In trying to figure out TopazLabs' latest "offering," I stumbled on a thought you might want to hear.
First, let's talk TopazLabs. They're now down to three products, PhotoAI 3, VideoAI 5, and Gigapixel 7. I've already opted out of their constant product churn, where they introduce a useful product, iterate it quickly a couple of times, then deprecate it in order to introduce a "new" product. Rinse, lather, repeat.
When you buy one of the three TopazLabs products today, you get a year worth of updates. If you want to continue to receive updates, you pay an upgrade fee. The email offer from TopazLabs was basically "upgrade with auto renewal and we'll give you a further discount." Effectively, this is very close to "subscription" (or SaaS, software as a service). TopazLabs has offered this before, and I've turned it down before.
Why? Given that I own 12 TopazLabs products that are no longer updated, I'm not willing to pay to get on that bus again, as it drops me off in the middle of nowhere. To TopazLabs' credit, their implementations of most of those products were simple and robust enough to have so far survived Apple's and Adobe's many updates, and TopazLabs will still let me install them. Still, the busy graveyard of their products doesn't give me any confidence that I want to do anything that approaches "subscription" with them. It also doesn't help that Photo AI, for example, just introduces another step to my workflow in a way I don't want it added (e.g. pre-processing).
Which brings me to my thought. Here's the problem for all the Adobe-wannabes: the minute you decide that you need the constant stream of revenue from a subscription or subscription-type model, the more you validate the front-runner's business model. Adobe moved first, has proven that they will continue to innovate and iterate and fix their software, so they have a great deal of credibility now (though probably not in their marketing, billing, and customer support departments ;~).
When CaptureOne went subscription at a higher price than Adobe, they lost me. First, the value wasn't there, but more important, the same level of innovation, iteration, and fixing wasn't there, either. It was easy to say no to a larger monthly tithe for something that was moving slower than the leader.
To software developers: yes, subscription models may bring you regular and somewhat reliable income, however, when the customer realizes that The Giant is moving faster, better, and delivering more, all you do is validate the market leader. It's tough to beat the US$120/year price of the Adobe Photography bundle (Lightroom/Photoshop) when you consider that both the current and expected future features and performance are pretty much state-of-the-art.
Frankly, there's both too much and not enough software vying for the serious photographer's wallet these days. Too much as in "does sort of the same thing in a different way," and too little in "does something different, specialized, and useful." A developer in that first category is not likely to survive the flat-at-best photography market with a Big Giant like Adobe in charge. A developer in the second category has a chance, but has to fire a lot of such bullets in order to keep hitting their financial targets. It's not an easy time for photography software development.
Bad news: Due to the poor choices by "competitors" and the goodwill that has come from additions to their products, Adobe has gotten to the point where they could increase the original basic photography plan subscription by US$2/month (US$24/year). A small increase like that likely wouldn't lose many existing subscribers, but could bring in more of the dollars Adobe shareholders want to see. I'm pretty sure it's been considered, and the fact that Adobe reduced what's in the US$10/month plan for new customers and mostly point to the US$20/month plan now shows that Adobe is still greedy. So I'm sure changes to the original plan are coming.
