from scratch and also, lets you define your own url (with a .com ending, instead of a .wordpress.com which is the case for the free version). It also has a good helping forum.

In my case, what I can see as the only real drawback, is that you can not use javaScript and PHP at all (which makes your page interactive with the user).
The workaround I found for me, is to use the hosting space my uni provides to its students. There I can whatever I want. Like the table for the football Cage league.

In case I missed the essence of your answer, you might want something like Zoomla. Never used it, just heard of it. It is free.

Originally Posted by cfanatic

Thoughts?

What alternatives have you looked at? If you describe the needs and what other things you've tried, maybe you can find a suitable alternative.

Thanks for the replies.

I am interested to know what people think about having to pay a monthly subscription to use an application?

Would you rather pay $180 for an application, and be able to use the application for as long as you want, or would you rather pay $14.95/month to use the application?

It is interesting that Adobe has shifted to a subscription model for their software. Who does a subscription model benefit? The user or the vendor?

EDIT: And I will probably subscribe to Adobe Muse. It is a really good piece of software(a killer app for me). I've never subscribed to use software before, and have always bought software that I've wanted to use. Quite a strange experience for me.

With your own copy of the software, you get the freedom to run the software whenever you wish. With a subscription-based software, the company can revoke your access at any time for any reason. Additionally, a subscription implies giving permission to continuously access your computer, for example, to confirm your subscription is still valid. If you value privacy or the above-mentioned freedom, then the subscription-based software doesn't give the user any advantage.

Why don't you try the software for a month or two. If you like it so much that you're willing to pay for a subscription, then you'd probably be okay with paying the price for the full version, as long as it's not ridiculously expensive.

Originally Posted by cyberfish

It would benefit users that only need to use the software for 2-3 months on a project. Paying 3 months of subscription is much cheaper than the couple hundred dollars they charged for their software.

..it seems that it really depends on what cfanatic's needs are! There is not optimal way of getting access into the software. Maybe its the analogous of questioning which is the best programming language.

I think we all understood what cfanatic meant on the part quoted by Yarin. It's getting old being technical with word "own".

A one-time purchase is vastly different from a subscription. The feeling and benefits of license ownership are further stripped away with the latter. I think for all purpose we all in here know we pay for licences, not bytes. So let's start avoiding beating a dead horse.

Originally Posted by cfanatic

I am interested to know what people think about having to pay a monthly subscription to use an application? [...] It is interesting that Adobe has shifted to a subscription model for their software. Who does a subscription model benefit? The user or the vendor?

Almost always the vendor. The type of users a subscription model benefits the most are the occasional user type, who needs a short-term solution to an immediate problem.

Of course vendors will tell you all sorts of things to try and prove to you this is wrong. You are why they did this. Not them. Of course, silly us to think otherwise. And they'll wave the lower price flag as their most important (and only) argument. But in order for you to operate a subscription model effectively and with a high returns you have to move your software to the cloud. And this is where you the user get the small straw. All manner of new variables suddenly become a part of your daily concerns. Is the cloud operating in good conditions today, does my internet access support the bandwidth requirements, do I need to add to the cost a new monthly plan that can cover the increase in data transfers, do I even live or operate my business at a location with an internet infrastructure capable of supporting all this, do I have access to the internet today?

If none of these are a concern to you, then congratulations. You are one of the few members of the metropolitan western world and can benefit from the cloud. In this case, the subscription model price should be your only concern. And the math should be easy. How long do you plan to work with the software times the subscription fee. If it is beyond your capabilities, or you really don't like the idea of having to concern yourself with yet another monthly bill in a life already filled with monthly bills, check the alternatives. Otherwise, the subscription model should fit your needs quite nicely at a much lower price... knock yourself out.

I think for all purpose we all in here know we pay for licences, not bytes. So let's start avoiding beating a dead horse.

I am not a lawyer.and related fluff.

O_o

If a dead horse was available you'd have a point, but the issue is far from so clear cut as to provide a figurative corporeal form.

