You could always get a 39 Gripen were you actually are in full sovereignty over the feature and weapons development and can do your own independant add ons as you wish 
Anyway - C1 offer you to upgrade unit the day before they will reveal its “perpertual loyalty program” - is that good or bad?
Will the day-after-offer madden those who bought it the day before or madden those who waited and missed the day-before-offer? 
“the day before…” I downloaded C1 23 beginning of November, so I don’t get the question. And about the right moment to buy: usually I buy when I need it, except I’m aware “in the same week it costs half the price”, but these kind of rebates you see not often on C1. Not often as in “nearly never”. As it raises questions like “do they have to give money away to make it attractive?” or “do regular customers pay too much?” 
is not everything.
No money is quite a lot/load though.
Anyways, I had bought C1 23 and asked for a refund after their change of conditions. Fastspring and Phase One serviced the refund, no questions asked. 
Also C1 licenses can be activated and deactivated, no questions asked.
I wonder why DxO lacks the confidence in its customers in these areas.
I’m sorry, it was not aimed specifically in regard to you.
If someone with an earlier version of C1 - like me with an old C1 10 which I don’t use at all - choose to upgrade to 23 Perpetual it will cost €209.
But if I wait to the day after my time frame to upgrade runs out - the Loyalty Program will be presented. Either it will make an upgraded customer happy or sad - one never know.
BTW I have no intent to upgrade and I rather throw my licence away then give them my money.
You miss my point, if I lease a car or rent a house I don’t own either of them outright, I have the right to use them until I stop paying or the owner changes the terms of the lease or rental, at which point I can choose to exit - much like a subscription. I go into the agreement knowing that and accept it for the benefits it provides (monthly payments, service included, I’m not responsible for the roof etc.).
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with either model - it’s a matter of choice, I have no intention of trying to tell anyone what’s best for them 
As do you 
my point is, Adobe or any other company with a “license to use” based on proper internet connection can pull the plug to your license anytime. One payment went wrong, one supporter confused you with somebody in need to quit the payments, they get attacked by hackers (how many user addresses went into darknet?). Plenty of possibilities to loose access on a daily basis. And you’d be the one to find somebody in a big company to set things straight… good luck.
In theory everything works smooth, in real life stories of columns like “take care customer!” have endless stock to be filled with material. De facto you can’t attack Adobe, except you also have $ 4bill. turnaround at hand and can afford the expensive lawyers.
Relax, I know, but I learnt to be careful with phrases “you won’t regret” as long as I’m not a bit more familiar with “you”.
Edit: ouch! That was a different post, not yours. Sorry.
Only? That’s less than I thought… Here in Switzerland it’s CHF 312 (≙ 316 €), but you’re right, an update costs 33% less, not depending from which version you’re updating - or I couldn’t find this information.
I don’t think they are doing that yet, but I suspect they are moving in that direction and will eventually stop marketing a perpetual license version altogether.
Mark
So, by upgrading PL every few years, on an as needed basis (for new features, or new {camera+lens} combos, or new hardware) we have, effectively, the best of both worlds.
John M
One model I like is the “buying a license gives you a perpetual license and one year of upgrades” that software like Sketch (UI design software) used.
It only works well if there are not too many factors that require updates though. In the case of Sketch, design files made with a newer version could not be opened on your frozen perpetually-licensed version, so pros had to pay a yearly subscription in practice. For photo software, those factors would be:
If you’re using the same camera and use Windows, a perpetual license or a one-year-of-updates-then-perpetual-license might work well. If you’re using macOS and/or are buying new cameras, you might be de facto in subscription updates land.
I wish it was different. Having open file formats for RAW photography that are better than DNG and are widely adopted would help, but sadly the industry has focused on being as proprietary as it can.
No. No one forces me to update. One of my Macs runs (note: “runs” as “is still usable”) on 10.4 tiger, the other on 10.12 and this one on 13. I don’t have to use the “latest and greatest features” as Mac OS from the beginning was much better than Windows NT, Vista at its time. Never occurred to you from which system Microsoft copied the search line amongst tons of other features? Let’s not get into another nonsensical OS debate.
But your point about buying new cameras is valid of course.
You forgot another reason to update a RAW converter: If body and lens support are coupled together like it’s the case with PL, a simple new lens can also become a reason although PL5 still gets updates. But that’s only version older than the current one, I don’t know about earlier PL versions.
(sorry this is a bit off topic)
I’m on the latest Mac OS (Ventura), but started Macking in 1987. Aperture has alas not survived, and iTunes is now called Music, with the same and even more functionality as before. I’m still listening to playlists I created years ago, as of the first version(s) of iTunes. So your playlists, albums, etc. will survive!
No Spotify for me either, I try to avoid any subscription.
Sorry for not being specific enough. I know there are also playlists in the newer versions of “music”, but try to use the search field for searching for a comment. More or same functionality? My definition is “less of the functionality I appreciated in iTunes (when I was sometimes DJing in social dance) and more functionality I have no use for”. Being so long Macking, you experienced more than once how easy it is for Apple to abandon well established apps or behaviours.
You’re right. Usually Apple abandons the best things, including programs (Works, HyperCard, Aperture…). I’ve still got an Apple laptop (15in, last of the ‘titaniums’, and dual boot: Sys 9 and OSX), where I still have some of those abandoned programs. Gee! I might still have Scarab of Ra!
IMHO, the concept of ownership in software has never really been a thing. You’ve always bought a license to use it. So annual upgrades have as @platypus said and others agreed are like subscriptions. So nothing new under the sun here. Other than the concept of ownership in any form keeps getting more watered down. And lower cost (initially) subscriptions like Adobe’s have taken hold in all kinds of places. Like that one company that makes you rent the seat heaters already installed in your car. What the flip?! But we the consumer let it happen. We’ve also raised one or more generations who accept the idea as normal. So, sadly, things aren’t likely to shift back any time soon.
Also, no matter how “good” a company wants to be. It was formed to make money and it has bills to pay - just like we do.
It’s really a $120 per year subscription with an instalment payment plan. You cannot use Lightroom for less than a $120 outlay.
Which is the Achilles heel of this operating system. Blame enterprise for that.
I’m seeing this increasingly and I agree it’s a fair deal, provided enough value is delivered in each year. That is, of course, a very personal calculation.
An unpopular opinion, especially amongst Americans who believe in a “free” market.
Software licences MUST be regulated by a government body, in order to protect consumer rights. Software companies have time and time again demonstrated that they cannot be trusted and will royally screw over customers at any and every opportunity that they can.
I am firmly against subscription plans, they offer poor value for money. Limiting perpetual licences like C1 Pro is going to do should be outlawed.
I don’t care if some of you disagree with me or not, this is my firm and unyielding view.
You can believe whatever you wish Probably few here will care enough to try to convince you otherwise. There are certain downsides to a subscription plan like Adobe’s. But there are certain unenviable benefits for many users… Back in the day the cost of purchasing a stand-alone license for PhotoShop and Lightroom was prohibitively expensive. Today a great many people are able to afford to use both as a result of the subscription plan. Further, because of the subscription plan. LightRoom and Photoshop are updated with new feature through the year rather than when new stand-alone versions were released every few years. Mind you the downsides to subscriptions are among the reasons I have no interest in them, but there are many, many very satisfied Adobe subscription licensees who would be happy to argue the point with you.
Mark
I know you say you are “unyielding” but that sentence does not make any sense at all. If DxO offered you $5.00 per year subscription for all of their products, you would turn them away??
Hopefully he would turn them away if he is a man of principle. If he accepted that deal he would telling the world that he’s a phony and all his angry pontificating was just hot air.
Mark