Mike Jones Digital Basin
cinematic media rinse cycle


« October 2008
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
   
2
4
5
7
9
11
12
13
14
16
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
       
Today

Blogroll

Newsfeeds

Controls

 
Monday May 12, 2008
 

Adobe by Subscription

The software industry is shoe-horned into a mould that it just doesn’t fit. Software is unlike any other 'product' and yet software developers have trundled along for decades selling software like they'd sell shoes. Pay your money get a box - software as tangible product.... Only there's a catch, printed manuals aside software ISNT a tangible product, its not something you can hold. It’s not a physical thing. Its not a commodity. The irony is that despite the fact that it’s sold like a commodity it doesn’t legally fit any of the ownership traits of a commodity. You don’t own the software when you buy it, you have  licence to USE it with permissions and restrictions. Give with one hand take with the other. Sold like a commodity but without any of the benefits of Ownership that belong to every other Commodity.

The fact that because you only own a licence to us the software you cant legally modify it, alter it, change it, apply it in different ways and contexts is the equivalent of buying a Toyota and wanting to paint it green and Toyota suing you if you do because it breaches the Licence you purchased.

The truth is that software is not a commodity and should never have been bought sold as if it was. A significant proportion of the worlds software developers are starting to see the light in this regard and hence we have the rise in open-source solutions or hybrid, service-based economic models. Software more readily fits the mould of being a Service tool rather than a Product Commodity and it seems that creative software giant Adobe have begun to see the light in this regard.

Adobe are now offering Creative Suite3 Design Premium (the bundle that includes Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Flash and Dreamweaver) as a Subscription service. No big upfront commodity product fee but rather a software service you subscribe to by way of annual or monthly fees.



It’s a very bold and forward thinking step form the Adobe monolith that is obviously serving as a test case to ultimately be rolled out across their product line. In considering the ramifications outside of economics I cant help but see big wins for users.

The first is that you’re only paying for what you need when you need it. Heading into post production for a 3-month period; subscribe to get Premiere, After Effects and Audition. Got a 6month gig that’s going to need Flash, subscribe only for that period, don’t pay for software you’re not using.

Second, you’re always up to date with the latest version, no more saving up the big outlay for a new version or being a version behind. Subscription would include always being the latest version without the upfront outlay.

Third, much more regular updating and improvements. Under a subscription based development model developers could be making changes, additions and fixes constantly to the core application without having to roll out a huge release or a new version every 2 years.

This, I believe, is the beginning of the avalanche. From this point forward over the next 5 years we’re going to see the Product/Commodity structure of current software sales dissolve to a much more flexible, efficient and adaptable Subscription/Service based model. Pay for what you need, when you need it, only for as long as you need it.



Comments:

Microsoft tried this model several years ago with their office suite: it was not well received, though I believe this was probably due to the fact that people don't trust Microsoft.

Years ago, the likes of IBM provided their mainframe products along similar lines, so this is in many ways a step back in time.

Also, consider some disadvantages:

1. if operating systems were "sold" this way, we would probably all have to be on Vista by now; forced upgrades for people who don't need them.

2. What about being forced to upgrade for features you don't (and may never) want? E.g. a forced upgrade to handle HD; if you only ever intend to process SD, then why bother, especially since it would almost certainly require a hardware upgrade, lest you be told by support, "we don't support on underspec machines".

3. What about being able to keep a copy of old software that "we keep for a couple of old legacy projects/formats/media"? You have to keep paying licence fees for something you almost never use, and trust me, licence fees do not tend to do down over time, especially for old software.

This may be the future, but it makes for an uncertain one, in my humble opinion.

Ciao,

marks

Posted by mark stavar on May 12, 2008 at 06:53 PM EST #

Very valid points mark. thanks for commenting.

Mike

Posted by Mike Jones on May 12, 2008 at 07:54 PM EST #

Mark,
You're missing the point of the software as a service (SaaS) model. You aren't forced to upgrade - you are just always on the latest version because the software is hosted on the company's servers. They do all the bug fixes and security patching, too. All you do is pay to use it, they take care of the rest at no additional cost. And to your third point, there are no license fees. You pay monthly to use the software, you don't license it. It's especially helpful for businesses. No need for the IT guy to walk around and update everyone's system or install a patch. The vendor takes care of that on their end and you don't even notice.

Posted by word on May 13, 2008 at 10:22 AM EST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: Allowed


 
 
 


Controls