Adobe Audition

The software as rental/service model is here to stay. You'll and the rest of the complainers have to deal with it.

The problems is that consumers have already given their answer. They will only support giving a software developer a living wage and incentive to keep updating their software if the developer uses the software as rent/service model.

Software sold with perpetual licenses don't give programmers a living wage.

Fewer and fewer people will pay for software upgrades when they reach a point where the software is "good enough" for getting their work done. They only upgrade if forced to by incompatabilities with the latest operating system or latest hardware. And when the market gets saturated or is highly competitive, then fewer people will buy your software.

So what incentive does a programmer have to keep working hard - and programming is hard work - to update and upgrade their program when no money is coming in? Very little. Many apps that are sold with perpetual licenses end up simply being hobbies and abandoned.

Adobe is also under pressure to keep making at least the same if not more money each year. The reason is that it is a publicly traded company. Stockholders howl if Adobe loses money since they also lose money.

Unless software is subsidized by hardware sales - like on Macs - then software companies everywhere are turning to the softtware as rental or service. This is what makes enough money to make a living.

Software as rental or service model started with open-source software like Linux. You can get a barebones Redhat Linux, but it won't have the advanced proprietary features of the rental model. This model for software has spread to large companies like Adobe and Microsoft. And it is the best way for small software companies to make a living.

The in-app purchases are a variation of this mode. Licenses that last a limited time for upgrades - such as a year or two - are another variation of this model though is less stringent than Adobe's rental model.

Note that Adobe is providing perpetual licenses for its non-professional software.

Professionals realize the value of their tools in making their own living. So the vast majority are willing to use the subscription model.

I ask you this: Look at the software around you that uses the perpetual license model. What you see are much less sophisticated and capable software, much simpler software - not of the breadth and depth of Adobe's high-end offerings.

So your petition will fall on deaf ears. Adobe's answer is to use its less sophisticated software if you want a perpetual license. Otherwise, Adobe has to make a living too. Money isn't going to come in without a compelling reason.

The software as rent/service model simply works. Companies like Microsoft who have had flat revenues saw the writing on the wall. They took have moved to this model.

>You'll and the rest of the complainers have to deal with it.

Since shifting to the CC subscription model, Adobe revenues have gone down. You may love it, but many others do not.

>They will only support giving a software developer a living wage and incentive to keep updating their software

Adobe wasn't going into the poor house with their previous model, please get real.

Adobe has had layoffs since switching to the subscription model. If you're so concerned about technology jobs, I would have thought that you'd have been aware of that situation.

Yeah! TC-Spark XL was it, I switched to DSP Quattro, almost as good as Spark, but I miss Spark!!!

Hey, nice to meet a fellow former Spark user! I'll have to check out DSP Quattro. Always head god things about it.

I own both DSP Quattro and Audiofile Engineering's Wave Editor (soon to be renamed to Triumph). Wave Editor/Triumph does what you want and then heaps. Truly recommend you check that out that beast as well.

Just to update my comment, you can now press M to place a marker. :)

Well, Bias Peak LE 6 was much better than DSP Quattro (even if terribly buggy) and weird customer support. I never see any intelligent comments on audio software ... maybe people dealing with audio have no hearing ... .

@Eyeless; Hearing? I used the full version of Peak, but stopped using it because it was buggy and switched to Spark. None of these programs *sound* any different, or better. Digital audio is digital audio. You pick one over the other for features and the interface. Unless you are talking about plugins they all sound the same.