>Same goes for the decision to drop CS and continue with only their cloud-based services: they should've done that about 10 years ago. I can't remember for how long I've been saying I'd be willing to pay monthly for their programs if there only was such a subscription.

How is that a substantiated argument?

Tons of people say otherwise -- that they won't go with this new model.

And 10 years ago (when nobody was doing it, so it was even more alien, and internet speeds were lower) a lot more people would have hated it too.

As a student, I still feel like their subscription model needs work. $20 a month is too much for a single application, especially when it requires a year-long commitment. $30 for the academic subscription is a good deal because it includes everything, but I only use a few of the programs. Again, this option requires a year-long commitment.

For an educational license, I'd gladly pay $10 for Photoshop. For a commercial license, I'd pay $20, but only if I could cancel at any time.

Fair enough, but at the very least, $20 (or even $60) a month sure beats the hell out of paying $2000 in one go, in my opinion.

Or to put it the way Adobe should've thought of it:

Assuming $50 a month (I pay more atm) over the 10 years since I quit school, Adobe could've made 6000 dollars on me.

Instead, they made 0.

(up until they launched creative cloud, that is)

It does, but before the subscription program, I wouldn't be surprised if 98% of users had pirated copies.

The subscription fees are much more reasonable, but I'd be astonished if the rate of piracy has changed more than a few percentage points.

I wonder if lowering the price to something around $9.99 or $14.99 and dropping the annual contract would grow the user base enough to increase overall revenue.