Generally speaking, to accept the "license not buy" argument you are necessarily waving whatever "fair use" rights your laws may provide. Exactly this, a loss of rights such as the "right of first sale", has shown up in many cases all over the world. You think I'm joking/wrong? Take a long look at the EULA for all the software you have installed; statistically, at least one will have language that will, accepting that you have joined in a contract by accepting the license, forbid you from any form of resale, backup (The language will relate to permitted copies where you will be shocked to find that according to many EULA the running copy in RAM, assumed necessary for execution, is the licensed copy and the form on a disc drive IS the backup.), reverse engineering, or "time shifting".

In the United States alone, more than a dozen different views have entered law regarding the "license not buy" argument. In some jurisdictions, the "license not buy" argument holds so very strongly that patently absurd requirements are actually seen as legitimate. (My all time favorite bit of stupidity surrounding this issue was a post delivery license adjustment requiring that the "licenser" forfeit the right to post any criticism of the performance.) In other jurisdictions, there absolutely is no such license involved and the law treats such sale as purchase as any other copyrighted material so perfectly normal constructs, such as backup and "time shifting", are the norm and "EULA" language can not diminish those rights. (For more fun, see the jurisdictions where such "EULA" are treated as being completely unenforceable.)

The very notion of "license ownership" is actually a non-starter because implies "rights or possession" which under many "EULA" you do not have in any form. I mean, have you ever really actually read a "EULA"? Did you know that you have no rights, you've agreed to forfeit those rights, to remedy in the event the "EULA" changes in form that you no longer accept? In other words, did you know that you have no right to any sort of refund or partial refund, of any kind, if the "EULA" gets a new term you refuse?

What about this: have you every used an icon, such as a character portrait, from a game you enjoy playing outside of the context of that game? Well, legally, you might have a claim to "fair use" (For example, you might post a critique of the game assets using one character portrait as an example of the shoddy work.) unless you've honestly bought the argument that you have only licensed the game being bound by that contract and whatever the "EULA" allows. Yes, oh yes, many a "EULA" will have language relating to exactly how you will not be allowed to produce any work critical of the licensed software in what is clear violation of "natural rights" in most jurisdictions. Now, in practice, virtually no jurisdiction allows this level of control from a "EULA", but the scary thing is that some jurisdictions do allow that sort of power. Even scarier, statistically speaking, you've already agreed to this sort of control; it may not be legal in your jurisdiction, but this sort of insanity may soon be more commonplace, and due to the nature of the "EULA" and paraphernalia, if you keep playing the game you will be bound by those new laws extending the power of the "EULA" you agreed to before such change.

So, yeah, this isn't some long settled issue where "own" has clear and acknowledge semantics because even "license" has no widely agreeable semantics.

Soma

The actual debate of whether the licensing mechanism is fair legislation is OT. Personally I look at it pretty much in the same way you do. But is nowhere close to being the purpose of this thread or the snippet you quoted from my post. It feels like you are trying to bring us back to Yarin post.

You guys can turn this into a semantical-slash-legal discussion if you will. I just don't see how that will benefit anyone, much less the OP. Again. we all here are aware of the legal implications of the licensing mechanisms. Most of us operate, or have operated, in the software industry as professionals. I think a more informal language is called for and a benefits everyone. I'd hate to have to write paragraph long disclaimers just to note that when I use the word "own" I don't really mean "own". Or try to rack my mind around the word "own" because I may hit a semantic nerve.

O_o

Fair enough, but I fear you may have lost the intent behind my madness because I specifically referenced a comment in particular.

The point is, depending on jurisdiction laws, and legal yet completely awful behavior, like "phone home" checks, you may not be buying as much as you think so the issue is only partially resolved with access (cloud) and financial considerations.

So, for example, "licensing access" to artistic software ([Edit]Sorry, I'm not advocating for any articular software.[/Edit]) living on the cloud must be weighed such as with price and availability, but you must also--if you are honest--consider the benefits of the weaker license available due to the very selling point of such access such as: you almost only pay for what you use so a change in functionality/availability/licensing leaves you "out" only the monthly charge and/or the access is sold "per seat"/"per active client" not "per machine" so using the software from multiple machines is natural.

Soma