Kroneborge. I do get that the companies need to make money, but I think greed and misguided attempts to battle piracy are bigger factors. Regular adobe customers tend to upgrade. They may skip a version or two, but the everchanging landscape of the visual world means creatives have little recourse but to upgrade. 4K editing needs were non-existant outside of hollywood a couple of years ago. As for Avid, they are very much cashstrapped.

Avid's financial situation is not great at all the last time I checked.  I think that may be why they are test ing the subscription model waters.  I know production facilities I have worked for that used Avid had very little reason to upgrade immediately.  Avid, like Pro Tools had a big advantage on competitors by 1) being established early and 2) being heavily reliant on hardware compatibility.   If you have a post-production facility, only the rough cut is being done in Avid and which version rarely makes a difference.  Workflow from products made 10 years apart is not that much different.  The noney saved on upgrading Avid can go to other parts of post like coloring and compositing suites.

"capitalism is extremely wasteful"
 
This is a pretty bold statement.  What is your solution that more efficiently distributes goods and services than capitalism and the free market?  A command and control economy where government bureaucrats decide who gets what and when eh comrade?
 
Capitalism doesn't create a need for theft, the fact that we live in a world of limited resources creates a DESIRE for theft when people try and get stuff the easy way.

Wow, this convo has shifted.  Although i think most home computing will move to a network based access, certain processes will likely be the realm of offline functionality, leaving wiggleroom for piracy to continue.  Even with the terminal only model, I have no doubt some kid in Lithuania would figure out some form of "subscription spoofing".
 
I won't even touch the capitalism topic.

Guitarpima, I can see your side.  I'm just not absolutely sure it is provable.  we have no true control to measure such theories against.  For starters, capitalism, like democracy  are somewhat loosely used terms in the sense that pure examples of both are rare.  The US and most countries are hyvbrids with elements of multiple economic and political models coming into play.  There has never been a purely communist nation.  Even nations who have branded themselves communist often acknowledged that despite the state controlling many key aspects, they were still in the midst of a revolution (which IMHO is perpetual) heading towards communism.  It's no secret that the higher ranking Soviets indulged in plenty of personal wealth accumulation contrary to the principals of communism.  When I look at political and economic theories from right or left wing, they all seem to make assumptions about how people would behave in hypothetical situations. Eaxample:  The stereotype of the right wing (and I will add disclaimer this is very general and simplified) is that if we create laws that lean toward the advantage of businesses, the businesses will prosper, jobs will be created and it will all "trickle down" for the greater benefit of all. The stereotype of the left wing is often depicted as if we give the poor and middle class things to make their lot better (affordable health care, government safety nets, affordable or free education) they will contribute more to society as a whole and business will prosper.  I have seen both views play out true and false. I have known welfare mothers who have become CEOs.  I have seen Businesses give generously.  I have also seen people milk the system.  I have seen business owners cheat on taxes and use savings to shower themselves with luxuries without benefiting anyone but themselves.  Individuals have a way of making theory somewhat of a moving target.  I think economics/politics and a few other topis make for popular debate material because everyone can walk away feeling "right". You never see people in a bar debating Calculus or linear Algebra because at some point someone might pull out a piece of paper and calculator and come up with a definitive and absolute answer.  i guess I offered all that to say that although i believe the greed inherent in capitalism does provide incentive for thievery, other alternatives may not necessarily change that.  Some of the biggest thieves I know were wealthy and stole things just for kicks.  Humans are strange and hard to predict.

I think at this point you're just reeling off a confused series of shopworn political slogans. "Faux News"..."Reagan"...etc etc. None of which have anything to do with the subject at hand. I also fail to see what the military has to do with capitalism. It sounds like you're a lot more interested in politics than philosophy or economics. Do I think Reagan was a great president? What does that have to do with anything? I might as well as you if you think Ellen is a good TV host. 

Heh you're probably right...

Okay it's a rant, but please read the whole thing if you're going to comment on it.
 
Before this thread goes COMPLETELY off the rails and turns political, those with long memories will recall that about a year ago I asked what people thought about subscriptions. At the time, I did so because I was against the concept due to Adobe's implementation, and thought maybe I was missing something. Despite some positive points I hadn't considered, by and large the posts here validated my opinion.
 
Gibson uses Adobe and does the subscription thing, and after experiencing it for the past year, I have now come to a somewhat different conclusion. All the subscription models so far have been geared to large companies like Gibson and in that case, it works and saves money overall. Everyone on every continent is on the same version of everything, all the time. I needed to use Indesign while working on a manual. There were no incompatibility issues, no registration, no updating...it was super-easy. BUT...
 
