You don't lose your content. The files don't turn into pumpkins when you quit the subscription. Yes, you can't use the native files, but if you didn't plan a content migration knowing you'd be dropping the parent application, whose fault is that?
As a consultant, the model is extremely appealing to me. I can purchase use of the tools for as long as I need them. When done, the source content resides with the client, anyway. As for cars, leasing has been a huge business for a couple of decades. There's also a growing adoption of ride shares (pay for shared use of a car), and rentals still are thriving. I can understand if people are averted to the model as opposed to buying a license, but the content issue, specifically, is a non-issue. You should always have a plan/strategy surrounding your content. --- Bill Swallow Writing and Content Strategy http://www.linkedin.com/in/techcommdood On May 9, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Steve Rickaby <srickaby at wordmongers.demon.co.uk> wrote: > At 14:22 -0400 9/5/13, Bill Swallow wrote: > >> I don't see this as being a bad thing. I see it as being different. > > Yup, but as soon as you stop paying, you lose access to all your content. > That's a real big psychological barrier to bridge. I can see why a > subscription model would appeal to corporate users, but for freelances it's a > great deal less appealing. What is even less appealing is not being offered > the choice of whether to buy or rent the apps. How for example would General > Motors fare if they stopped selling cars and just rented them? > > Time alone will tell whether this will work for Adobe, but it sure doesn't > work for a sole worker like me. > > -- > Steve [Trim e-mails: use less disk, use less power, use less planet]
