Yeah, it's a problem for some that companies have to pay their employees on an ongoing basis but expect those same companies to give them things for free that is produced by those companies' employees who are being paid on an ongoing basis.
Are you suggesting that other people should pay for the benefits you receive? Professionals have to pay enough so the hobbyists don't have to? There'd likely need to be some bureaucracy for registering as a hobbyist to prove you qualify for free software, and we'd need to pay the people who perform that licensing function. Lightroom+Photoshop @ $10/month is half the price of just Photoshop @ $21/month because Adobe assumes more people make money from using PS as graphic designers than photographers and hobbyists do with LR+PS. Meaning there is already a hobbyist/poor-photographer half-price discount built in.
Are you wanting a pay-enough-once scheme? Would you pay $5,000, once, for several decades of upgrades with no additional charges? $5,000 is about 40 years of $10/month. I'm sure inflation would make the price more than $10/month 40 years from now, if there are even cameras that need raw processing software by that time, probably not.
Are you advocating against money and the freedom it provides, where there is just a central authority that gives everyone everything and assigns everyone their duties throughout their life. The problem there is that unless you're a government photographer you don't get a camera and LR software because there is no freedom to do what you want. Basically there are no hobbyists because there's no freedom.
It seems like $10/month is the MOST cost-effective way for a hobbyist to pay for software that isn't requiring others to pay for the benefit you're getting for free.
If you feel Adobe is overcharging for their software then either become an Adobe employee or buy Adobe stock because one or the other or both must be getting rich off of the hapless hobbyists paying their $10/month, right?
4
Replies
AdChoices