1 Reply Latest reply: May 7, 2013 5:12 AM by Kopy-Rite RSS

    Is an enforced Adobe CC subscription legal?

    FalkLumo Community Member

      Is an enforced Adobe CC subscription legal in all countries, e.g., in Germany?

       

      It is enforced because Adobe refuses to sell their current software  as a package. And existing users depend on its features. Think of MacOSX as a subscription only ...

       

      My point is that Adobe, with Adobe CC, sells a rental plan for a consumer good -- their software. It is a software package installed on a privately owned computer and the entire Cloud story has no legal impact whatsoever. Rental is rental, subscription is subscription.

       

      Most rental plans must cover a period of time sufficient to purchase the remaining value (cars), to find an alternative (flats) or are even have a restricted price policy by law so that they can't sky-rocket (flats again). And flats and cars can actually be purchased ...

       

      A notable exception are subscription-based financial software packages for businesses (not covered by consumer protection, obviously). Such software packages need to upgrade for political reasons, so there is some reason in a subscription-based mode. Nevertheless, e.g. speaking for the package used by my business, the price nothing but sky-rocketed over the years (partly hidden by inclusion of more and mostly useless features -- but we are not stupid ...). This seems to be like a law because once in a subscription-based model, the customer is trapped. And is charged the most possible.

       

      Adobe will be no exception and this is the real reason behind Adobe CC. If purchases become enforced (rather than voluntary), then this is immoral.

       

      My question is: Is it illegal too? Or will parliaments / Brussels make a law to make the immoral illegal?

        • 1. Re: Is an enforced Adobe CC subscription legal?
          Kopy-Rite Community Member

          In the biography "Titan", the author repeated noted how the actions of Rockefeller probably helped to drive innovation in the oil business, as well as improvements transportation, finance, public safety, and so on. Furthermore, it kept prices lower than they otherwise might've been, at least temporarily, because of Rockefellers desire to bankrupt the competition.  But the problem with a monopoly like this is that it only was beneficial to Rockefeller and his shareholders.  It would squeeze his suppliers, and stifle -- even eliminate (assinate?) competition.  Very few thought this was beneficial to the customer IN THE LONG RUN.

           

          I'm trying to see how this Adobe monopoly is any different?  Adobe has done a good job of creating innovative, leading-edge products. They have been rewarded with a substantial market share.  They have now reached a critical mass where they no longer need to be responsive to customer needs... and can subsequently attempt to dictate, which is EXACTLY what they are doing here.

           

          It is going to be difficult for many people switch because there might not be any other game in town... Adobe has created a monopoly.

           

          And this uncompetitive action is going to generate massive amounts of cash, which is only going to fuel and cement their position.

           

          I sure hope the FTC is watching this.