That's the good news. The bad news is that AFAIK no company has created a subscription model for programs that are used primarily by individuals and small businesses. The idea of not being able to keep what you buy is insane. For example (and not to pick on another company) if you're happy with Sonar X1, then why should you have to be running X3 and paying for it every month if you want to be able to open the projects you created in X1?!? That makes absolutely zero sense to me.
 
The points about smoothing out cash flow over the year does make sense, and that does allow a company more latitude in their planning. And yes, they do need to stay in business and I don't begrudge a company that. During one of my anti-subscription rants I was also told by a couple developers that releasing a program in smaller chunks improves stability and simplifies QA rather than trying to make a massive set of changes all at once. That I do see as an advantage. They also pointed out that features often "sit on a shelf," completed, waiting for an update and a subscription model would allow them to be released sooner. I think that's also valid.
 
Subscription models CAN work; look at magazines, Netflix, XM, etc. But if you stop subscribing to a magazine, your back issues don't vanish into thin air and if you stop subscribing to Netflix, they don't erase your memory of the movies you saw. In terms of individual software users, I don't think a subscription model is going to work until a company comes at it from a completely different perspective. I get the impression that subscription models are generally based on what a company thinks will benefit it the most. I believe that if someone devised a subscription model based on what will benefit customers the most, those customers would flock to it and make the company more successful anyway. I tend to doubt that's the approach Avid will take, but I'm keeping an open mind.
 
 

I just noticed the other day that AT&T has some kind of subscription-like model available now too. For a certain fee per month, you are automatically entitled to a "free" phone upgrade every year or so. I'm in two minds whether to go for it or not, because on the one hand it kills my sad tech-addicted soul when an awesome new phone gets released and I know I still have another 12 months left before I'm entitled to a new one at the upgrade price, but on the other hand I have yet to do the math and work out if it's good value. But at least they're not forcing customers into this model, it's just another option. And I have no problem with that. 
 

Once conversations dip that point where popular political phrases like "sheeple","Faux news", "Libtards" and other silly variations of actual names comes into play any hope of a rational discussion just went bye bye lol

Craig, I can imagine how awesome the subscription model is for large companies since many of them were already used to working on that model with companies like Microsoft already.    Maybe all it would take to make the subscription model more feasible is better value.  As it stands you can get one product like Photoshop for 9.99/mth or lots for 49.99/mth.   The theoretical value is that you get so many programs.  In a large company very few people use more than a few of those programs.  The editor is likely to use Premiere, After Effects, Photoshop and possibly Audition.  Programs like Illustrator are typically opened up only if an asset used in editing needs to be adjusted.  In larger companies the guy doing the editing is not likely to be doing sound, designing titles or motion graphics either.  The model reminds me of buying s bunch of premium channels vs getting Netflix.  Yes, cable premium offers more box office hits , but it also offers A LOT more crap too and you are forced to pay for a lot of things you don't want.  netflix has crap too but at least you are paying a 8.99 vs hundreds for premium cable. One can find enough quality material on Netflix to justify the modest cost. 

I can understand why software companies would go the subscribe route but it wouldn't suit me. I often have manic work projects pop up where I have to put out all kinds of fires and that sometimes means I have no free time what so ever for 2,3, 4 weeks at a time.

When I look at steam the new big thing is free to play. Will this come to music software I wonder? Ps I like Megyn Kelly :)

I'm still back to my original point. They're doing to stop theft. My only thing is, if the software continues to work up to the version you cancel your subscription, then it's ok. If it stops working, up to the version you cancel, then it's not ok.

"But this just underscores what I said about having choices and owning/controlling what you buy. If you want, you should be able to choose when to apply updates. Again, let me emphasize what I see as a dichotomy between a model that works for large companies, and a model that would work (assuming such a thing is possible) for individuals and small businesses."
 
This has been the Cakewalk business model all along!
I have ALWAYS stressed "follow the upgrade path".
Substitute "subscription" for "upgrade".
ProAudio 6 to 7 to 8 (9 finally became a "mature" platform)
Then Sonar 1 to 2 to...
8.5.3 again a pretty "mature" platform; 64 bit, lots of bells and whistles.
And now the X group.
Sit out a version, if you like.
BUT, if you do, you risk further development coming to a screeching halt.
Follow the upgrade path!
I use some pretty expensive embroidery software.
If the dongle goes sideways, I buy a new license.
$1500 invested in an upgrade (an "upgrade" not a new license; Win7 only) that is a total mess!
NO backwards compatibility.
If I open/save a project in this version, it will never open in the old versions again.
I'm running the "older" version on an XP machine, because it works flawlessly, I can save in "earlier" formats.
1500 bucks, I opened the software, signed the EULA; I'm f'ed!
Hopefully Cake will not go to dongle protection, and surely never require the user be internet connected to open the software.
Just my nickel 98...
Tom